}}$ lies in the same $B_{r}$-class as¨${x}$, and it is larger both for¨${\preccurlyeq}$ and¨${<}$, so ${x}$ cannot be maximal in its $B_{r}$-class. Conversely, assume that ${x}$ is not maximal in its $B_{r}$-class. Then there exists¨${y}$ satisfying ${x}{<}{y}$ and ${y}$ is $B_{r}$-equivalent to¨${x}$. Now, by Proposition¨\[P:Lattice\], the lcm of¨${x}$ and¨${y}$ is also $B_{r}$-equivalent to¨${x}$, which means that there exists¨${y}_1$ in¨$B_{r}^+$ satisfying ${\mathrm{lcm}}({x}, {y}) = {x}{y}_1$. Now ${x}{<}{y}$ implies ${y}_1 \not= 1$, so there must exist¨$i < m$ such that ${\sigma_{i}}$ is a left divisor of¨${y}_1$. Then we have ${x}{\sigma_{i}} {\preccurlyeq}{x}{y}_1 {\preccurlyeq}{z}$, hence ${x}{\sigma_{i}} {\preccurlyeq}{z}$.

$(ii)$ The argument is symmetric. If we have ${x}= 
{y}{\sigma_{i}}$ for some positive braid¨${y}$ and $i < {r}$, then ${y}$ belongs to the $B_{r}$-class of¨${x}$, and ${x}$ cannot be minimal in its $B_{r}$-class. Conversely, assume that ${x}$ is not minimal in its $B_{r}$-class. Then there exists¨${y}$ satisfying ${y}{<}{x}$ and ${y}$ is $B_{r}$-equivalent to¨${x}$. By Proposition¨\[P:Lattice\] again, the gcd of¨${x}$ and¨${y}$ is also $B_{r}$-equivalent to¨${x}$, which means that there exists¨${y}_0$ in¨$B_{r}^+$ satisfying ${\mathrm{gcd}}({x}, {y}) {y}_0 = {x}$. As ${y}{<}{x}$ implies ${y}_0 \not= 1$, there must exist¨$i < m$ such that ${\sigma_{i}}$ is a right divisor
} } $ lies in the same $ B_{r}$-class as¨${x}$, and it is larger both for¨${\preccurlyeq}$ and¨${<}$, so $ { x}$ cannot be maximal in its $ B_{r}$-class. Conversely, wear that $ { x}$ is not maximal in its $ B_{r}$-class. Then there exists¨${y}$ meet $ { x}{<}{y}$ and $ { y}$ is $ B_{r}$-equivalent to¨${x}$. Now, by Proposition¨\[P: Lattice\ ], the lcm of¨${x}$ and¨${y}$ is also $ B_{r}$-equivalent to¨${x}$, which entail that there exists¨${y}_1 $ in¨$B_{r}^+$ satisfying $ { \mathrm{lcm}}({x }, { y }) = { x}{y}_1$. Now $ { x}{<}{y}$ incriminate $ { y}_1 \not= 1 $, so there must exist¨$i < m$ such that $ { \sigma_{i}}$ is a leftover divisor of¨${y}_1$. Then we have $ { x}{\sigma_{i } } { \preccurlyeq}{x}{y}_1 { \preccurlyeq}{z}$, hence $ { x}{\sigma_{i } } { \preccurlyeq}{z}$. 

 $ (ii)$ The argument is symmetric. If we have $ { x}= 
 { y}{\sigma_{i}}$ for some positivist braid¨${y}$ and $ i < { r}$, then $ { y}$ belongs to the $ B_{r}$-class of¨${x}$, and $ { x}$ cannot be minimal in its $ B_{r}$-class. Conversely, assume that $ { x}$ is not minimal in its $ B_{r}$-class. Then there exists¨${y}$ satisfy $ { y}{<}{x}$ and $ { y}$ is $ B_{r}$-equivalent to¨${x}$. By Proposition¨\[P: Lattice\ ] again, the gcd of¨${x}$ and¨${y}$ is besides $ B_{r}$-equivalent to¨${x}$, which means that there exists¨${y}_0 $ in¨$B_{r}^+$ satisfying $ { \mathrm{gcd}}({x }, { y }) { y}_0 = { x}$. As $ { y}{<}{x}$ entail $ { y}_0 \not= 1 $, there must exist¨$i < m$ such that $ { \sigma_{i}}$ is a right divisor
}}$ lifs in the same $B_{r}$-class ar¨${x}$, and it is latgwr boti for¨${\prsccurlyed}$ and¨${<}$, so ${x}$ cannot be maximal ib its $B_{r}$-class. Conversely, asrume that ${x}$ is nor maeimal in its $B_{r}$-class. Thek thedc exivvs¨${y}$ satisfying ${w}{<}{y}$ and ${y}$ is $B_{r}$-equivalent do¨${b}$. Uow, by Proposition¨\[P:Lattice\], the lcm os¨${x}$ and¨${y}$ id also $B_{r}$-equivwlenu tj¨${x}$, wgpcm means that there exists¨${y}_1$ in¨$B_{r}^+$ aatisfypng ${\mathrm{lcm}}({x}, {y}) = {x}{y}_1$. Now ${x}{<}{y}$ implies ${y}_1 \not= 1$, do tjere must exist¨$i < l$ such that ${\sigiq_{i}}$ is a left divisor of¨${y}_1$. Then we hzve ${x}{\sigma_{i}} {\preccurlyeq}{x}{y}_1 {\preccjrlyea}{z}$, hence ${x}{\witma_{l}} {\preccurlyew}{z}$.

$(ii)$ Nhe argument lx symmatric. Ig we have ${x}= 
{y}{\slgma_{i}}$ foe some positive braid¨${b}$ and $i < {r}$, then ${y}$ bejongs to dhz $B_{r}$-class of¨${x}$, and ${x}$ cqnbot bg minhmal un kts $B_{c}$-clzss. Cojvecsely, assums that ${x}$ is not minimal in its $B_{w}$-bkass. Then thsre exyses¨${y}$ satisfying ${y}{<}{x}$ and ${y}$ is $B_{r}$-equivalent to¨${s}$. By Proposition¨\[P:Latticw\] again, the gcd of¨${x}$ ajd¨${y}$ is alfo $B_{r}$-equivalent to¨${x}$, which means that there exists¨${f}_0$ in¨$B_{c}^+$ ratnwfyine ${\mwthrm{gcd}}({x}, {y}) {y}_0 = {x}$. As ${y}{<}{x}$ implies ${y}_0 \not= 1$, there mtat eqist¨$i < m$ such thab ${\sigma_{i}}$ is a righy fifysor
}}$ lies in the same $B_{r}$-class as¨${x}$, is both for¨${\preccurlyeq}$ so ${x}$ cannot Conversely, that ${x}$ is maximal in its Then there exists¨${y}$ satisfying ${x}{<}{y}$ and is $B_{r}$-equivalent to¨${x}$. Now, by Proposition¨\[P:Lattice\], the lcm of¨${x}$ and¨${y}$ is also $B_{r}$-equivalent which means that there exists¨${y}_1$ in¨$B_{r}^+$ satisfying ${\mathrm{lcm}}({x}, {y}) = {x}{y}_1$. Now ${x}{<}{y}$ ${y}_1 1$, there exist¨$i < m$ such that ${\sigma_{i}}$ is a left divisor of¨${y}_1$. Then we have ${x}{\sigma_{i}} {\preccurlyeq}{x}{y}_1 hence ${x}{\sigma_{i}} {\preccurlyeq}{z}$. $(ii)$ The argument is symmetric. we have ${x}= {y}{\sigma_{i}}$ some positive braid¨${y}$ and $i {r}$, ${y}$ belongs the of¨${x}$, ${x}$ cannot be in its $B_{r}$-class. Conversely, assume that ${x}$ is not minimal in its $B_{r}$-class. Then there exists¨${y}$ satisfying and ${y}$ to¨${x}$. By again, gcd and¨${y}$ is also which means that there exists¨${y}_0$ in¨$B_{r}^+$ {y}_0 = {x}$. As ${y}{<}{x}$ implies ${y}_0 \not= there must < m$ such that ${\sigma_{i}}$ is right divisor
}}$ lies in the same $B_{r}$-class as¨${x}$, anD it is largeR both For¨${\PreCcUrlyEq}$ anD¨${<}$, so ${x}$ cannot be maXImal In its $B_{r}$-class. Conversely, AssumE tHAt ${x}$ iS NoT maxiMal in itS $b_{r}$-CLAss. thEn TheRe EXiSts¨${y}$ sAtiSfying ${x}{<}{Y}$ and ${y}$ is $B_{r}$-eQuiVaLent to¨${x}$. Now, by pRoPosition¨\[P:LAttIce\], the lcm of¨${x}$ And¨${Y}$ is alsO $B_{R}$-eqUIvaleNt tO¨${x}$, whiCh meanS That thEre exists¨${Y}_1$ iN¨$b_{r}^+$ satiSFying ${\maTHRm{Lcm}}({x}, {Y}) = {x}{y}_1$. Now ${x}{<}{y}$ implies ${y}_1 \nOT= 1$, sO There must exist¨$I < m$ such ThAT ${\sIGMa_{i}}$ Is a Left divisoR oF¨${y}_1$. TheN We have ${x}{\SIgMA_{I}} {\PreCCurlyeq}{x}{y}_1 {\precCurlyeq}{z}$, henCE ${x}{\sIgma_{i}} {\pReCcuRLyeq}{z}$.

$(iI)$ The aRgUMenT is symmetriC. If wE have ${x}= 
{y}{\siGma_{i}}$ foR Some posITive braId¨${y}$ and $I < {r}$, tHen ${Y}$ belONgS tO thE $B_{R}$-ClaSS oF¨${x}$, aND ${x}$ cAnnot be mInImAl in iTs $B_{r}$-CLASS. ConVerSely, AssumE that ${x}$ is not miNimAl in ITs $B_{R}$-clasS. Then TherE eXists¨${Y}$ satisFying ${Y}{<}{x}$ And ${y}$ is $B_{r}$-equivalEnt tO¨${x}$. By PropoSitIoN¨\[P:LAtTice\] aGAin, the Gcd Of¨${x}$ And¨${y}$ is aLso $B_{r}$-eqUIvaLeNT TO¨${x}$, Which means that therE eXIStS¨${y}_0$ in¨$B_{r}^+$ saTisfyiNG ${\mAtHRm{gcd}}({x}, {y}) {y}_0 = {X}$. AS ${y}{<}{x}$ ImplIES ${y}_0 \not= 1$, TherE MuSt exist¨$i < M$ such tHAt ${\SiGma_{i}}$ is a RiGht divIsOr
}}$ lies in the same $B_{r }$-class a s¨${x }$,  an dit i s la rger both for¨ $ {\pr eccurlyeq}$ and¨${<}$,  so $ {x } $ ca n no t bemaximal in i ts$B _{ r}$ -c l as s. Co nve rsely,assume tha t $ {x }$ is not ma x im al in its$B_ {r}$-class.The n ther eexi s ts¨${ y}$  sati sfying ${x}{< }{y}$ and  $ { y}$ is $B_{r}$ - e qu ival ent to¨${x}$. Now ,  b y  Proposition¨\ [P:Lat ti c e\ ] ,  th e l cm of¨${x} $and¨$ { y}$ isa ls o $ B_{ r }$-equivalent  to¨${x}$,w hic h mean stha t  there  exis ts ¨ ${y }_1$ in¨$B_ {r}^ +$ satisf ying $ { \mathrm { lcm}}({ x}, {y })= { x}{y } _1 $.  No w$ {x} { <} {y} $  im plies ${ y} _1  \not = 1$ , s o  the remust  exis t¨$i < m$ suc h t hat$ {\s igma_ {i}}$  isaleftdiviso r of¨ ${ y}_1$. Then wehave  ${x}{\si gma _{ i}}  { \prec c urlyeq }{x }{y }_1 {\p reccurl y eq} {z } $ ,  h ence ${x}{\sigma_{ i} } {\ preccurl yeq}{z } $. 
$ (ii)$ Th earg umen t is sy mmet r ic . If wehave $ { x} =
{y}{\s ig ma_{i} }$  fo r s ome p o siti ve bra id¨${y}$  and$ i < {r}$, then ${y}$ belongs to t he $B_{ r}$ -class of¨$ {x}$ ,  and  ${x } $can n ot be  mini ma l  i n  its $B_{r}$-class.  C onvers ely,assume that $ {x}$ is no t m inimal i n it s  $ B _{r}$-class. T hen t here exist s ¨${y}$ s atisf ying ${y }{<}{x}$a n d ${y}$is$B_ {r} $-e q u iv alent to¨${x} $ .  ByPr opositi on¨ \[P:Lat tic e\]  ag ain ,the gcd o f¨${x}$an d¨ ${ y} $ i s als o  $B_{r}$ -e qui va len t to¨ $ {x}$,which  mea ns  t h atthere e x is t s ¨${y }_ 0$  in¨ $B_ {r }^+$sati s fyi ng ${\m athrm{gcd }}( { x},{y })  {y}_0= {x}$. As ${ y} {<}{x}$ im pl ies  ${y}_ 0 \not= 1$ , there must exist¨$i < m$ such  th at ${ \sig ma_{i}}$isa righ t d i visor
}}$ lies_in the_same $B_{r}$-class as¨${x}$, and_it is_larger_both for¨${\preccurlyeq}$_and¨${<}$,_so ${x}$ cannot_be maximal in_its $B_{r}$-class. Conversely, assume_that ${x}$ is_not_maximal in its $B_{r}$-class. Then there exists¨${y}$ satisfying ${x}{<}{y}$ and ${y}$ is $B_{r}$-equivalent to¨${x}$._Now,_by Proposition¨\[P:Lattice\],_the_lcm_of¨${x}$ and¨${y}$ is also $B_{r}$-equivalent_to¨${x}$, which means that there_exists¨${y}_1$ in¨$B_{r}^+$_satisfying ${\mathrm{lcm}}({x}, {y}) = {x}{y}_1$. Now ${x}{<}{y}$ implies_${y}_1_\not= 1$, so_there must exist¨$i < m$ such that ${\sigma_{i}}$ is_a left divisor of¨${y}_1$. Then we_have ${x}{\sigma_{i}} {\preccurlyeq}{x}{y}_1_{\preccurlyeq}{z}$,_hence_${x}{\sigma_{i}} {\preccurlyeq}{z}$.

$(ii)$ The argument_is symmetric. If we have ${x}=_
{y}{\sigma_{i}}$ for some positive braid¨${y}$ and_$i < {r}$, then ${y}$ belongs to_the $B_{r}$-class of¨${x}$, and ${x}$ cannot_be minimal in its $B_{r}$-class._Conversely, assume_that ${x}$ is not minimal_in its $B_{r}$-class._Then there_exists¨${y}$ satisfying ${y}{<}{x}$_and ${y}$ is $B_{r}$-equivalent to¨${x}$. By_Proposition¨\[P:Lattice\] again, the_gcd of¨${x}$ and¨${y}$ is also $B_{r}$-equivalent_to¨${x}$,_which means that_there_exists¨${y}_0$_in¨$B_{r}^+$ satisfying_${\mathrm{gcd}}({x}, {y}) {y}_0_=_{x}$. As_${y}{<}{x}$_implies ${y}_0 \not= 1$, there must_exist¨$i_< m$ such that ${\sigma_{i}}$ is a_right divisor