Sandwich semigroups in locally small categories I: Foundations
Igor Dolinka∗, Ivana Ðurđev,∗† James East‡, Preeyanuch Honyam§,
Kritsada Sangkhanan,§ Jintana Sanwong,§ Worachead Sommanee¶

arXiv:1710.01890v3 [] 10 Jan 2018

Abstract
Fix (not necessarily distinct) objects i and j of a locally small category S, and write Sij for the set
of all morphisms i → j. Fix a morphism a ∈ Sji , and define an operation ?a on Sij by x ?a y = xay
a
for all x, y ∈ Sij . Then (Sij , ?a ) is a semigroup, known as a sandwich semigroup, and denoted by Sij
.
This article develops a general theory of sandwich semigroups in locally small categories. We begin
with structural issues such as regularity, Green’s relations and stability, focusing on the relationships
a
between these properties on Sij
and the whole category S. We then identify a natural condition on a,
a
a
called sandwich regularity, under which the set Reg(Sij
) of all regular elements of Sij
is a subsemigroup
a
a
of Sij . Under this condition, we carefully analyse the structure of the semigroup Reg(Sij
), relating it
via pullback products to certain regular subsemigroups of Sii and Sjj , and to a certain regular sandwich
monoid defined on a subset of Sji ; among other things, this allows us to also describe the idempotenta
a
generated subsemigroup E(Sij
) of Sij
. We also study combinatorial invariants such as the rank (minimal
a
a
a
size of a generating set) of the semigroups Sij
, Reg(Sij
) and E(Sij
); we give lower bounds for these ranks,
a
a
and in the case of Reg(Sij ) and E(Sij ) show that the bounds are sharp under a certain condition we call
MI-domination. Applications to concrete categories of transformations and partial transformations are
given in Part II.
Keywords: Categories, sandwich semigroups, transformation semigroups, rank, idempotent rank.
MSC: 20M50; 18B40; 20M10; 20M17; 20M20; 05E15.

Introduction
Sandwich operations arise in many mathematical contexts: representation theory [20,41], classical groups [3],
category theory [40], automota theory [4], topology [35, 37], computational algebra [12], and more. They
are also foundational in the structure theory of (completely 0-simple) semigroups [42]. As a prototypical
example, consider two non-empty sets X, Y , write TXY for the set of all functions X → Y , and let a ∈ TY X
be some fixed function Y → X. Then we may define a sandwich operation ?a on TXY by f ?a g = f ◦ a ◦ g, for
a = (T
f, g ∈ TXY . This operation is associative, and the resulting sandwich semigroup TXY
XY , ?a ) is one of
a ,
several examples discussed by Lyapin in his influential monograph [32, Chapter VII]. The semigroups TXY
and related sandwich semigroups of partial transformations have been studied by several authors over the
years; see especially the early work of Magill [34,36]. For additional historical background, further motivating
examples, and an extensive list of references, the reader is referred to the introduction of [9].
A further family of examples is furnished by the so-called semigroup variants. A variant of a semigroup S
is a semigroup of the form S a = (S, ?a ), where a is a fixed element of S, and x ?a y = xay, for x, y ∈ S.
a discussed above are not variants in general, since the underlying set T
The sandwich semigroups TXY
XY is
only a semigroup if X = Y , in which case TXX = TX is the full transformation semigroup over X: i.e., the
semigroup of all functions X → X under composition. A general theory of variants has been developed by
a number of authors; see especially [21, 22, 30]. For a recent study of variants of finite full transformation
semigroups, and for further references and historical discussion, see [8] and also [16, Chapter 13].
The article [9] initiated the study of general sandwich semigroups in arbitrary (locally small) categories.
This allowed many of the situation-specific results previously proved about various families of sandwich
∗

Department of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia. Emails: dockie @ dmi.uns.ac.rs,
ivana.djurdjev @ dmi.uns.ac.rs
†
Mathematical Institute of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Beograd, Serbia. Email: djurdjev.ivana @ gmail.com
‡
Centre for Research in Mathematics, School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney University,
Sydney, Australia. Email: j.east @ westernsydney.edu.au
§
Department of Mathematics, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Emails: preeyanuch.h @ cmu.ac.th,
kritsada.s @ cmu.ac.th, jintana.s @ cmu.ac.th
¶
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Chiang Mai Rajabhat University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Email:
worachead_som @ cmru.ac.th

1

a , mentioned above) to be treated in a unified fashion. Consider a locally small
semigroups (such as TXY
category C ; by this, it is meant that for any objects X, Y of C , the collection CXY of all morphisms X → Y
forms a set. (In fact, the results of [9] were formulated for the more general class of partial semigroups,
in which identities are not required to exist; formal definitions are given in Section 1.1.) Let X, Y be two
objects of C , and let a ∈ CY X be a fixed morphism Y → X. Then the set CXY becomes a semigroup under
the sandwich operation ?a , defined by f ?a g = f ag, for f, g ∈ CXY . When C is the category of non-empty
a discussed above.
sets and mappings, we obtain the sandwich semigroups TXY
The main motivating example in [9] was the category M = M(F) of all finite dimensional matrices
over a field F. Sandwich semigroups in the category M are closely related to Munn rings [41] and Brown’s
generalised matrix algebras [3], both of which are important tools in representation theory. The article [9]
began by developing some basic theory of arbitrary sandwich semigroups, mostly concerning Green’s relations
and (von Neumann) regularity; see Section 1.2 below for definitions and more details. This theory was then
applied to the category M itself, forming the basis for deeper investigations of the linear sandwich semigroups
MA
mn = (Mmn , ?A ); here, Mmn = Mmn (F) denotes the set of all m × n matrices over F, and A ∈ Mnm is a
fixed n × m matrix. Many of these results on the linear sandwich semigroups were combinatorial in nature,
taking inspiration from classical results in (linear) transformation semigroup theory [7, 14, 17–19, 23, 24, 26],
and included the classification and enumeration of idempotents and regular elements, description of the
idempotent-generated subsemigroup, calculation of the minimum number of (idempotent) matrices required
to generate certain subsemigroups of MA
mn , and so on. The proofs of these results relied crucially on intimate
relationships between linear sandwich semigroups and various classical (non-sandwich) matrix semigroups.
A
For example, it was shown that the set Reg(MA
mn ) of all regular elements of Mmn is itself a semigroup that
maps onto the monoid Mr = Mr (F) of all r × r matrices over F, where r is the rank of A; this allowed for
a structural description of Reg(MA
mn ) as a kind of “inflation” of Mr , with maximal subgroups of Mr (all
isomorphic to general linear groups of various degrees) “blown up” into rectangular groups in Reg(MA
mn ).
The current pair of articles, this being the first, has two broad goals:

I. Here we further develop the general theory of sandwich semigroups in arbitrary (locally small) categories, extending many of the above-mentioned results from [8, 9] to a far more general setting (see
below for more details).
II. In the sequel [11], we apply the theory developed here to sandwich semigroups in three concrete categories of transformations and partial transformations. We also show how many well-known families of
(non-sandwich) transformation semigroups arise as special cases of the sandwich semigroup construction, so that many new results (and many previously-known ones) concerning these families may be
efficiently deduced as corollaries of our general results.
A future article [10] will apply the general theory to a number of diagram categories [38], and we hope that the
techniques we develop here will prove useful in the investigation of sandwich semigroups in other categories.
We also hope that the very idea of a sandwich semigroup will give category theorists new algebraic tools and
invariants with which to study their favourite categories.
The current article is organised as follows. Section 1 begins with the basic definitions concerning partial
semigroups and sandwich semigroups, as well as some background from [9], and then gives further preliminary
results concerning (von Neumann) regularity, stability and Green’s relations on a partial semigroup S,
a ; it also contains
showing how these relate to the corresponding concepts on its sandwich semigroups Sij
results showing how certain properties associated to stability and Green’s relations are inherited by partial
subsemigroups of S under various regularity assumptions. Section 2 explores the structure of the regular
a ) of a sandwich semigroup S a . If the sandwich element a satisfies a natural property called
part Reg(Sij
ij
sandwich-regularity (which is satisfied by all elements in a von Neumann regular category, for example), then
a ) is a (regular) subsemigroup of S a , and the structure of Reg(S a ) and the idempotent-generated
Reg(Sij
ij
ij
a ) of S a are governed by intimate relationships with other (sandwich and non-sandwich)
subsemigroup Ea (Sij
ij
semigroups in S. Section 3 identifies a natural property, called MI-domination (which is satisfied by all
our motivating examples in [11]), under which the relationships explored in Section 2 become even more
striking; the MI-domination assumption also allows us to give precise formulae for the rank (and idempotent
a ) and E (S a ). We conclude with two short sections. Section 4 identifies
rank, where appropriate) of Reg(Sij
a ij
a condition stronger than sandwich-regularity (satisfied by one of our motivating examples in [11]), under
a ) is inverse, and in which case the theory developed in Sections 2 and 3 simplifies substantially.
which Reg(Sij
a . We work in
Section 5 contains some remarks about the calculation of the rank of a sandwich semigroup Sij
2

standard ZFC set theory; see for example [28, Chapters 1, 5 and 6]. The reader may refer to [33] for basics
on category theory.

1

Preliminaries

1.1

Basic definitions

Recall from [9] that a partial semigroup is a 5-tuple (S, ·, I, λ, ρ) consisting of a class S, a partial binary
operation (x, y) 7→ x · y (defined on some sub-class of S × S), a class I, and functions λ, ρ : S → I, such that,
for all x, y, z ∈ S,
(i) x · y is defined if and only if xρ = yλ,
(ii) if x · y is defined, then (x · y)λ = xλ and (x · y)ρ = yρ,
(iii) if x · y and y · z are defined, then (x · y) · z = x · (y · z),
(iv) for all i, j ∈ I, Sij = {x ∈ S : xλ = i, xρ = j} is a set.
For i ∈ I, we write Si = Sii , noting that these sets are closed under ·, and hence semigroups. Partial
semigroups in which S and I are sets are sometimes called semigroupoids; see for example [45, Appendix B].
We say that a partial semigroup (S, ·, I, λ, ρ) is monoidal if in addition to (i)–(iv),
(v) there exists a function I → S : i 7→ ei such that, for all x ∈ S, x · exρ = x = exλ · x.
Note that if (v) holds, then Si is a monoid, with identity ei , for all i ∈ I. Note also that any semigroup is
trivially a partial semigroup (with |I| = 1).
In the above definition, we allow S and I to be proper classes; although S and I were assumed to be sets
in [9], it was noted that this requirement is not necessary. If the operation ·, the class I, and the functions
λ, ρ are clear from context, we will often refer to “the partial semigroup S” instead of “the partial semigroup
(S, ·, I, λ, ρ)”.
Recall [9] that any partial semigroup S may be embedded in a monoidal partial semigroup S (1) in an
obvious way. Note that a monoidal partial semigroup is essentially a locally small category (a category in
which the morphisms between fixed objects always form a set), described in an Ehresmann-style “arrows
only” fashion [13]; thus, we will sometimes use the terms “monoidal partial semigroup” and “(locally small)
category” interchangeably. If the context is clear, we will usually denote a product x · y by xy.
If x is an element of a partial semigroup S, then we say x is (von Neumann) regular if there exists y ∈ S
such that x = xyx; note then that with z = yxy, we have x = xzx and z = zxz. So x is regular if and only
if the set V (x) = {y ∈ S : x = xyx, y = yxy} is non-empty. We write Reg(S) = {x ∈ S : x = xyx (∃y ∈ S)}
for the class of all regular elements of S. We say S itself is (von Neumann) regular if S = Reg(S). Note that
there are other meanings of “regular category” in the literature [1, 31], but we use the current definition for
continuity with semigroup (and ring) theory; cf. [15].

1.2

Green’s relations

Green’s relations and preorders play an essential role in the structure theory of semigroups, and this remains
true in the setting of partial semigroups. Let S ≡ (S, ·, I, λ, ρ) be a partial semigroup. As in [9], if x, y ∈ S,
then we say
• x ≤R y if x = ya for some a ∈ S (1) ,

• x ≤H y if x ≤R y and x ≤L y,

• x ≤L y if x = ay for some a ∈ S (1) ,

• x ≤J y if x = ayb for some a, b ∈ S (1) .

If K is one of R, L , J or H , we write K = ≤K ∩ ≥K for the equivalence relation on S induced by ≤K .
The equivalence D is defined by D = R ∨ L ; it was noted in [9] that D = R ◦ L = L ◦ R ⊆ J . We also
note that ≤H = ≤R ∩ ≤L and H = R ∩ L .
Recall that for i, j ∈ I, and for a fixed element a ∈ Sji , there is an associative operation ?a defined on Sij
a = (S , ? ) is called the sandwich semigroup of S with
by x ?a y = xay for all x, y ∈ Sij . The semigroup Sij
ij a
ij
3

respect to a, and a is called the sandwich element. The article [9] initiated the general study of sandwich
semigroups in arbitrary partial semigroups, and the current article takes this study much further.
We now state a fundamental result from [9] that describes the interplay between Green’s relations on
a and the corresponding relations on the partial semigroup S. In order to avoid
a sandwich semigroup Sij
confusion, if K is any of R, L , J , H or D, we write K a for Green’s K -relation on the sandwich
a . For x ∈ S , we write
semigroup Sij
ij
Kx = {y ∈ Sij : x K y}

and

Kxa = {y ∈ Sij : x K

a

y}

for the K -class and K a -class of x in Sij , respectively. In describing the relationships between K and K a ,
and in many other contexts, a crucial role is played by the sets defined by
P1a = {x ∈ Sij : xa R x},

P2a = {x ∈ Sij : ax L x},

P3a = {x ∈ Sij : axa J x},

P a = P1a ∩ P2a .

The next result is [9, Theorem 2.13].
Theorem 1.1. Let (S, ·, I, λ, ρ) be a partial semigroup, and let a ∈ Sji where i, j ∈ I. If x ∈ Sij , then

(
a if x ∈ P a

R
∩
P
Dx ∩ P a if x ∈ P a

x
1
1

(i) Rxa =

La
{x}
if x ∈ Sij \ P1a ,
if x ∈ P2a \ P1a
x
(iv) Dxa =
(

Rxa
if x ∈ P1a \ P2a

a
a

L
∩
P
if
x
∈
P

x
2
2
{x}
(ii) Lax =
if x ∈ Sij \ (P1a ∪ P2a ),
{x}
if x ∈ Sij \ P2a ,
(
(
Hx
if x ∈ P a
Jx ∩ P3a
if x ∈ P3a
a
a
(iii) Hx =
(v)
J
=
x
{x}
if x ∈ Sij \ P a ,
Dxa
if x ∈ Sij \ P3a .
a.
Further, if x ∈ Sij \ P a , then Hxa = {x} is a non-group H a -class of Sij

Fix some i, j ∈ I. We say e ∈ Sj is a right identity for Sij if xe = x for all x ∈ Sij . We say a ∈ Sji is
right-invertible if there exists b ∈ Sij such that ab is a right identity for Sij . Left identities and left-invertible
elements are defined analogously.
Lemma 1.2. Let S be a partial semigroup, and let a ∈ Sji where i, j ∈ I.
a.
(i) If a is right-invertible, then P1a = Sij , P a = P2a , and R a = R on Sij
a.
(ii) If a is left-invertible, then P2a = Sij , P a = P1a , and L a = L on Sij

Proof. We just prove (i), as a dual/symmetrical argument will give (ii). Suppose a is right-invertible, and
let b ∈ Sij be as above. For any x ∈ Sij , we have x = xab, giving x R xa, and x ∈ P1a . This gives P1a = Sij ;
the second and third claims immediately follow (using Theorem 1.1(i) to establish the third).

1.3

Stability and regularity

The concept of stability played a crucial role in [9], and will continue to do so here. Recall that a partial
semigroup S is stable if, for all a, x ∈ S,
xa J x ⇔ xa R x

and

ax J x ⇔ ax L x.

In our studies, we require a more refined notion of stability. We say an element a of a partial semigroup S
is R-stable if xa J x ⇒ xa R x for all x ∈ S. Similarly, we say a is L -stable if ax J x ⇒ ax L x for
all x ∈ S. We say a is stable if it is both R- and L -stable.
Recall that a semigroup T is periodic if for each x ∈ T , some power of x is an idempotent: that is,
x2m = xm for some m ≥ 1. It is well known that all finite semigroups are periodic; see for example [25,
Proposition 1.2.3]. The proof of the next result is adapted from that of [43, Theorem A.2.4], but is included
for convenience. If a ∈ Sji , for some i, j ∈ I, then Sij a is a subsemigroup of Si , and aSij a subsemigroup
of Sj . We will have more to say about these subsemigroups in Sections 2 and 3.
Lemma 1.3. Let S be a partial semigroup, and fix i, j ∈ I and a ∈ Sji .
4

(i) If aSij is periodic, then a is R-stable.

(ii) If Sij a is periodic, then a is L -stable.

Proof. We just prove (i), as a dual argument will give (ii). So suppose aSij is periodic, and that x ∈ S is
such that xa J x. For xa to be defined, we must have x ∈ Skj for some k ∈ I. Evidently, xa ≤R x, so we
just need to prove the converse. Since xa J x, one of the following four conditions hold:
(a) x = xa, or

(c) x = uxa for some u ∈ S, or

(b) x = xav for some v ∈ S, or

(d) x = uxav for some u, v ∈ S.

Clearly x ≤R xa if (a) or (b) holds. If (c) holds, then x = u(uxa)a = u2 (xa)a, so that (d) holds. So
suppose (d) holds, and note that we must have u ∈ Sk and v ∈ Sij . Since aSij is periodic, there exists
m ≥ 1 such that (av)m is idempotent. But then x = um x(av)m = um x(av)m (av)m = x(av)m ≤R xa, as
required.
If T is any semigroup, we write Reg(T ) = {x ∈ T : x = xyx (∃y ∈ T )} for the set of all regular elements
of T . Note that Reg(T ) might not be a subsemigroup of T .
a ) ⊆ P a ⊆ P a.
Proposition 1.4. Let S be a partial semigroup, and fix i, j ∈ I and a ∈ Sji . Then Reg(Sij
3

(i) If a is R-stable, then P3a ⊆ P1a .

(iii) If a is stable, then P3a = P a .

(ii) If a is L -stable, then P3a ⊆ P2a .
a ) ⊆ P a ⊆ P a was proved in [9, Proposition 2.11]. If a is R-stable, then
Proof. The assertion Reg(Sij
3

x ∈ P3a ⇒ x J axa ⇒ x ≤J axa ≤J xa ≤J x ⇒ x J xa ⇒ x R xa ⇒ x ∈ P1a ,

giving (i). Part (ii) follows by a dual argument. If a is stable, then (i) and (ii) give P3a ⊆ P1a ∩ P2a = P a ;
since we have already noted that P a ⊆ P3a (for any a), this completes the proof of (iii).
Corollary 1.5. Let S be a partial semigroup, and fix i, j ∈ I and a ∈ Sji . If a is stable, and if J = D
a.
in S, then J a = D a in Sij
Proof. Let x ∈ Sij . We must show that Jxa = Dxa . This follows immediately from Theorem 1.1(v) if x 6∈ P3a ,
so suppose x ∈ P3a . Proposition 1.4(iii) gives P3a = P a (since a is stable), and we have Jx = Dx by assumption.
Together with parts (iv) and (v) of Theorem 1.1, it then follows that Jxa = Jx ∩ P3a = Dx ∩ P a = Dxa .
We say a semigroup T is R-stable (or L -stable, or stable) if every element of T is R-stable (or L -stable,
or stable, respectively). The proof of [9, Proposition 2.14] works virtually unmodified to prove the following.
a is
Lemma 1.6. Let a ∈ Sji . If each element of aSij a is R-stable (or L -stable, or stable) in S, then Sij
R-stable (or L -stable, or stable, respectively).
a ; it also describes
The next result shows that the sets P1a , P2a and P a = P1a ∩ P2a are substructures of Sij
a
the relationship between Reg(S) and Reg(Sij ).

Proposition 1.7. Let S be a partial semigroup, and fix i, j ∈ I and a ∈ Sji . Then
a,
(i) P1a is a left ideal of Sij
a,
(ii) P2a is a right ideal of Sij

a ) = P a ∩ Reg(S),
(iv) Reg(Sij
a ) = P a ⇔ P a ⊆ Reg(S).
(v) Reg(Sij

a,
(iii) P a is a subsemigroup of Sij

Proof. (i). Suppose x ∈ P1a and u ∈ Sij . Since x R xa, we have x = xay for some y ∈ S (1) . But then
uax = uaxay, so that uax R uaxa, giving u ?a x = uax ∈ P1a . This proves (i), and (ii) follows by duality.
(iii). The intersection of two subsemigroups is always a subsemigroup.

a ) ⊆ P a , and we clearly have Reg(S a ) ⊆ Reg(S). Conversely,
(iv). By Proposition 1.4, we have Reg(Sij
ij
a
suppose x ∈ P ∩ Reg(S). Then x = xyx = uax = xav, for some y ∈ Sji and u, v ∈ S (1) . But then
a ).
x = xyx = (xav)y(uax) = x ?a (vyu) ?a x, with vyu ∈ Sij , giving x ∈ Reg(Sij

(v). This follows immediately from (iv).

5

1.4

Partial subsemigroups

Consider a partial semigroup S ≡ (S, ·, I, λ, ρ), and let T ⊆ S. If s · t ∈ T for all s, t ∈ T with sρ = tλ, then
(T, ·, I, λ, ρ) is itself a partial semigroup (where, for simplicity, we have written ·, λ and ρ instead of their
restrictions to T ), and we refer to T ≡ (T, ·, I, λ, ρ) as a partial subsemigroup of S. Note that Tij = T ∩ Sij
for all i, j ∈ I. Here we give a number of results that show how concepts such as Green’s relations and
preorders, and (R- and/or L -) stability may be inherited by partial subsemigroups under certain regularity
assumptions.
If T is a partial subsemigroup of S, and if K is one of Green’s relations, we will write K S and K T for
Green’s K -relations on S and T , respectively, and similarly for the preorders ≤K (in the case that K 6= D).
The next result adapts and strengthens a classical semigroup fact; see for example [25, Proposition 2.4.2]
or [43, Proposition A.1.16].
Lemma 1.8. Let T be a partial subsemigroup of S, let x, y ∈ T , and let K be any of R, L or H .
(i) If y ∈ Reg(T ), then x ≤K S y ⇔ x ≤K T y.

(ii) If x, y ∈ Reg(T ), then x K

S

y ⇔ xK

T

y.

Proof. Clearly (ii) follows from (i). We just prove (i) in the case that K = R; the case K = L is dual,
and the case K = H follows from the others. Suppose x ∈ T and y ∈ Reg(T ) are such that x ≤R S y. Then
x = ya and y = yzy for some a ∈ S (1) and z ∈ T . But then x = ya = yzya = y(zx); since zx ∈ T , it follows
that x ≤R T y. We have proved that x ≤R S y ⇒ x ≤R T y; the converse is clear.
Lemma 1.9. Let T be a regular partial subsemigroup of S, and let a ∈ T . If a is R-stable (or L -stable, or
stable) in S, then a is R-stable (or L -stable, or stable, respectively) in T .
Proof. Suppose a is R-stable in S. Let x ∈ T with xρ = aλ. Then
x J T xa ⇒ x J S xa ⇒ x R S xa ⇒ x R T xa,
using R-stability of a in S, and Lemma 1.8(ii). The other statements are proved analogously.
In the next result, if a ∈ Tji , where T is a partial subsemigroup of S, we write
P1a (S) = {x ∈ Sij : x R S xa}

and

P1a (T ) = {x ∈ Tij : x R T xa}

to distinguish the sets P1a on S and T , respectively; we use similar notation with respect to P2a , P3a and P a .
Lemma 1.10. Let T be a partial subsemigroup of S, and let a ∈ Tji where i, j ∈ I. Then
(i) P1a (T ) ⊆ P1a (S) ∩ T , with equality if Tij ∪ Tij a ⊆ Reg(T ),
(ii) P2a (T ) ⊆ P2a (S) ∩ T , with equality Tij ∪ aTij ⊆ Reg(T ),
(iii) P a (T ) ⊆ P a (S) ∩ T , with equality Tij ∪ Tij a ∪ aTij ⊆ Reg(T ),
(iv) P3a (T ) ⊆ P3a (S) ∩ T , with equality if a is stable in S and Tij ∪ Tij a ∪ aTij ⊆ Reg(T ).
Proof. For (i), P1a (T ) = {x ∈ Tij : x R T xa} ⊆ {x ∈ Tij : x R S xa} = {x ∈ Sij : x R S xa}∩T = P1a (S)∩T ;
if Tij ∪ Tij a ⊆ Reg(T ), then Lemma 1.8(ii) gives equality in the second step. Part (ii) follows by duality.
Part (iii) follows from (i) and (ii). The first assertion in (iv) is again easily checked; the rest follows from (iii),
Proposition 1.4(iii) and Lemma 1.9.
Remark 1.11. It is easy to check that we also have P3a (T ) = P3a (S) ∩ T if J T = J S ∩ (T × T ). A similar
statement may be made regarding P1a (T ) and P2a (T ), replacing J by R or L , respectively.
In the next result, if a ∈ Tji ⊆ Sji , where T is a partial subsemigroup of S, and if K is one of
a and T a ,
Green’s relations, we write K a (S) and K a (T ) for the K a -relation on the sandwich semigroups Sij
ij
a
a
a
a
respectively. We use similar notation for K (S)- and K (T )-classes, writing Kx (S) and Kx (T ) for x ∈ Tij ,
as appropriate.
Proposition 1.12. Let T be a partial subsemigroup of S, and let a ∈ Tji where i, j ∈ I. Then
6

(i) R a (T ) ⊆ R a (S) ∩ (T × T ), with equality if Tij ∪ Tij a ⊆ Reg(T ),
(ii) L a (T ) ⊆ L a (S) ∩ (T × T ), with equality if Tij ∪ aTij ⊆ Reg(T ),
(iii) H a (T ) ⊆ H a (S) ∩ (T × T ), with equality if Tij ∪ Tij a ∪ aTij ⊆ Reg(T ).
Proof. We just prove (i), as (ii) will follow by duality, and (iii) from (i) and (ii). The stated containment
is clear. Now suppose Tij ∪ Tij a ⊆ Reg(T ), and let x ∈ Tij . We use Theorem 1.1 and Lemmas 1.8
and 1.10. If x 6∈ P1a (T ) = P1a (S) ∩ T , then Rxa (T ) = {x} = {x} ∩ T = Rxa (S) ∩ T. If x ∈ P1a (T ), then
Rxa (T ) = Rx (T ) ∩ P1a (T ) = (Rx (S) ∩ T ) ∩ (P1a (S) ∩ T ) = (Rx (S) ∩ P1a (S)) ∩ T = Rxa (S) ∩ T .

2

a
Sandwich-regularity and the structure of Reg(Sij
)

a ) of regular elements of a sandwich semigroup S a in a partial semigroup
This section explores the set Reg(Sij
ij
S ≡ (S, ·, I, λ, ρ). In particular, we identify a natural condition on the sandwich element a ∈ Sji , called
a ) is a subsemigroup of S a . If a is sandwich-regular, and if b ∈ V (a),
sandwich-regularity, under which Reg(Sij
ij
a
then the structure of Reg(Sij ) is intimately related to that of a certain regular monoid W contained in the
b . This monoid W is simultaneously a homomorphic image and (an isomorphic copy
sandwich semigroup Sji
a ). There are three main results in this section. Theorem 2.10 realises Reg(S a ) as a
of) a submonoid of Reg(Sij
ij
pullback product of certain regular subsemigroups of the (non-sandwich) semigroups Si and Sj . Theorem 2.14
a ) as a kind of “inflation” of the monoid W ; see Remark 2.15 for the meaning of this (nondisplays Reg(Sij
a in terms of
technical) term. Finally, Theorem 2.17 describes the idempotent-generated subsemigroup of Sij
the idempotent-generated subsemigroup of W . In the concrete applications we consider in [11], W is always
(isomorphic to) a well-understood “classical” monoid.

2.1
2.1

The basic commutative diagrams
The basic commutative diagrams

Recall that for
(a)
==
{b{b
2∈
SS
: a: =
b =b bab}
forfor
thethe
(possibly
empty)
set of
of a
for aa2∈S,S,we
wewrite
writeV V
(a)
a aba,
= aba,
= bab}
(possibly
empty)
setinverses
of inverses
in aS.inSuppose
now now
that that
a 2 Sa is
regular,
and fix
b 2 Vb (a).
Let jLet
= aj =and
i = a⇢,
a 2 Saji∈and
of
S. Suppose
∈S
is regular,
andsome
fix some
∈ V (a).
aλ and
i =so
aρ,that
so that
Sji
band
2 Sbij∈. SAs
noted
above,
S
a
and
aS
are
subsemigroups
of
the
(non-sandwich)
semigroups
S
=
S
and
ij Sij a and
ij aSij are subsemigroups of the (non-sandwich) semigroups
i Si ii= Sii
ij . As noted above,
b , since,
b,
Sj =SSj jj=, respectively.
It is also
is ija asubsemigroup
of the of
sandwich
semigroup
Sji
and
Sjj , respectively.
It is the
alsocase
the that
case aS
that
is a subsemigroup
the sandwich
semigroup
Sji
ij a aS
for anyfor
x,any
y 2 x,
Sijy, ∈(axa)
= axabaya
= a(xay)a,
with xay
Sij .∈InSijfact,
?bij) a,
is ?ab )monoid
with
since,
Sij , ?(axa)
?b (aya)
= axabaya
= a(xay)a,
with2xay
. In (aS
fact,
(aS
is a monoid
ij a,
b (aya)
identity
a,
and
its
operation
?
is
independent
of
the
choice
of
b
2
V
(a);
that
is,
if
also
c
2
V
(a),
then
the
with identity a, and its operation
?b is independent of the choice of b ∈ V (a); that is, if also c ∈ V (a), then
b
b
b
operations
?b and
?c are
on aS
the full
semigroups
Sji =Sji(S=
?bji
) ,and
the
operations
?b and
?c identical
are identical
onij a
aS✓ij aSji
⊆ (though
Sji (though
the sandwich
full sandwich
semigroups
?b )
ji ,(S
c = (S
c
S
,
?
)
might
be
quite
diﬀerent).
To
emphasise
this
independence,
we
will
write
~
for
the
operation
and
= (S
c ji , ?c ) might be quite different). To emphasise this independence, we will write ~ for the
ji Sji ji
?b on aSij a.
for x,
y 2 Sfor
aya =
axaya
(so=that
here
becomes
“bread”
operation
?b As
on noted
aSij a. above,
As noted
above,
x, yhave
∈ Sijaxa
, we~have
axa
~ aya
axaya
(soa that
herethe
a becomes
ij , we
instead
of the
“filling”!).
following
of diagram
semigroup
commutes: commutes:
the
“bread”
instead
of theEvidently,
“filling”!). the
Evidently,
thediagram
following
of epimorphisms
semigroup epimorphisms
(Sij , ?a )
1 :x7!xa

2 :x7!ax

(Sij a, ·)
1 :y7!ay

(2.1)

(aSij , ·)
(aSij a, ~)

2 :y7!ya

(2.1)

Note that
that S
Sij
a=
= (S
(Sij
a)ba ⊆
✓S
Sii (ba)
(ba) =
= (S
(Sii b)a
b)a ⊆
✓S
Sij
a, so
so that,
that, in
in fact,
fact, S
Sij
a=
=S
Sii (ba)
(ba) is
is aa principal
principal left
left ideal
ideal
ij a
ij a)ba
ij a,
ij a
Note
of
S
:
namely,
the
principal
left
ideal
containing
ba
2
S
.
Similarly,
aS
=
(ab)S
is
the
principal
right
ideal
i
i
ij
j
of Si : namely, the principal left ideal containing ba ∈ Si . Similarly, aSij = (ab)Sj is the principal right ideal
of S
Sjj containing
containing ab
ab ∈
2S
Sjj .. Note
Note that
that the
the map
map
of
(Sij
?aa )) →
! (S
(Sij
a, ·)
·) :: x
x 7→
7! xa
xa
ij ,, ?
ij a,
Ψ11 :: (S
is an
an isomorphism
isomorphism if
if and
and only
only if
if it
it is
is injective,
injective, which
which occurs
occurs if
if and
and only
only if
if a
a satisfies
satisfies aa certain
certain right
right cancellability
cancellability
is
law:
law:
(8x, yy ∈
2S
Sij ))
(∀x,
ij

(2.2)
(2.2)

xa =
= ya
ya ⇒
) x
x=
= y.
y.
xa

For example, (2.2) holds if a is right-invertible (as defined in Section 1.2). Similarly,
if and only if
7
(8x, y 2 Sij )
ax = ay ) x = y,

2

is an isomorphism
(2.3)

For example, (2.2) holds if a is right-invertible (as defined in Section 1.2). Similarly, Ψ2 is an isomorphism
if and only if
(∀x, y ∈ Sij )

ax = ay ⇒ x = y,

(2.3)

which occurs, for example, if a is left-invertible. As noted by Hickey (in the less general context of semigroup
variants) in [21, Lemma 2.2], if a satisfies the weaker cancellativity law
(∀x, y ∈ Sij )

[xa = ya and ax = ay] ⇒ x = y,

(2.4)

then the map
Ψ = (Ψ1 , Ψ2 ) : (Sij , ?a ) → (Sij a, ·) × (aSij , ·) : x 7→ (xa, ax)

is an embedding; although Ψ is not necessarily surjective, its image is a subdirect product (whether or not Ψ
is injective). Finally, if a satisfies both (2.2) and (2.3), then the map
Φ = Ψ1 Φ1 = Ψ2 Φ2 : (Sij , ?a ) → (aSij a, ~) : x 7→ axa
is injective, and hence an isomorphism, so that all semigroups in (2.1) are isomorphic: indeed, if x, y ∈ Sij ,
then bax, bay ∈ Sij , and so
axa = aya ⇒ (bax)a = (bay)a ⇒ bax = bay ⇒ ax = a(bax) = a(bay) = ay ⇒ x = y.
In general, even though a is itself regular, none of the semigroups in the diagram (2.1) need be regular
semigroups (even if every element of the partial semigroup S is regular). However, a simple assumption on a
ensures that the set of regular elements in each of these semigroups is a subsemigroup. We say that the
regular element a ∈ Sji is sandwich-regular if aSij a ⊆ Reg(S). (In particular, if S is regular, then all its
elements are sandwich-regular.)
Proposition 2.5. Suppose i, j ∈ I, and that a ∈ Sji is sandwich-regular. Let b ∈ V (a). Then
a ) = P a is a (regular) subsemigroup of S a ,
(i) Reg(Sij
ij

(ii) Reg(Sij a, ·) = P a a = P2a a is a (regular) subsemigroup of (Sij a, ·),
(iii) Reg(aSij , ·) = aP a = aP1a is a (regular) subsemigroup of (aSij , ·),

b.
(iv) (aSij a, ~) = aP a a = aP1a a = aP2a a is a regular subsemigroup of Sji

Proof. (i). Let x ∈ P a . By sandwich-regularity, we may choose some y ∈ V (axa). Since x ∈ P a = P1a ∩ P2a ,
we have x = uax = xav for some u, v ∈ S (1) . But then x = uaxav = u(axa)y(axa)v = x(aya)x, so
a ).
that x ∈ Reg(S). This shows that P a ⊆ Reg(S), and Proposition 1.7(v) then gives P a = Reg(Sij
a
Proposition 1.7(iii) says that P is a subsemigroup.
(ii). From (i), it quickly follows that P a a ⊆ Reg(Sij a, ·), and that P a a is a subsemigroup of (Sij a, ·). If
x ∈ P2a , then it is easy to show that xab ∈ P a ; since xa = (xab)a, this gives P2a a ⊆ P a a. To complete the
proof of (ii), we must show that Reg(Sij a, ·) ⊆ P2a a. So let g ∈ Reg(Sij a, ·). Then g = ghg for some h ∈ Sij a,
and we may write g = ya and h = za for some y, z ∈ Sij . Then g = (yazay)a, and we have yazay ∈ P2a ,
since yazay = gzay = (yazaya)zay ≤L a(yazay) ≤L yazay, which gives yazay L a(yazay).
(iii). This is dual to (ii).

b ; if x ∈ P a , and if y ∈ S
(iv). Again, it quickly follows from (i) that aP a a is a subsemigroup of Sji
ij
a
is such that x = xayax, then axa = (axa) ?b (aya) ?b (axa), so aP a is regular. We also clearly have
aP a a ⊆ aPia a ⊆ aSij a, for i = 1, 2. If x ∈ Sij , then axa = a(baxab)a, and it is easy to check that
baxab ∈ P a .

Remark 2.6. Although we will not need to know it in this section, it will be convenient to note for later
use that the maps
(aSij a, ~) → (baSij a, ·) : x 7→ bx

and

(aSij a, ~) → (aSij ab, ·) : x 7→ xb

are isomorphisms, as is easily checked. We noted above that Sij a = Si ba, so it follows that baSij a = baSi ba.
In particular, (aSij a, ~) is isomorphic to (baSi ba, ·), the local monoid of Si with respect to the idempotent
ba ∈ Si . (A local monoid of a semigroup T , with respect to an idempotent e of T , is the monoid eT e.)
Similarly, (aSij a, ~) is isomorphic to the local monoid (abSj ab, ·) of Sj .
8

ba 2 Si . (A local monoid of a semigroup T , with respect to an idempotent e of T is the monoid eT e.)
Similarly, (aSij a, ~) is isomorphic to the local submonoid (abSj ab, ·) of Sj .
For the rest of Section 2, we fix a sandwich-regular element a 2 Sji , and an inverse b 2 V (a).
For the rest of Section 2, we fix a sandwich-regular element a ∈ Sji , and an inverse b ∈ V (a).

By By
Proposition
2.5,2.5,
thethe
restrictions
of of
thethe
maps
semigroup
Proposition
restrictions
mapsinin(2.1)
(2.1)yield
yieldanother
anothercommutative
commutative diagram
diagram of
of semigroup
epimorphisms:
epimorphisms:
Reg(Sij , ?a )
1 :x7!xa

2 :x7!ax

Reg(Sij a, ·)
1 :y7!ay

(2.7)

Reg(aSij , ·)
(aSij a, ~)

2 :y7!ya

(2.7)

The maps in (2.7) were further explored in [9] in the case that S = M(F) was the partial semigroup of (finite
dimensional) matrices over a fixed field F; related maps were also studied in [8], in the case that S = TX
was the full transformation semigroup on a finite set X. We wish to explore the diagram (2.7) here in more
generality. To simplify notation, for the remainder of Section 2, we will write
P a = Reg(Sij , ?a ),

2.2

W = (aSij a, ~) = aP a a,

T1 = Reg(Sij a, ·) = P a a,

T2 = Reg(aSij , ·) = aP a .

Green’s relations on P a and W

a ). We will
In what follows, we will frequently consider Green’s relations on the semigroup P a = Reg(Sij
a
temporarily denote these by K P , where K is any9 of R, L , H , J , D. Since P a is regular, we have
a
K P = K a ∩ (P a × P a ) if K is any of R, L , H (see Lemma 1.8). The next lemma shows that this is also
the case for K = D; the proof is simple, but included for convenience.

Lemma 2.8. Suppose T is a semigroup for which Q = Reg(T ) is a subsemigroup of T . If K is any of
Green’s relations on T other than J , then K Q = K ∩ (Q × Q).
Proof. This is well known if K is any of R, L , H ; see Lemma 1.8 (or [25, Proposition 2.4.2] or [43,
Proposition A.1.16], for example). Clearly D Q ⊆ D ∩ (Q × Q). Conversely, suppose (x, y) ∈ D ∩ (Q × Q).
So x, y ∈ Q, and there exists u ∈ T such that x R u L y (in T ). Since any element in the R-class
(in T ) of a regular element is regular, it follows that u ∈ Q. But then (x, u) ∈ R ∩ (Q × Q) = R Q and
(u, y) ∈ L ∩ (Q × Q) = L Q , so that x R Q u L Q y, giving (x, y) ∈ D Q .
a

a ) are K P -related
Because of Lemma 2.8, if K is any of R, L , H , D, then two elements of P a = Reg(Sij
a
a
a
a
in P if and only if they are K -related in Sij . Also, if x ∈ P , and if K is any of R, L , H , D, then
a
a . As a result, if K is any of
Kxa ⊆ P a , so that the K P -class of x in P a is precisely the K a -class of x in Sij
a
R, L , H , D, we will continue to denote the relations K P on P a by K a , and write Kxa for the K a -class of
a
a
x in P a . In order to avoid confusion, we will write J P for Green’s J -relation on P a , denote J P -classes
a
by JxP , and so on.
b.
We will also frequently consider Green’s relations on the subsemigroup W = (aSij a, ~) = aP a a of Sji
b so, in order to avoid confusion, we will denote these by
These relations can be quite different to those on Sji
~
K , where K denotes any of R, L , H , J , D, and we denote K ~ -classes by Kx~ , and so on. Although it
b ),
is not necessarily the case that a K ~ -class Kx~ (in W ) is equal to the corresponding K b -class Kxb (in Sji
this is at least true for H ~ -classes, as we now demonstrate.

Lemma 2.9. If x ∈ W = (aSij a, ~), then Hx~ = Hxb .

Proof. Clearly Hx~ ⊆ Hxb . Conversely, suppose y ∈ Hxb . So x R b y and x L b y. So either x = y, or else
y = u ?b x = x ?b v for some u, v ∈ Sji . Clearly x = y implies y ∈ Hx~ , so suppose the latter holds. Since W
is a monoid with identity a, and since x ∈ W , it follows that y = u ?b x = u ?b (x ?b a) = y ?b a, and similarly
y = a ?b y. But then y = a ?b y ?b a = a(byb)a ∈ aSij a = W . In particular, x, y ∈ W are both regular (in W ),
and so Lemma 1.8(ii) gives x H ~ y, whence y ∈ Hx~ , as required.

2.3

Pullback products and an embedding

From the diagram (2.7), we may define maps
φ = ψ1 φ1 = ψ2 φ2 : P a → W : x 7→ axa

ψ = (ψ1 , ψ2 ) : P a → T1 × T2 : x 7→ (xa, ax).

and
9

As a composite of epimorphisms, φ is itself an epimorphism. We will study φ extensively throughout
Sections 2 and 3. But our first main structural result concerns the map ψ, and shows how it may be used
to relate the structure of P a to that of T1 , T2 and W . For the statement, recall that the pullback product
of semigroups S1 and S2 with respect to a semigroup T and epimorphisms fi : Si → T (i = 1, 2) is the
subsemigroup {(s1 , s2 ) ∈ S1 × S2 : s1 f1 = s2 f2 } of S1 × S2 . In particular, pullback products are subdirect.
Theorem 2.10. Consider the map ψ : P a → T1 × T2 : x 7→ (xa, ax) defined above. Then
(i) ψ is injective,
(ii) im(ψ) = {(g, h) ∈ T1 × T2 : ag = ha} = {(g, h) ∈ T1 × T2 : gφ1 = hφ2 }.
In particular, P a is a pullback product of T1 and T2 with respect to W .
Proof. (i). Suppose x, y ∈ P a are such that (xa, ax) = xψ = yψ = (ya, ay). We wish to show that x = y.
Since x, y ∈ P a ⊆ P1a , we have x = xau and y = yav for some u, v ∈ Sij . Together with xa = ya, it
follows that x = yau and y = xav, whence x R a y. A dual argument gives x L a y. Green’s Lemma in the
semigroup P a (see for example [25, Lemma 2.2.1]) says that the map Lax → Lay : z 7→ zav is a bijection, with
inverse Lay → Lax : z 7→ zau; so z = zavau for all z ∈ Lax . But x, y ∈ Lax (as x L a y); thus, combined with
xa = ya, we obtain x = xavau = yavau = y.
(ii). First note that any element (g, h) = (xa, ax) ∈ im(ψ) clearly satisfies ag = ha. Conversely, suppose
g ∈ T1 and h ∈ T2 are such that ag = ha. Since W is regular and ag ∈ W ⊆ Sji , we may choose some
a ) such that
w ∈ Sij with ag = agwag. Since g ∈ T1 = im(ψ1 ), we may choose some u, v ∈ P a = Reg(Sij
g = ua and u = uavau. Then
g = ua = uavaua = uavag = uavagwag = gwag.
A similar calculation, bearing in mind that ha = hawha (as ha = ag), shows that h = hawh. Now put
a ), since
x = gwh. Then (g, h) = (gwag, hawh) = (gwha, agwh) = (xa, ax). But x ∈ P a = Reg(Sij
x ?a w ?a x = (gwh)awa(gwh) = (gwag)w(hawh) = gwh = x,
so (g, h) = xψ with x ∈ P a , as required.

2.4

Rectangular groups and the internal structure of the D a -classes of P a

a ) and W = Reg(aS a, ~) may
We now wish to investigate the way in which the structures of P a = Reg(Sij
ij
a
be related via the epimorphism φ : P → W : x 7→ axa. Our next main structural result is Theorem 2.14,
which shows that P a is a kind of “inflation” of W , in a non-technical sense. Here we mean that the D- and
J -relations on P a are equivalent to the corresponding relations on W ; that R ~ -, L ~ - and H ~ -classes
of W yield multiple R a -, L a - and H a -classes of P a ; that group/non-group H ~ -classes of W correspond to
group/non-group H a -classes of P a ; and that group H ~ -classes of W are inflated into rectangular groups
in P a . For more details, see Theorem 2.14, Remark 2.15 and Figure 1.
For simplicity, if x ∈ P a , we will write

x = xφ = axa ∈ W.
We also extend this notation to subsets of P a : if X ⊆ P a , then we write X = {x : x ∈ X}.
a
If K is any of R, L , J , H , D, and if x, y ∈ P a , we will write x Kb y if x K ~ y in W . For x ∈ P a ,
b ax for the Kba -class of x in P a . Since K
b ax = Kx~ φ−1 is the preimage of a K ~ -class of W ,
we will write K
b ax is a union of K a -classes of P a . The next result demonstrates a number of relationships
it follows that K
a
between the relations K a and Kb .
a
For X ⊆ P and Y ⊆ W , we write Ea (X) = {x ∈ X : x = xax} and Eb (Y ) = {y ∈ Y : y = yby} for the
set of ?a -idempotents from X and the set of ?b -idempotents from Y , respectively. For u ∈ P a , we write
Va (u) = {v ∈ P a : u = u ?a v ?a u, v = v ?a u ?a v}
for the set of all ?a -inverses of u from P a .
Lemma 2.11. We have
10

a
(i) R a ⊆ Rb ⊆ D a ,

a
(iii) H a ⊆ Hb ⊆ D a ,

a

b a = D a ⊆ Jba = J P a .
(iv) D

(ii) L a ⊆ Lb ⊆ D a ,

a
a
Proof. (i). First, it is clear that R a ⊆ Rb . Now let (x, y) ∈ Rb . Since P a is regular, x R a e and y R a f
for some e, f ∈ Ea (P a ). Since R a ⊆ D a , it is enough to show that e D a f . To do this, we will show that
e R a eaf L a f . Evidently, eaf ≤R a e and eaf ≤L a f , so it remains to show the reverse inequalities. Now,
a
a
a
e Rb x Rb y Rb f , so e R ~ f (in W ). Since e, f ∈ Eb (W ), it follows that e = f ~ e and f = e ~ f : that is,
aea = af aea and af a = aeaf a. But then

e = eaeae = eaf aeae ≤R a eaf

and

f = f af af = f aeaf af = f aeaf ≤L a eaf,

as required.
a
a
a
(ii) and (iii). First, (ii) follows from (i) by duality, and then (iii) follows from (i) and (ii), since Hb = Rb ∩Lb .
b a ⊆ Jba and that J P a ⊆ Jba , so it remains to show that D
b a ⊆ D a and
(iv). It is clear that D a ⊆ D
a
a
a
a
a
b = Rb ∨ Lb . For the second, suppose
Jb ⊆ J P . The first of these follows from (i) and (ii), since D
a
~
b
(x, y) ∈ J . So x J y. In particular, x ≤J ~ y, so there exist u, v ∈ P a with x = u ~ y ~ v: that is,
axa = auayava. Choose some z ∈ Va (x). Then

x = xazax = xazaxazax = xaz(auayava)zax ≤J P a y.
a

Similarly, y ≤J ~ x implies y ≤J P a x, so that (x, y) ∈ J P .
As a consequence of the above proof of Lemma 2.11(iv), we also have the following.
a

Corollary 2.12. If x, y ∈ P a , then JxP ≤J P a JyP

a

⇔ Jx~ ≤J ~ Jy~ .

The next result will be of fundamental importance in what follows. Since idempotents are regular, we
a ).
clearly have Ea (P a ) = Ea (Sij
a ) = E (W )φ−1 .
Lemma 2.13. We have Ea (P a ) = Ea (Sij
b

Proof. Clearly Ea (P a ) ⊆ Eb (W )φ−1 . Conversely, suppose x ∈ Eb (W )φ−1 , so x ∈ P a and axa = (axa)b(axa) =
axaxa. Then, for any y ∈ Va (x), x = xayax = xa(yaxay)ax = xay(axaxa)yax = xax.
a ). Recall that a
We are now ready to prove our second main structural result concerning P a = Reg(Sij
semigroup T is a rectangular band if it is isomorphic to a semigroup with underlying set I × J (where I, J are
non-empty sets), and with product defined by (i1 , j1 )(i2 , j2 ) = (i1 , j2 ); if |I| = r and |J| = l, we say that T
is an r × l rectangular band. It is well known that T is a rectangular band if and only if x = x2 = xyx
for all x, y ∈ T ; see for example [25, Page 7]. A rectangular group is (isomorphic to) the direct product
of a rectangular band and a group. By the dimensions of a rectangular band or group, we mean r = |I|
and l = |J|, as above; these are the number of R- and L -classes, respectively. Recall that Hx~ = Hxb for
all x ∈ W , by Lemma 2.9.

b ax /R a | and l = |H
b ax /L a |. Then
Theorem 2.14. Let x ∈ P a , and put r = |H
(i) the restriction to Hxa of the map φ : P a → W is a bijection φ|Hxa : Hxa → Hxb ,
(ii) Hxa is a group if and only if Hxb is a group, in which case these groups are isomorphic,
b ax is an r × l rectangular group over Hxa ,
(iii) if Hxa is a group, then H
b ax ) is an r × l rectangular band.
(iv) if Hxa is a group, then Ea (H
Proof. We begin with (ii). First, it is clear that Hxa being a group implies Hxb is a group. Conversely,
suppose Hxb is a group, and let its identity be y, where y ∈ P a . Let the inverse of x in Hxb be z, where z ∈ P a .
Put
w = xazayazax.
We claim that w ∈ Hxa and that w ∈ Ea (P a ), from which it will follow that Hxa is a group. Indeed, first note
that
w = x ~ z ~ y ~ z ~ x = y ~ y ~ y = y,
11

as z and x are inverses in Hxb , and as y is the identity of this group. It follows from Lemma 2.13 that
w ∈ Ea (P a ). To show that w ∈ Hxa , we must show that w R a x and w L a x. We show just the first of
these, and the second will follow by a symmetrical argument. Evidently, w ≤R a x. To prove the converse,
choose some u ∈ Va (x), and note that
x = xauax = xauaxauax = xau · x · uax = xau · y ~ x · uax = xau · w ~ x · uax
= xau · (axazayazaxa)b(axa) · uax = xazayazaxax = wax,

so that x ≤R a w, as required. As noted above, this completes the proof that Hxa is a group (with identity w).
It now follows that the restriction to Hxa of the map φ : P a → W is a group homomorphism φ|Hxa : Hxa → Hxb .
By Lemma 2.13, the group theoretic kernel of φ|Hxa —that is, the set wφ−1 = {u ∈ Hxa : u = w}—is equal
to {w}. It follows from standard group theoretical facts that φ|Hxa is injective. To complete the proof of (ii),
it remains to show that φ|Hxa is surjective. With this in mind, let q ∈ Hxb , and write q = u, where u ∈ P a .
Put
v = wauaw.
Since v = w ~ u ~ w = u = q, it remains only to show that v ∈ Hxa . Since Hxa = Hwa , it suffices to show that
v R a w and v L a w. Again, we just do the former. Evidently v ≤R a w. Let s be the inverse of u in Hxb ,
where s ∈ P a . Then
w = wawaw = w · w · w = w · u ~ s · w = w · u ~ w ~ s · w = wauawasaw = vasaw ≤R a v,
as required. This completes the proof of (ii).
(i). Note that we no longer assume Hxa is a group. Since P a is regular, we may choose some idempotent
y ∈ Ea (P a ) such that x R a y, noting that φ|Hya : Hya → Hyb is a bijection, by part (ii). Choose some u, v ∈ P a
such that y = x ?a u and x = y ?a v. By Green’s Lemma in the semigroups P a and W (see [25, Lemma 2.2.1]),
the maps
θ3 : Hxb → Hyb : z 7→ z ~ u,

θ1 : Hxa → Hya : z 7→ z ?a u,

θ4 : Hyb → Hxb : z 7→ z ~ v

θ2 : Hya → Hxa : z 7→ z ?a v,

are bijections, with θ2 = θ1−1 and θ4 = θ3−1 . Then φ|Hxa = θ1 ◦ φ|Hya ◦ θ4 , a composite of bijections, since for
any q ∈ Hxa ,
θ

φ

θ

q 7−−1→ qau −
7 −→ aqaua −
7 −4→ aqauabava = aqauava = a(qθ1 θ2 )a = aqa = qφ.
(iii) and (iv). Suppose Hxa is a group. Without loss of generality, we may assume that x is the identity of
b ax . To show that T is a
this group, so also x is the identity of Hxb . For convenience, we will write T = H
rectangular group, it suffices to show that:
(a) T is a semigroup,
(b) T is a union of groups,
(c) the set Ea (T ) of idempotents of T forms a rectangular band (which of course proves (iv)).
Now, T = Hxb φ−1 is a union of H a -classes, and we know that each of these are groups, by (ii), so (b)
certainly holds. To show (a), suppose u, v ∈ T . Then u ?a v = u ~ v ∈ Hxb , since Hxb is a group, so it follows
a
that u ?a v Hb x, whence u ?a v ∈ T . For (c), let y, z ∈ Ea (T ). As noted before the statement of the
result, it is enough to show that y ?a z ?a y = y. Now, y = z = x, as x is the unique idempotent of Hxb , so
y ~ z ~ y = x = y. But then
y = yayay = y · y · y = y · y ~ z ~ y · y = y · ayazaya · y = yazay = y ?a z ?a y,
as required.
a ), in terms of Green’s
Remark 2.15. By the preceding series of results, the structure of P a = Reg(Sij
relations, is a kind of “inflation” of the corresponding structure of W = Reg(aSij a, ~):

12

• The partially ordered sets (P a /J P , ≤J P a ) and (W/J ~ , ≤J ~ ) are order-isomorphic.
a

• The sets P a /D a and W/D ~ are in one-one correspondence, via Dxa 7→ Dx~ .
a
• Each Kb -class in P a is a union of K

a

classes.

• The R ~ -, L ~ - and H ~ -classes contained within a single D ~ -class Dx~ of W are in one-one correspona
a
a
b a =D a -class Dxa of P a .
dence with the Rb -, Lb - and Hb -classes in the D
a
b ax is a union of H a -classes, and these are either all non-groups (if H ~ = H b is a
• An Hb -class H
x
x
b ax is a
non-group H ~ -class of W ) or else all groups (if Hx~ = Hxb is a group); in the latter case, H
rectangular group.

Figure 1 illustrates the last two points in a so-called egg-box diagram. In the left egg-box, which displays a
b a = D a -class in P a , R a -related elements are in the same row, L a -related elements in the same column,
D
and H a -related elements in the same cell; a similar convention is used in the right egg-box, which displays
the corresponding D ~ -class in W . Group H a - and H ~ -classes are shaded gray, and solid lines in the left
a
a
egg-box denote boundaries between Rb -classes and Lb -classes. See also [11, Figures 2–7], which display
egg-box diagrams of entire sandwich semigroups in the partial transformation category PT .

Figure 1: A D a -class of P a (left) and its corresponding D ~ -class of W (right). See Remark 2.15 for more
information.

2.5

Generation and idempotent-generation

Recall that Lemma 2.13 says that the preimage under φ : P a → W of any idempotent of W is an idempotent
of P a . Our next main result, the last of Section 2, extends this to products of idempotents; see Theorem 2.17.
The key step in the proof of Theorem 2.17 is the next technical lemma, which will also be useful in other
a generated by X (and use similar
contexts. For X ⊆ Sij , we write hXia for the ?a -subsemigroup of Sij
b ).
notation for subsemigroups of Sji
Lemma 2.16. If X ⊆ P a , then hXib φ−1 ⊆ hX ∪ Ea (P a )ia .
Proof. Suppose x ∈ hXib φ−1 . So x ∈ P a and x ∈ hXib . We may therefore write x = x1 ~ · · · ~ xk ,
where x1 , . . . , xk ∈ X. Put y = x1 ?a · · · ?a xk . To prove that x ∈ hX ∪ Ea (P a )ia , it suffices to show that
x = p ?a y ?a v for some p, v ∈ Ea (P a ).
a
a
Since y = x, we certainly have x H ~ y, so that x Hb y. Since Hb ⊆ D a , by Lemma 2.11(iii), we also
have x D a y. Since P a is regular, we may choose some idempotents u, v ∈ Ea (P a ) such that u R a y and
v L a x. Since x D a y R a u, it follows that x D a u. Consequently, Rxa ∩ Lau is an H a -class in Dxa : say,
a
a
a
Rxa ∩ Lau = Hpa . Since p L a u, and since L a ⊆ Lb , it follows that p Lb u. Also, p R a x Rb y R a u, so
a
a
a
a
b u . Since u ∈ Ea (P ), Theorem 2.14(iii) tells us that H
b u is a rectangular group. In
p Rb u. Thus, p ∈ H
a
a
b
particular, Hp ⊆ H u is itself a group. Thus, without loss of generality, we may assume that p is the identity
13

of this group; in particular, p ∈ Ea (P a ). By a dual argument, we may show that Lay ∩ Rva = Hqa , for some
idempotent q ∈ Ea (P a ).
Since p L a u and q R a v, with u, q ∈ Ea (P a ), we have p = p ?a u and v = q ?a v. Thus, by Green’s
Lemma in the semigroup P a (see [25, Lemma 2.2.1]), the maps
θ1 : Rua → Rpa : z 7→ p ?a z

and

θ2 : Laq → Lav : z 7→ z ?a v

are bijections; in addition, (z, zθ1 ) ∈ L a for all z ∈ Rua , while (z, zθ2 ) ∈ R a for all z ∈ Laq . Now, y ∈ Rua , so
p ?a y = yθ1 ∈ Rpa ∩ Lay = Rxa ∩ Laq . Since p ?a y ∈ Laq , we also have
a
p ?a y ?a v = (p ?a y)θ2 ∈ Lav ∩ Rp?
= Lax ∩ Rxa = Hxa .
ay
a

Since p Hb u, and since p, u ∈ Ea (P a ), it follows that p = u (both being equal to the identity element
of Hub ). Similarly, q = v. Since y R a u and y L a q, with u, q ∈ Ea (P a ), we also have y = u ?a y = y ?a q,
from which it follows that y = u ~ y = y ~ q. Putting this all together, we obtain
p ?a y ?a v = p ~ y ~ v = u ~ y ~ q = y = x.
That is, (p ?a y ?a v)φ = xφ. But φ is injective on Hxa , by Theorem 2.14(i), and we showed earlier that
p ?a y ?a v ∈ Hxa , so it follows that x = p ?a y ?a v, as required.
As noted above, one important application of Lemma 2.16 is to describe the idempotent-generated subsemigroup of P a in terms of the idempotent-generated subsemigroup of W ; the last result of this section
gives this description. We write Ea (P a ) = hEa (P a )ia and Eb (W ) = hEb (W )ib for these idempotent-generated
a ) = E (P a ).
subsemigroups. Again, it is clear that Ea (Sij
a
a ) = E (P a ) = E (W )φ−1 .
Theorem 2.17. We have Ea (Sij
a
b

Proof. Clearly Ea (P a ) ⊆ Eb (W )φ−1 . The converse follows quickly from Lemma 2.16 with X = Ea (P a ),
keeping in mind that Ea (P a ) = Eb (W ), by Lemma 2.13.
a
a
MI-domination and the ranks of Reg(Sij
) and Ea (Sij
)

3

In Section 2, we gave a thorough structural description of the regular and idempotent-generated subsemia ) and E (S a ), of the sandwich semigroup S a , under the assumption that the sandwich element
groups, Reg(Sij
a ij
ij
a ∈ Sji was sandwich-regular. The main purpose of the current section is to prove results concerning the
rank (and idempotent rank, where applicable) of these subsemigroups. The main results—see Theorems 3.16
and 3.17—give lower bounds for these ranks, in terms of the (idempotent) ranks of W = (aSij a, ~) and
its idempotent-generated subsemigroup Eb (W ), as well as other parameters such as the dimensions of the
b a . The lower bounds turn out to be exact values in the case that Reg(S a ) satisfies a
rectangular group H
ij
b
natural condition we formulate below and call MI-domination; this is a natural extension of the so-called
a ) is always
RP-domination property from [2]. In all of the motivating examples we study in [11], Reg(Sij
MI-dominated; for natural examples where MI-domination fails to hold, see [10].
For the rest of Section 3, we fix a sandwich-regular element a ∈ Sji , and an inverse b ∈ V (a).

3.1

MI-domination

We begin by defining the MI-domination property, and discussing some related concepts. Let T be a regular
semigroup, and let u ∈ T . Recall that u is regularity-preserving if the variant semigroup T u = (T, ?u ) is
regular [21], and that u is a mid-identity if xuy = xy for all x, y ∈ T [47]. We write
RP(T ) = {u ∈ T : u is regularity-preserving}

and

MI(T ) = {u ∈ T : u is a mid-identity}.

Clearly MI(T ) ⊆ RP(T ), since if u ∈ MI(T ), then the operation ?u is precisely the original operation
of T . It is easy to see that MI(T ) is a rectangular band; that is, u = u2 = uvu for all u, v ∈ MI(T ).
Indeed, u2 = uvu is clear, and if u ∈ MI(T ), then for any x ∈ V (u), we have u = (ux)u = (uux)u = uu.
In particular, MI(T ) ⊆ E(T ). As explained in [21, 30], the motivation for studying regularity-preserving
elements is partly due to the fact that RP(T ) provides a useful “alternative group of units” in the case that
the regular semigroup T is not a monoid.
14

Recall that there is a natural partial order  on the regular semigroup T : for x, y ∈ T , we say that x  y
if and only if x = ey = yf for some idempotents e, f ∈ E(T ); see for example [39]. It is easy to check that if
e, f ∈ E(T ), then e  f if and only if e = f ef . We write Max (T ) for the set of all -maximal idempotents
of T . It is easy to see that MI(T ) ⊆ Max (T ).
Recall from [2] that the regular semigroup T is RP-dominated if every element of T is -below an
element of RP(T ). Analogously, we say that T is MI-dominated if every idempotent of T is -below an
element of MI(T ). (It is easy to see that any element -below a mid-identity must be an idempotent.) It
immediately follows that Max (T ) = MI(T ) in any MI-dominated semigroup.
It will be convenient to state two technical results that we will need on a number of occations. Part (i)
of the next lemma is [2, Lemma 2.5(1)]. Part (ii) is [2, Theorem 1.2]; see also [21, Corollary 4.8].
Lemma 3.1. Let T be a regular semigroup.
(i) If x ∈ T and e, f ∈ E(T ) are such that e  x and x H f , then e  f .
(ii) If T has a mid-identity, then RP(T ) is a rectangular group and consists of those elements of T that are
H -related to a mid-identity.
The next result shows that MI-domination is a weaker condition than RP-domination for regular semigroups with mid-identities.
Proposition 3.2. Suppose T is a regular semigroup with a mid-identity. If T is RP-dominated, then T is
MI-dominated.
Proof. Suppose T is RP-dominated, and let e ∈ E(T ). We must show that e  u for some u ∈ MI(T ). By
assumption, e  x for some x ∈ RP(T ). By Lemma 3.1(ii), x H u for some u ∈ MI(T ). By Lemma 3.1(i),
since e, u ∈ E(T ), e  x and x H u together imply e  u, as required.
The converse of Proposition 3.2 does not hold in general; for example, if T is a regular monoid with
trivial group of units and at least one non-idempotent. We will soon give necessary and sufficient conditions
for an MI-dominated regular semigroup to be RP-dominated; see Proposition 3.4.
Recall that if e is an idempotent of a semigroup T , then the subsemigroup eT e = {ete : t ∈ T } of T is a
monoid with identity e: the so-called local monoid of T with respect to e; these have already appeared in our
investigations (see Remark 2.6). It was shown in [2, Lemma 3.2] that any RP-dominated regular semigroup
with a mid-identity is the union of its local monoids corresponding to mid-identities. Among other things,
the next result generalises this to MI-dominated regular semigroups.
Proposition 3.3. Let T be a regular semigroup, write R = RP(T ) and M = MI(T ), and suppose M 6= ∅.
(i) If e ∈ M , then the map T → eT e : x 7→ exe is an epimorphism.
(ii) If e, f ∈ M , then the maps eT e → f T f : x 7→ f xf and f T f → eT e : x 7→ exe are mutually inverse
isomorphisms.
S
(iii) The set e∈M eT e = M T M = RT R is a subsemigroup of T .
S
(iv) T is MI-dominated if and only if T = e∈M eT e.
Proof. (i) and (ii). These are easily checked.
S
(iii). It is clear that RT R is a subsemigroup of T . It is also clear that e∈M eT e ⊆ M T M ⊆ RT R. Now
suppose x, z ∈ R and y ∈ T ; we must show that xyz ∈ eT e for some e ∈ M . By Lemma 3.1(ii), x H u
and z H v for some u, v ∈ MI(T ). In particular, x = ux and z = zv. Since u, v ∈ MI(T ), it follows that
xyz = (ux)y(zv) = (uv)xyz(uv) ∈ eT e, where e = uv ∈ MI(T ).
(iv). Suppose T is MI-dominated, and let x ∈ T . Since T is regular, x = exf for some e, f ∈ E(T ).
By assumption, e  u and f 
S v, for some u, v ∈ MI(T ). In particular, e = ue and f = f v, and so
x = exf = u(exf )v ∈ M T M S
= e∈M eT e, using (iii) in the last step.
Conversely, suppose T = e∈M eT e, and let u ∈ E(T ). Then u ∈ eT e for some e ∈ M . It immediately
follows that u  e.

15

So MI-dominated regular semigroups are precisely those regular semigroups that are “covered” (in some
non-technical sense) by local monoids corresponding to mid-identities. Before we give the criteria for an MIdominated regular semigroup to be RP-dominated, we first consider the situation of RP-dominated monoids.
Suppose T is a monoid with identity e. Clearly e ∈ MI(T ). On the other hand, if u ∈ MI(T ), then
e = ee = eue = u, so it follows that MI(T ) = {e}. Clearly all idempotents of T are -below e, and so T is
MI-dominated. By Lemma 3.1(ii), RP(T ) = He is the H -class of e: that is, RP(T ) is the group of units
of T (this was also shown in [30, Proposition 1]). Thus, the monoid T is RP-dominated if and only if every
element of T is -below a unit of T . It is also easy to see that if x ∈ T and y ∈ He , then
x  y ⇔ x = f y (∃f ∈ E(T )) ⇔ x = yf (∃f ∈ E(T )).
Thus, a monoid is RP-dominated if and only if it is factorisable in the sense of [5, 46].
Proposition 3.4. Let T be an MI-dominated regular semigroup. Then T is RP-dominated if and only if the
local monoid eT e is RP-dominated (equivalently, factorisable) for each mid-identity e ∈ MI(T ).
Proof. Suppose first that T is RP-dominated, and let e ∈ MI(T ). It is easy to show that eT e is regular.
In order to show that eT e is RP-dominated, let x ∈ eT e. Since T is RP-dominated, we have x  y
(in T ) for some y ∈ RP(T ). So x = f y = yg for some f, g ∈ E(T ). Since e ∈ MI(T ) and x ∈ eT e,
we have x = exe = e(f y)e = (ef e)(eye). A similar calculation gives x = (eye)(ege). It is easy to check
that ef e, ege ∈ E(eT e) and eye ∈ RP(eT e), so it follows that x  eye (in eT e). This shows that eT e is
RP-dominated.
Conversely, suppose eT e is RP-dominated for each e ∈ MI(T ). Let x ∈ T be arbitrary. Since T is
MI-dominated, Proposition 3.3(iv) gives x ∈ eT e for some e ∈ MI(T ). Since eT e is RP-dominated, we have
x  y (in eT e, and hence also in T ) for some y ∈ RP(eT e). But eT e is a monoid, and so RP(eT e) is the
group of units of eT e; thus, y is H -related (in eT e, and hence also in T ) to e. It follows from Lemma 3.1(ii)
that y ∈ RP(T ), and this competes the proof that T is RP-dominated.

3.2

Mid-identities and regularity-preserving elements in P a

a ). Proposition 3.3 clearly applies to
We now bring our focus back to the regular semigroup P a = Reg(Sij
a
a
T = P , since b ∈ MI(P ). The next result describes the mid-identities and regularity-preserving elements
in P a . Recall that W = (aSij a, ~) is a regular monoid with identity a, where ~ is the restriction of the ?b
operation to aSij a ⊆ Sji .

Proposition 3.5. We have
b a ) = V (a) ⊆ Max (P a ),
(i) MI(P a ) = Ea (H
b

b a.
(ii) RP(P a ) = H
b

Proof. (i). Suppose u ∈ MI(P a ). Since MI(P a ) ⊆ Ea (P a ), as noted above, we have u = uau. Since also
a = ababa = a(b ?a b)a = a(b ?a u ?a b)a = abauaba = aua,
we have u ∈ V (a). This shows that MI(P a ) ⊆ V (a).
Next, suppose u ∈ V (a). So u = uau and a = aua. The former shows that u is an idempotent of P a .
Using the latter, we see that for any x ∈ P a , u ~ x = auaxa = axa = x, and similarly x ~ u = x, so that
a
b a . Since we have already observed that u is an
u = a = b is the identity of W . Thus, u Hb b, so that u ∈ H
b
a
b ). Thus, V (a) ⊆ Ea (H
b a ).
idempotent, it follows that u ∈ Ea (H
b
b
b a ). So u = b = a is the unique idempotent of H b = Hab . That is, aua = a. It
Finally, suppose u ∈ Ea (H
b
b
a
b a ) ⊆ MI(P a ).
follows that for any x, y ∈ P , x?a u?a y = x(aua)y = xay = x?a y, giving u ∈ MI(P a ). So Ea (H
b
We have already noted that MI(T ) ⊆ Max (T ) in any regular semigroup T .
S
(ii). Since P a is regular and MI(P a ) 6= ∅, Lemma 3.1(ii) says that RP(P a ) = e∈MI(P a ) Hea . Since MI(P a ) =
ba
b a is a group, it follows that RP(P a ) =
E
and since every H a -class contained in H
b
Sa (H b ), by apart (i),
b a.
H
=
H
a
b
e
e∈Ea (H )
b
b

Before we move on, it will be convenient to prove the following result, which gives an alternative descripb a = RP(P a ) in a certain special case.
tion of H
b
16

b a = Da = J P a in P a .
Lemma 3.6. If Ja~ = Ha~ in W , then H
b
b
b
a
a
b a ⊆ Da ⊆ J P a . Let x ∈ J P a ; we must show
Proof. Since Hb ⊆ D a ⊆ J P , by Lemma 2.11, we have H
b
b
b
b
a
b a . Now, x ∈ J P gives x ∈ J ~ = Ja~ = Ha~ . So x H ~ a = b, giving x Hba b, and x ∈ H
b a.
that x ∈ H
b
b
b
b

In particular, if W is stable (which occurs if W is finite, for example, by [43, Theorem A.2.4]), then
Ja~ = Ha~ , as the next lemma shows.
Lemma 3.7. Let M be a monoid with identity e.
(i) If every element of Je is R-stable, then Je = Re .
(ii) If every element of Je is L -stable, then Je = Le .
(iii) If every element of Je is stable, then Je = He .
Proof. We just prove (i), since (ii) is dual, and (iii) follows from (i) and (ii), as He = Re ∩ Le . Suppose
every element of Je is R-stable. Clearly Re ⊆ Je . Conversely, if x ∈ Je , then e J x = ex; R-stability of x
then gives e R ex = x, so x ∈ Re .
For e ∈ MI(P a ) = V (a), we write We for the local monoid e ?a P a ?a e of P a . By parts (i) and (ii) of
Proposition 3.3, we know that all of these local monoids are isomorphic to each other, and are homomorphic
images of P a itself; the next result takes this further, and also explains our choice of notation.
Proposition 3.8. For any e ∈ V (a), the restriction of φ to We is an isomorphism φ|We : We → W .
Proof. It is easy to check that the map W → We : x 7→ exe is the inverse of φ|We .
a ) is MI-dominated, then Propositions 3.3(iv) and 3.8 say that P a is a union of
Thus, if P a = Reg(Sij
isomorphic copies of W = (aSij a, ~). All of the examples we consider in [11] satisfy the MI-domination
property; for some natural examples that do not, see [10].

3.3

Rank and idempotent rank

Recall that the rank of a semigroup T is the cardinal

rank(T ) = min |A| : A ⊆ T, hAi = T .
If T is idempotent-generated, then the idempotent rank of T is

idrank(T ) = min |A| : A ⊆ E(T ), hAi = T .
As noted above, we wish to obtain formulae for the rank of P a , and for the rank and idempotent rank
of Ea (P a ). Before this, we must first prove some preliminary results. If M is a monoid, we will write GM
for the group of units of M : that is, the H -class of the identity element of M . Recall from [27] that the
relative rank of a semigroup T with respect to a subset A ⊆ T is

rank(T : A) = min |B| : B ⊆ T, hA ∪ Bi = T .
If T is idempotent-generated, then the relative idempotent rank of T with respect to a subset A ⊆ E(T ) is

idrank(T : A) = min |B| : B ⊆ E(T ), hA ∪ Bi = T .
Lemma 3.9. Suppose M is an idempotent-generated monoid. Then
(i) GM = {idM },

(iii) rank(M ) = 1 + rank(M : GM ),

(ii) M \ GM is an ideal of M ,

(iv) idrank(M ) = 1 + idrank(M : GM ).

17

Proof. (i). Clearly {idM } ⊆ GM . Conversely, suppose g ∈ GM , and consider an expression g = e1 · · · ek ,
where e1 , . . . , ek ∈ E(M ) and k is minimal. Then g = e1 g, so idM = gg −1 = e1 gg −1 = e1 idM = e1 . If
k ≥ 2, then we would have g = idM · e2 · · · ek = e2 · · · ek , contradicting the minimality of k. So k = 1, and
g = e1 = idM , as required.
(ii). Suppose x ∈ M \ GM and y ∈ M . We must show that xy, yx ∈ M \ GM . We just do this for xy,
as the proof for yx is dual. Suppose to the contrary that xy ∈ GM = {idM }. Write x = e1 · · · ek , where
e1 , . . . , ek ∈ E(M ) and k is minimal. Then x = e1 x, so that idM = xy = e1 xy = e1 idM = e1 . As in the
previous paragraph, we deduce that k = 1, in which case x = e1 = idM , contradicting x ∈ M \ GM .
(iii) and (iv). These follow immediately from the fact that any generating set for M must contain idM , which
itself follows from the fact that M \ GM is an ideal.

The next technical result is pivotal in what follows. It may be regarded as a strengthening of Lemma 2.16
under a certain condition that is weaker than MI-domination.
Lemma 3.10. Suppose every idempotent of P a is -below a maximal one, and suppose X ⊆ P a is such that
Eb (W ) ⊆ hXib and Max (P a ) ⊆ hXia . Then hXib φ−1 = hXia .
Proof. Clearly hXia ⊆ hXib φ−1 . Conversely, by Lemma 2.16, we know that hXib φ−1 ⊆ hX ∪Ea (P a )ia , so it
suffices to show that Ea (P a ) ⊆ hXia . With this in mind, let e ∈ Ea (P a ). Then e  f for some f ∈ Max (P a ).
So e = f ?a e?a f = f aeaf . Now, e ∈ Eb (W ) ⊆ hXib , so we may write e = x1 ~· · ·~xk for some x1 , . . . , xk ∈ X:
that is, aea = ax1 ax2 a · · · axk a. But then e = f aeaf = f ax1 ax2 a · · · axk af = f ?a x1 ?a x2 ?a · · · ?a xk ?a f .
Since f ∈ Max (P a ) ⊆ hXia , it follows that e ∈ hXia , as required.
We will use the following result of Ruškuc [44] several times in our subsequent investigations; the various
statements are spread across several results and proofs (concerning the more general completely 0-simple
semigroups) from [44]. Thus, for convenience, we give a short proof in the special case of rectangular groups.
Proposition 3.11. Let T be an r × l rectangular group over G. Then
(i) rank(T ) = max(r, l, rank(G)),
(ii) any generating set for T contains elements from every R-class, and from every L -class, of T ,
(iii) if rank(T ) = r, then there is a minimum-size generating set for T that is a cross-section of the R-classes
of T ,
(iv) if rank(T ) = l, then there is a minimum-size generating set for T that is a cross-section of the L -classes
of T .
Proof. Throughout the proof, we assume T = I ×G×J, with multiplication (i1 , g, j1 )(i2 , h, j2 ) = (i1 , gh, j2 ),
and with r = |I| and l = |J|. We fix a generating set Γ of G with |Γ| = rank(G). We also fix some set X
with |X| = max(r, l, rank(G)), and surjective mappings
α : X → I : x 7→ ix ,

β : X → J : x 7→ jx ,

γ : X → Γ : x 7→ gx ,

assuming that α (or β or γ) is a bijection if r = |X| (or l = |X| or rank(G) = |X|, respectively). For
x ∈ X, put tx = (ix , gx , jx ). We first claim that T = hΩi, where Ω = {tx : x ∈ X}. Indeed, suppose i ∈ I,
j ∈ J and g ∈ G are arbitrary. Then we may write i = ix , j = jy and gx−1 ggy−1 = gz1 · · · gzk , for some
x, y, z1 , . . . , zk ∈ X. But then (i, g, j) = tx tz1 · · · tzk ty , establishing the claim.

(ii). Suppose T = hΥi, and let t = (i, g, j) ∈ T be arbitrary. Then Rt = {i}×G×J and Lt = I ×G×{j}. Now
consider an expression t = (i1 , g1 , j1 ) · · · (ik , gk , jk ), where the factors belong to Υ. Then t = (i1 , g1 · · · gk , jk ),
so that i = i1 and j = jk , giving (i1 , g1 , j1 ) ∈ Υ ∩ Rt and (ik , gk , jk ) ∈ Υ ∩ Lt .

(i). By the first paragraph, rank(T ) ≤ |Ω| = |X| = max(r, l, rank(G)). By (ii), rank(T ) ≥ |T /R| = |I|,
and similarly rank(T ) ≥ |J|. Since the map T → G : (i, g, j) 7→ g is an epimorphism, we also have
rank(T ) ≥ rank(G).
(iii) and (iv). These both follow from the first paragraph. For example, if r = rank(T ) = |X|, then the fact
that α is a bijection shows that Ω is a cross-section of T /R.
18

The next general result will allow us to quickly derive the promised results concerning the rank of P a and
the (idempotent) rank of Ea (P a ). Recall that a subsemigroup of a semigroup T is full if it contains E(T ).
It is easy to show that any full subsemigroup of a rectangular group I × G × J is of the form I × K × J,
where K is some submonoid of G.
b a /R a | and l = |H
b a /L a |, let M be a full submonoid of W for which M \ GM
Proposition 3.12. Let r = |H
b
b
is an ideal of M , and GM = M ∩ GW , and put N = M φ−1 . Then
rank(N ) ≥ rank(M : GM ) + max(r, l, rank(GM )),
with equality if P a is MI-dominated.
b a is a
Proof. First, note that N is a full subsemigroup of P a , by Lemma 2.13. In particular, N ∩ H
b
a
a
a
~
b , and we recall that H
b is an r × l rectangular group over H ∼
full subsemigroup of H
b
b
b = Ha = GW ,
by Theorem 2.14(iii). From the assumption that GM = M ∩ GW , and the above observation about full
b a is an r × l rectangular group over
subsemigroups of rectangular groups, it quickly follows that N ∩ H
b
a
a
b = V (a) ?a K ?a V (a); recall that V (a) = Ea (H
b a ). But
some subgroup K of Hb . In other words, N ∩ H
b
b
b a )φ = M ∩ Hab = GM . Since φ|H a is injective (by Theorem 2.14(ii)), so too is φ|K , and it
Kφ = (N ∩ H
b
b
b a is a rectangular group, it then follows from Proposition 3.11 that
follows that K ∼
= GM . Since N ∩ H
b
b ab ) = max(r, l, rank(K)) = max(r, l, rank(GM )).
rank(N ∩ H
b a and Z = X \ H
b a . Let u ∈ N ∩ H
b a , and
Now suppose N = hXia , with |X| = rank(N ), and put Y = X ∩ H
b
b
b
consider an expression u = x1 ?a · · · ?a xk , where x1 , . . . , xk ∈ X. Then u = x1 ~ · · · ~ xk . Since u ∈ GM , and
b a,
since M \ GM is an ideal of M , it follows that x1 , . . . , xk ∈ GM . Consequently, x1 , . . . , xk ∈ GM φ−1 ⊆ H
b
b a = hY ia . Consequently,
giving x1 , . . . , xk ∈ Y . It follows that N ∩ H
b
b ab ) = max(r, l, rank(GM )).
|Y | ≥ rank(N ∩ H

(3.13)

Next, we note that M = N φ = hXia φ = hXib = hY ∪ Zib = hhY ib ∪ Zib = hGM ∪ Zib , so that
(3.14)

|Z| ≥ |Z| ≥ rank(M : GM ).

Equations (3.13) and (3.14) then give rank(N ) = |X| = |Y | + |Z| ≥ max(r, l, rank(GM )) + rank(M : GM ),
as required.
For the remainder of the proof, suppose P a is MI-dominated. It suffices to give a generating set of the
b a ) = max(r, l, rank(GM )).
b a = hY ia with |Y | = rank(N ∩ H
stated size. With this in mind, suppose N ∩ H
b
b
Also, let Z ⊆ P a be such that M = hGM ∪ Zib and |Z| = rank(M : GM ). Put X = Y ∪ Z. Since X has the
desired size, by construction, it suffices to show that N = hXia . Now,
b ab )φ ∪ Zib = hY ia φ ∪ Z
M = hGM ∪ Zib = h(N ∩ H

b

= hY ib ∪ Z

b

= hY ∪ Zib = hXib .

Also note that Eb (W ) ⊆ M = hXib , as M is full, and that
b ab ) ⊆ N ∩ H
b ab = hY ia ⊆ hXia .
Max (P a ) = MI(P a ) = V (a) = Ea (H
It follows from Lemma 3.10 that N = M φ−1 = hXib φ−1 = hXia . As noted above, this completes the
proof.
Remark 3.15. In the statement of Proposition 3.12 (see also Theorems 3.16 and 3.17), the condition “P a
is MI-dominated” is equivalent to “N is MI-dominated”. Indeed, this follows from the following claim (and
the fact that idempotents satisfy e  f ⇔ e = f ef in any (regular) semigroup), since N is full (as observed
at the beginning of the above proof):
If U is a full subsemigroup of a regular semigroup T with a mid-identity, then MI(U ) = MI(T ).
To establish the claim, first suppose u ∈ MI(T ). In particular, u ∈ E(T ) ⊆ U , and it immediately follows
that u ∈ MI(U ). Conversely, suppose u ∈ MI(U ), and let e ∈ MI(T ) be arbitrary. Since e ∈ E(T ) ⊆ U , it
follows that e = ee = eue. Then for any x, y ∈ T , xy = xey = xeuey = xuy, giving u ∈ MI(T ).
19

The two most obvious full submonoids of W are W itself, and Eb (W ), the idempotent-generated submonoid of W . Recall that W is a monoid with group of units GW = Hab . The next result follows immediately
from Proposition 3.12, with M = W , noting that W φ−1 = P a , as φ is surjective.
b a /R a | and l = |H
b a /L a |, and suppose W \ GW is an ideal of W . Then
Theorem 3.16. Let r = |H
b
b
rank(P a ) ≥ rank(W : GW ) + max(r, l, rank(GW )),
with equality if P a is MI-dominated.
a ) is somewhat simpler, since the group of
The statement for the corresponding result on Ea (P a ) = Ea (Sij
units of Eb (W ) is {a}, and Eb (W ) \ {a} is an ideal, by Lemma 3.9.

b a /R a | and l = |H
b a /L a |. Then
Theorem 3.17. Let r = |H
b
b
rank(Ea (P a )) ≥ rank(Eb (W )) + max(r, l) − 1

and

idrank(Ea (P a )) ≥ idrank(Eb (W )) + max(r, l) − 1,

with equality in both if P a is MI-dominated.
Proof. Put M = Eb (W ), so that N = M φ−1 = Ea (P a ), by Theorem 2.17. By Lemma 3.9, M \ GM is an
ideal of M , so the conditions of Proposition 3.12 are satisfied, and we obtain
rank(Ea (P a )) = rank(N ) ≥ rank(M : GM ) + max(r, l, rank(GM )),
with equality in the MI-dominated case. Lemma 3.9 gives rank(M : GM ) = rank(M ) − 1, and also
GM = {idM } = {a}; from the latter, we immediately obtain rank(GM ) = 1, and so max(r, l, rank(GM )) =
max(r, l).
b a = aφ−1 = V (a) =
Next we prove the assertion about idrank(N ). Since GM = {a}, we have N ∩ H
b
a
a
b ). Suppose M = hXia , where X ⊆ Ea (P ), and put Y = X ∩ V (a) and Z = X \ V (a). As in the
Ea (H
b
proof of Proposition 3.12:
(i) V (a) = hY ia , so |Y | ≥ rank(V (a)) = max(r, l),
(ii) M = hGM ∪ Zib = h{a} ∪ Zib , so that |Z| ≥ |Z| ≥ idrank(M : GM ) = idrank(M ) − 1,
(iii) if P a is MI-dominated, then N = hY1 ∪ Z1 ia if Y1 , Z1 ⊆ Ea (P a ) are such that V (a) = hY1 ia and
h{a} ∪ Z 1 ib = M , with |Y1 | = max(r, l) and |Z1 | = idrank(M : GM ).
It follows from (i) and (ii) that idrank(N ) ≥ idrank(Eb (W )) − 1 + max(r, l), while (iii) leads to the converse
in the MI-dominated case.
Remark 3.18. While MI-domination is sufficient to obtain equality in Theorems 3.16 and 3.17, it is not
necessary; see [10].
Remark 3.19. If P a is MI-dominated, then it follows from Theorem 3.17 that
rank(Eb (W )) = idrank(Eb (W )) ⇒ rank(Ea (P a )) = idrank(Ea (P a )).
The converse holds if r, l < ℵ0 .

4

Inverse monoids

a ) developed above in Sections 2 and 3 relied on the assumption that
The general theory of P a = Reg(Sij
the sandwich element a ∈ Sji is sandwich-regular : that is, every element of aSij a is regular (in S). In this
short section, we prove a result that shows how the general theory simplifies substantially in the case that a
satisfies a certain stronger version of sandwich-regularity.
Recall that a semigroup T is inverse if, for all x ∈ T , there exists a unique y ∈ T such that x = xyx
and y = yxy. In particular, inverse semigroups are regular. If x is an element of the partial semigroup
S ≡ (S, ·, I, λ, ρ), we say that x is uniquely regular if the set V (x) = {y ∈ S : x = xyx, y = yxy} has size 1.
We say that a ∈ Sji is uniquely sandwich-regular if every element of {a} ∪ aSij a is uniquely regular (in S).
For example, every element is uniquely regular (and, hence, uniquely sandwich-regular) in a (locally small)
inverse category, as defined in [29]; see also [6, Section 2.3.2].

20

Proposition 4.1. Suppose a ∈ Sji is uniquely sandwich-regular, and that V (a) = {b}. Then all maps in the
diagram (2.7) are isomorphisms, and all semigroups are inverse monoids.
a ) is a monoid with identity b. Let x ∈ P a , and let y ∈ V (x).
Proof. We first show that P a = Reg(Sij
a
It is routine to check that x, xab, bax ∈ V (aya). Since aya ∈ aSij a is uniquely regular, it follows that
x = xab = bax: that is, x = x ?a b = b ?a x, as required.
Next we show that φ is injective. Since φ = ψ1 φ1 = ψ2 φ2 and all maps in (2.7) are epimorphisms, it
will then follow that all maps are injective, and hence isomorphisms. So suppose x, y ∈ P a are such that
axa = xφ = yφ = aya. Then, since b is the identity element of P a , x = baxab = bayab = y.
To complete the proof, it suffices to show that P a is inverse. We know that P a is regular. Suppose now
that u ∈ P a and that x, y ∈ Va (u). It follows quickly that x, y ∈ V (aua) so, since aua ∈ aSij a is uniquely
regular, it follows that x = y, as required.

Remark 4.2. Note that many of the results of Sections 2 and 3 become trivial, or even vacuous, if a ∈ Sji
is uniquely sandwich-regular. For example:
• the map ψ = (ψ1 , ψ2 ) from Theorem 2.10 is trivially injective,
a

• the Kb relations of Section 2.4 are identical to the K
rem 2.14 are just groups,

a

relations, so the rectangular groups in Theo-

• Theorem 2.17 is completely trivial,
• Proposition 3.5 says that MI(P a ) = {b} and RP(P a ) = Hba consist only of the identity and the units,
respectively, which is true in any monoid,
• Theorem 3.16 reduces to “rank(W ) = rank(W : GW ) + rank(GW ) if W \ GW is an ideal of W ”,
• Theorem 3.17 reduces to “rank(Ea (P a )) = rank(Eb (W )) and idrank(Ea (P a )) = idrank(Eb (W ))”.

5

The rank of a sandwich semigroup

We conclude with another short section; this one contains some remarks about the rank of a sandwich semia . Unlike the case with the regular and idempotent-generated subsemigroups, Reg(S a ) and E (S a ),
group Sij
a ij
ij
a ), even under assumptions such as sandwich-regularity of a,
we are not able to give precise values for rank(Sij
though we can state some rough lower bounds that will be useful in our concrete applications in [11]. We
fix a partial semigroup S ≡ (S, ·, I, λ, ρ), and a sandwich element a ∈ Sji for some i, j ∈ I, but we make no
further assumptions (such as regularity of a).
Recall that we have orders ≤J and ≤J a on the sets Sij /J and Sij /J a of all J - and J a -classes in Sij .
a must include elements from every maximal J a -class (consider a
It is clear that any generating set for Sij
factorisation over the generators of an element from such a maximal J a -class). The next result concerns
maximal J -classes, and provides more precise information under certain stability assumptions that will
occur in our concrete examples.
a = hXi , and that J is a maximal J -class in S . Then
Lemma 5.1. Suppose Sij
a
ij

(i) X ∩ J 6= ∅,
(ii) if every element of aSij is R-stable, then X has non-trivial intersection with each R-class of J,
(iii) if every element of Sij a is L -stable, then X has non-trivial intersection with each L -class of J.
Proof. (i). Let x ∈ J, and consider an expression x = x1 ?a · · · ?a xk , where x1 , . . . , xk ∈ X. Note that
x ≤J xi for all i. Since Jx = J is maximal, it follows that x J xi for all i. In particular, each xi belongs
to X ∩ J.

(ii). Suppose every element of aSij is R-stable. To prove (ii), it suffices to prove that x1 R x. This is clear
if k = 1, so suppose k ≥ 2, and write z = x2 ?a · · · ?a xk , so that x = x1 ?a z. From above, x1 J x = x1 (az).
Since az ∈ aSij is R-stable, it follows that x1 R x1 (az) = x, as required. Part (iii) is dual.

21

In particular, if every element of aSij is R-stable, every element of Sij a is L -stable, and the maximal
J -classes of Sij are {Jk : k ∈ K}, then Lemma 5.1 gives
X

a
rank(Sij
)≥
max |Jk /R|, |Jk /L | .
k∈K

In several examples we consider in [11], there will be a single maximal J -class in Sij . In some cases, but
a ); see for example [11, Theorems 2.63 and 2.69].
not all, the above lower bound is the exact value of rank(Sij

Acknowledgements
This work was initiated during visits of the third author to Chiang Mai in 2015, and to Novi Sad in 2016; he
thanks these institutions for their generous hospitality. The first and second authors are supported by Grant
Nos. 174019 and 174018, respectively, of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development
of the Republic of Serbia. The first and third authors would like to thank Macchiato Fax for providing us
with many a Klub sendvič. Finally, we thank the referee for his/her careful reading of a lengthy pair of
articles, and for a number of helpful suggestions.

References
[1] Michael Barr. Catégories exactes. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A-B, 272:A1501–A1503, 1971.
[2] T. S. Blyth and J. B. Hickey. RP-dominated regular semigroups. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A, 99(1-2):185–191,
1984.
[3] W. P. Brown. Generalized matrix algebras. Canad. J. Math., 7:188–190, 1955.
[4] Karen Chase. Sandwich semigroups of binary relations. Discrete Math., 28(3):231–236, 1979.
[5] S. Y. Chen and S. C. Hsieh. Factorizable inverse semigroups. Semigroup Forum, 8(4):283–297, 1974.
[6] J. R. B. Cockett and Stephen Lack. Restriction categories. I. Categories of partial maps. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 270(12):223–259, 2002.
[7] R. J. H. Dawlings. Sets of idempotents that generate the semigroup of singular endomorphisms of a finite-dimensional
vector space. Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. (2), 25(2):133–139, 1982.
[8] Igor Dolinka and James East. Variants of finite full transformation semigroups. Internat. J. Algebra Comput., 25(8):1187–
1222, 2015.
[9] Igor Dolinka and James East. Semigroups of rectangular matrices under a sandwich operation. Semigroup Forum, to
appear, arXiv:1503.03139.
[10] Igor Dolinka, Ivana Ðurđev, and James East. Sandwich semigroups in diagram categories. In preparation.
[11] Igor Dolinka, Ivana Ðurđev, James East, Preeyanuch Honyam, Kritsada Sangkhanan, Jintana Sanwong, and Worachead
Sommanee. Sandwich semigroups in locally small categories II: Transformations. Preprint, 2017, arXiv:1710.01890.
[12] J. East, A. Egri-Nagy, J. D. Mitchell, and Y. Péresse. Computing finite semigroups. J. Symbolic Comput., to appear,
arXiv:1510.01868.
[13] Charles Ehresmann. Catégories et structures (in French). Dunod, Paris, 1965.
[14] J. A. Erdos. On products of idempotent matrices. Glasgow Math. J., 8:118–122, 1967.
[15] D. G. Fitz-Gerald and G. B. Preston. Divisibility of binary relations. Bull. Austral. Math. Soc., 5:75–86, 1971.
[16] Olexandr Ganyushkin and Volodymyr Mazorchuk. Classical finite transformation semigroups, an introduction, volume 9
of Algebra and Applications. Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London, 2009.
[17] Gracinda Gomes and John M. Howie. On the ranks of certain finite semigroups of transformations. Math. Proc. Cambridge
Philos. Soc., 101(3):395–403, 1987.
[18] Gracinda M. S. Gomes and John M. Howie. On the ranks of certain semigroups of order-preserving transformations.
Semigroup Forum, 45(3):272–282, 1992.
[19] R. Gray. Idempotent rank in endomorphism monoids of finite independence algebras. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A,
137(2):303–331, 2007.
[20] Nicolas Guay and Stewart Wilcox. Almost cellular algebras. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 219(9):4105–4116, 2015.
[21] J. B. Hickey. Semigroups under a sandwich operation. Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. (2), 26(3):371–382, 1983.
[22] J. B. Hickey. On variants of a semigroup. Bull. Austral. Math. Soc., 34(3):447–459, 1986.
[23] J. M. Howie. The subsemigroup generated by the idempotents of a full transformation semigroup. J. London Math. Soc.,
41:707–716, 1966.
[24] J. M. Howie. Idempotent generators in finite full transformation semigroups. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A, 81(34):317–323, 1978.
[25] John M. Howie. Fundamentals of semigroup theory, volume 12 of London Mathematical Society Monographs. New Series.
The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995. Oxford Science Publications.
[26] John M. Howie and Robert B. McFadden. Idempotent rank in finite full transformation semigroups. Proc. Roy. Soc.
Edinburgh Sect. A, 114(3-4):161–167, 1990.
[27] John M. Howie, N. Ruškuc, and P. M. Higgins. On relative ranks of full transformation semigroups. Comm. Algebra,
26(3):733–748, 1998.

22

[28] Thomas Jech. Set theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003. The third millennium
edition, revised and expanded.
[29] J. Kastl. Inverse categories. In Algebraische Modelle, Kategorien und Gruppoide, volume 7 of Stud. Algebra Anwendungen,
pages 51–60. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1979.
[30] T. A. Khan and M. V. Lawson. Variants of regular semigroups. Semigroup Forum, 62(3):358–374, 2001.
[31] F. William Lawvere. Linearization of graphic toposes via Coxeter groups. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 168(2-3):425–436, 2002.
Category theory 1999 (Coimbra).
[32] E. S. Lyapin. Semigroups (in Russian). Gosudarstv. Izdat. Fiz.-Mat. Lit., Moscow, 1960.
[33] Saunders Mac Lane. Categories for the working mathematician, volume 5 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. SpringerVerlag, New York, second edition, 1998.
[34] K. D. Magill, Jr. and S. Subbiah. Green’s relations for regular elements of sandwich semigroups. I. General results. Proc.
London Math. Soc. (3), 31(2):194–210, 1975.
[35] K. D. Magill, Jr. and S. Subbiah. Green’s relations for regular elements of sandwich semigroups. II. Semigroups of continuous
functions. J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A, 25(1):45–65, 1978.
[36] Kenneth D. Magill, Jr. Semigroup structures for families of functions. I. Some homomorphism theorems. J. Austral. Math.
Soc., 7:81–94, 1967.
[37] Kenneth D. Magill, Jr. Semigroup structures for families of functions. II. Continuous functions. J. Austral. Math. Soc.,
7:95–107, 1967.
[38] Paul Martin. Diagram categories, representation theory, statistical mechanics. In Noncommutative rings, group rings,
diagram algebras and their applications, volume 456 of Contemp. Math., pages 99–136. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,
2008.
[39] H. Mitsch. A natural partial order for semigroups. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 97(3):384–388, 1986.
[40] P. A. Azeef Muhammed. Cross-connections and variants of the full transformation semigroup. Preprint, 2017,
arXiv:1703.04139.
[41] W. D. Munn. On semigroup algebras. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 51:1–15, 1955.
[42] D. Rees. On semi-groups. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 36:387–400, 1940.
[43] John Rhodes and Benjamin Steinberg. The q-theory of finite semigroups. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer,
New York, 2009.
[44] N. Ruškuc. On the rank of completely 0-simple semigroups. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 116(2):325–338, 1994.
[45] Bret Tilson. Categories as algebra: an essential ingredient in the theory of monoids. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 48(1-2):83–198,
1987.
[46] Yupaporn Tirasupa. Factorizable transformation semigroups. Semigroup Forum, 18(1):15–19, 1979.
[47] Miyuki Yamada. A note on middle unitary semigroups. Kōdai Math. Sem. Rep., 7:49–52, 1955.

23

