Arxiv:2012.05683V2 [Math.CO]

arXiv:2012.05683v2 [math.CO] 11 Apr 2021 eso eesr n ucetcniino kwtract skew gene a not on do condition Vergnas sufficient Las and and necessary Crapo a t of show in results we understood The signed be of contractions. can terms extensions 2 an in single-element that matroids ([Cra65]), showed oriented cocircuits they of of extensions terms single-element in of matroids ordinary of extensions aris hn ewl akaotsnl-lmn xesoso matr of extensions single-element about talk will hyperfields. skew we Then, st matroids. over matroids strong Cancellat of Pathetic extensions the single-element implies of stringency terization the particular, In ([BS21]). eut a eeaiet ekmtod over matroids weak to generalize can results on arisoe kwhpred yPendavingh. by hyperfields skew hy over skew matroids over matroids weak defined of and part hyperfields ([Pen18]) skew Pendavingh to structure.” orien tracts extra matroids, with subspaces, linear “matroids of other notion the generalizing neously ie ari vrase rc.Frisac,ti sueu o p for useful is this instance, th For describe rank to tract. every interest skew of set: a is over ground it matroid tracts given skew a over matroids of analysis ed fmteais nldn oooy ler,gahter,a theory, of graph branches algebra, topology, major vecto including are a mathematics, matroids in of oriented independence fields and linear matroids of of notion theories the abstracts that object navco ofiuainoe nabtayfil.An field. arbitrary an over configuration vector a in arisoe kwtracts skew over matroids tign kwhyperfields skew Stringent nteitouto,w ilfis akaottecaatrzto of characterization the about talk first will we introduction, the In The n[B9,BkradBwe introduced Bowler and Baker [BB19], In A e od n phrases. and words Key d lmnsb euneo igeeeetetnin.Caofound Crapo extensions. single-element of sequence a by elements XESOSO EKMTOD VRSE RCSADSTRONG AND TRACTS SKEW OVER MATROIDS WEAK OF EXTENSIONS matroid igeeeetextension single-element efidacaatrzto fsnl-lmn xesoso s of extensions single-element of characterization a find We omtod vrse rcs u ewl hwancsayand necessary a show will we result but The Cancellation tracts, contractions. Pathetic skew 2 over rank matroids to their of ex single-element extensions characterized element Vergnas Las and matroids, bandfrom obtained xr tutr” igeeeetetnino matroid a of ph extension matroids, single-element A oriented matroids, structure”. subspaces, extra linear of tions Abstract. tign kwhpred r pca aeo kwtat w tracts skew of case special a are hyperfields skew Stringent [R0,Wl6)i obntra betta btat h oino notion the abstracts that object combinatorial a is ([CR70],[Wel76]) arisoe kwtat rvd nagbacfaeoksi framework algebraic an provide tracts skew over Matroids ARISOE TIGN KWHYPERFIELDS SKEW STRINGENT OVER MATROIDS M yadn n oeeeet rp hrceie single-ele characterized Crapo element. more one adding by yefils rcs xesos oaiain,Pathetic localizations, extensions, tracts, hyperfields, d ari vrase tract skew a over matroid uhta h eutcngnrlz owa arisoe sk over matroids weak to generalize can result the that such , hc eeaiebt h hoyo arisoe rcsadthe and tracts over matroids of theory the both generalize which , r pca aeo kwtat hc eaei aywy ieskew like ways many in behave which tracts skew of case special a are sa prto nmtod vrse rcs o h constructio the For tracts. skew over matroids on operation an is arisoe tracts over matroids 1. T . Introduction IGSU TING retdmatroid oriented 1 T a eotie rmsm rank some from obtained be can esoso retdmtod,i em fsingle- of terms in matroids, oriented of tensions rn arisoe tign kwhyperfields. skew stringent over matroids trong sdmtod,adsm te mtod with “matroids other some and matroids, ased M fCaoadLsVrnsd o generalize not do Vergnas Las and Crapo of s vrase tract skew a over T ihbhv nmn aslk kwfields. skew like ways many in behave hich ucetcniino kwtat,called tracts, skew on condition sufficient ign kwhyperfields. skew ringent hc sa leri rmwr simulta- framework algebraic an is which , called al xeddteter fmtod over matroids of theory the extended ially efils n[u0,S rsne theory a presented Su [Su20], In perfields. ofiuainoe nodrdfil.The field. ordered an over configuration r dgeometry. nd e aris hsdmtod,adsome and matroids, phased matroids, ted rso igeeeetetnin frank of extensions single-element of erms obntrc ihapiain nmany in applications with combinatorics aiet arisoe kwtat,but tracts, skew over matroids to ralize a ega on characterization a found Vergnas Las d e falsnl-lmn xesosof extensions single-element all of set e o rpry efidasmlrcharac- similar a find We property. ion oicis(L7].Ms importantly, Most ([LV78]). cocircuits Cancellation. of yidcino h ieo the of size the on induction by roofs utnosygnrlzn h no- the generalizing multaneously igeeeetetnin foriented of extensions single-element [L7] L7] sacombinatorial a is [LV75]) ([BLV78], ahtcCancellation Pathetic isoe kwtat n stringent and tracts skew over oids hrceiaino single-element of characterization a etetnin fordinary of extensions ment T wtracts. ew samatroid a is ierindependence linear f d M f ari over matroid hoyo weak of theory over uhta the that such T and n fields T 2 TING SU

1.1. Classical results for oriented matroids. Throughout we will assume that readers have a basic knowledge of matroids and oriented matroids. As a general reference, we refer to [Oxl92, BLVS+99]. 1.1.1. single-element extensions of oriented matroid. There is a nice characterization of single-element extension of oriented matroids in terms of cocircuits and Las Vergnas found it in [BLV78]. Let us see single-element extensions of oriented matroids by an example. The Topological Representation Theorem for oriented matroids ([FL78]) says that there is a one-to-one correspondence between (equivalence classes of) arrangements of signed pseudospheres in Sd and simple rank d + 1 oriented matroids. Figure 1 represents an oriented matroid M of rank 3 on the ground set [5]; it has five signed pseudolines (Se : e ∈ [5]) (given by solid curves) with small arrows pointing to the positive side. The signed cocircuits correspond to the 0-dimensional points: C∗ = {±Yk | 1 ≤ k ≤ 8}, where −Yk(e)= −(Yk(e)) for all e ∈ [5]. We extended M by p, with pseudocircle Sp given by a dashed curve. Then there are six more signed cocircuits for M: {±Z1, ±Z2, ±Z3}. We can see that there is a unique function σ from the signed cocircuits set C∗ of + M to {+, −, 0} such that σ signifies, for every signed cocircuit Y , whether it is supposed to lie in Sp or Sp−, or onfSp, defined by + + if signed cocircuit Y lies in Sp , σ(Y )=  − if signed cocircuit Y lies in Sp−. (1)  0 if signed cocircuit Y lies on Sp, For instance, σ(Y ) = 0, σ(Y ) = + and σ(Y ) = −. We can determine the extension by looking at 1 2  4 the σ value for the signed cocircuits on every pseudocircle. For instance, as σ(Y3) = + and σ(Y5)= −, the pseudocircle Sp should cross the pseudocircle S2 between Y3 and Y5. This function σ is called the localization corresponding to the extension M.

1 Y6

Y1 Y 2 2 Y4 Y7 3 Z3 Y8 Y Z1 4 5 Y3 Z2 5 p

Figure 1. The single-element extension of the oriented matroid M by p

1.1.2. Reduction of extensions to rank 2. Rank 2 oriented matroids are very easy to understand. For example, every rank 2 oriented matroid is realizable. And rank 2 contractions of an oriented matroid correspond to pseudocircles in topological representation. In this subsection, we will describe modularity of cocircuits, which helps to reduce questions to rank 2 contractions. Deﬁnition 1.1. [Sta12] Let L be a lattice. An element x ∈ L is called an atom if x 6= 0ˆ and there is no z ∈ L with 0ˆ

Definition 1.2. In an oriented matroid M on E, two signed cocircuits X, Y ∈ C∗(M) form a modular pair in M if X and Y form a modular pair in the lattice of unions of supports of elements of C∗(M). In a pseudosphere arrangement in Sd, it is easy to find a modular pair. Two signed cocircuits form a modular pair if and only if the corresponding two points in Sd are on a common pseudocircle. For example, in Figure 1, the signed cocircuits Y1 and Y2 form a modular pair, and the signed cocircuits Y1 and Y5 do not form a modular pair. Now let’s consider single-element extensions of oriented matroids. We will see that an extension can be determined by the function σ we defined by Equation (1) in the last section. Recall that the function σ : C∗ → {+, −, 0} signifies, for every signed cocircuit Y , whether it is supposed to lie on the positive side or on the negative side of the extended pseudocircle Sp or on Sp itself. The extended oriented matroid M is uniquely determined by σ, and we can determine all the signed cocircuits of M by looking at the σ value for the signed cocircuits of M on every pseudocircle (rank 2 situation). f + For instance, let us see the pseudocircle S5, as in Figure 2. As Y6, Y2 and Y7fare in Sp , thus we can get + + + three signed cocircuits for M: Y6p , Y2p and Y7p . Similarly, as Y5 is in Sp−, thus we can get a signed cocircuits for M: Y5p−. And Y5 and Y7 form a modular pair in C∗(M), and they are on opposite sides of + Sp. So we can get a signed cocircuitsf Z1 via modular elimination between Y5p− and Y7p by p. f + +

−Y5 Y6 1 Y 0 + 6 Y −Z1 2 Y1 Y2 2 − −Y7 Y7 + Y4 Y7 3 Z3 Y8 Z Z Y5 1 Y −Y2 1 4 3 − 0 Z2 −Y6 Y5 p 5 − −

Figure 2. The single-element extension of M by p and the pseudoline S5

Moreover, Las Vergnas ([LV78]) proved that if a function σ determines an extension on every pseudocircle, then it determines an extension of the oriented matroid.

+ Theorem 1.3. ([BLVS 99], see also [LV78]) Let M be an oriented matroid with signed cocircuit set C∗(M) and let

σ : C∗(M) →{+, −, 0} be a function, satisfying σ(−Y )= −σ(Y ) for all Y ∈C∗(M). Then the following statements are equivalent. (1) σ defines a single-element extension M of M. (2) σ defines a single-element extension of every rank 2 contraction of M. (3) σ defines a single-element extension off every rank 2 minor of M on three elements. For the single-element extension of a matroid, there is not a nice topological picture like that for oriented matroids, but there is a similar result. We will introduce it in Section 2.5 This paper will generalize the results of Crapo and Las Vergnas to matroids over skew tracts.

1.2. New results for matroids over skew tracts and skew hyperﬁelds. 4 TING SU

1.2.1. Skew hyperfields and tracts. A skew hyperfield is an algebraic structure similar to a skew field except that its addition is multivalued (cf. [Vir10]). In particular, every skew field is a skew hyperfield. There are many interesting examples of skew hyperfields, and some are introduced as follows. The Krasner hyperfield K := {0, 1} has the usual multiplication rule and hyperaddition is defined by 0 ⊞ x = {x} for x ∈ K and 1 ⊞ 1= {0, 1}. The sign hyperfield S := {0, 1, −1} has the usual multiplication rule and hyperaddition is defined by 0 ⊞ x = {x}, x ⊞ x = {x} for x ∈ S and 1 ⊞ −1= {0, 1, −1}. The phase hyperfield P := S1 ∪{0} has the usual multiplication rule and hyperaddition is defined by ⊞ ⊞ ⊞ ax+by 1 0 x = {x} for x ∈ P, x −x = {0, x, −x} and x y = { ax+by | a,b ∈ R>0} for x, y ∈ S and x 6= −y, as in Figure 3. | |

i x x ⊞ y

y 0 −1 1

−i

Figure 3

A skew hyperfield F is said to be stringent if, for any a, b in F , a ⊞ b is a singleton whenever a 6= −b ([BS21]). Skew fields, K and S are all stringent. Example 1.4. The phase hyperfield P does not satisfy stringency. 1 ⊞ i = {eαi | α ∈ (0,π/2)}. A hyperfield is a skew hyperfield with commutative multiplication. Hyperfields are a special cases of still more general objects called tracts, which appear to be a natural setting for matroid theory ([BB19]). Tracts generalize fields, hyperfields in the sense of Krasner ([Kra57]), partial fields in the sense of Semple and Whittle ([SW96]), and fuzzy rings in the sense of Dress ([Dre86]).

1.2.2. Matroids over skew tracts. Baker and Bowler ([BB19]) introduced matroids over a tract T and called them T -matroids. An T -matroid for a field T corresponds to a linear subspace of some F n. A K-matroid is a usual matroid. An S-matroid is an oriented matroid. A P-matroid is a phased matroid ([AD12]). Baker and Bowler also provided two natural notions of matroids over a tract T , weak T -matroids and strong T -matroids, which diverge for certain tracts. This is a new phenomenon because weak matroids and strong matroids are the same for fields, K and S. They provided both circuit axioms and Grassman-Plücker axioms for weak and strong T -matroids. The weak circuit axioms looks more like the (signed) circuit axioms for (oriented) matroids and generalize them better than the strong axioms. The strong Grassmann-Plücker axioms looks more like the chirotope axioms for oriented matroids and generalize them better than the weak axioms. Weak matroids and strong matroids coincide in rank 2. In [Pen18], Pendavingh partially extended the theory of matroids over tracts to skew hyperfields. He provided several cryptomorphic axiom systems for weak matroids over skew hyperfields, including circuits axioms and a new axiom system in terms of quasi-Plücker coordinates. EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS5

Su ([Su20]) presented matroids over skew tracts, which generalize both matroids over tracts and weak matroids over skew hyperfields by Pendavingh ([Pen18]). Similarly, Su provided two natural notions of matroids over a skew tract T , weak T -matroids and strong T -matroids, corresponding to the two notions of matroids over tracts. Su gave several cryptomorphic axiom systems for both kinds of T -matroids. Section 2 will give background, including definition of skew tracts, two natural notions of matroids over skew tracts and two cryptomorphic axioms systems for both two kinds of matroids over skew tracts: circuit axioms and quasi-Plücker axioms. Section 3 will define extensions and localizations, and present the quasi- Plücker coordinates and T -cocircuit set for the extended T -matroid. The main result of this paper, in Section 4 and 5, is a characterization of the single-element extensions of a weak matroid over a skew tract T if T satisfies a special property, called Pathetic Cancellation. This generalizes the characterization of the single-element extensions of matroids (Theorem 2.28) and the characterization of the single-element extensions of oriented matroids (Theorem 1.3). Theorem 1.5. Let T be a skew tract, let M be a weak left (resp. right) T -matroid on a set E with T -cocircuit set C∗(M), and let σ : C∗(M) → T be a right (resp. left) T ×-equivariant function. Then T satisfies Pathetic Cancellation if and only if the following statements are equivalent. (1) σ defines a weak single-element extension of M. (2) σ defines a weak single-element extension of every rank 2 contraction of M. (3) σ defines a weak single-element extension of every rank 2 minor of M on three elements. Note that in this theorem, (1) ⇒ (2) ⇒ (3) is obviously true. Bowler and Pendavingh showed that the notions of weak and strong F -matroid coincide if F is a stringent skew hyperfield in [BP19]. In Section 6, we show that the stringency implies the Pathetic Cancellation property. So a similar characterization of single-element extensions is also true for strong matroids over stringent skew hypefields. Theorem 1.6. Let F be a stringent skew hyperfield, let M be a strong left (resp. right) F -matroid on E with F -cocircuit set C∗(M), and let σ : C∗(M) → F be a right (resp. left) F ×-equivariant function. Then the following statements are equivalent. (1) σ defines a strong single-element extension of M. (2) σ defines a strong single-element extension of every rank 2 contraction of M. (3) σ defines a strong single-element extension of every rank 2 minor of M on three elements. 1.3. Acknowledgment. Many thanks to my PhD advisor Laura Anderson for all help and guidance on my thesis which is the original version (commutative tracts case) of this paper and for helpful feedback and suggestions. Thanks also to Nathan Bowler for asking whether the results might hold for skew tracts and for helpful discussion and suggestions.

2. Background 2.1. Hyperfields and tracts. Definition 2.1. A hyperoperation on a set S is a map ⊞ from S × S to the collection of non-empty subsets of S. If A, B are non-empty subsets of S, we define A ⊞ B := (a ⊞ b) a A,b B ∈ [∈ and we say that ⊞ is associative if a ⊞ (b ⊞ c) = (a ⊞ b) ⊞ c for all a,b,c ∈ S. All hyperoperations in this paper will be commutative and associative. 6 TING SU

Definition 2.2. [BB16] A (commutative) hypergroup is a triple (G, ⊞, 0) where ⊞ is a commutative and associative hyperoperation on G such that: (1) 0 ⊞ x = {x} for all x ∈ G. (2) For every x ∈ G there is a unique element of G (denoted by −x and called the hyperinverse of x) such that 0 ∈ x ⊞ −x. (3) x ∈ y ⊞ z if and only if z ∈ x ⊞ −y. A skew hyperfield is a tuple (F, ⊙, ⊞, 1, 0) such that 0 6= 1: (1) (F −{0}, ⊙, 1) is a group. (2) (F, ⊞, 0) is a hypergroup. (3) (Absorption rule) x ⊙ 0=0 ⊙ x = 0 for all x ∈ F . (4) (Distributive Law) a⊙(x⊞y) = (a⊙x)⊞(a⊙y) and (x⊞y)⊙a = (x⊙a)⊞(y ⊙a) for all a,x,y ∈ F . A hyperfield is then a skew hyperfield with commutative multiplication. If F is a skew hyperfield, then F E has a hypergroup structure given by X ⊞ Y := {Z | Z(e) ∈ X(e) ⊞ Y (e), ∀e ∈ E}. F acts on F E by componentwise multiplication. (Formally, F E is an F -module (cf. subsection 2.18 in [BB16]).) Example 2.3. Now we would like to present two more examples of skew hyperfields. (1) If F is a (skew) field, then F is a (skew) hyperfield with a ⊙ b = a · b and a ⊞ b = {a + b}, for a,b ∈ F . (2) Let D6 be the dihedral group of order 6. Let F := D6 ∪{0} with multiplication given by x · y = 0 if x or y is 0 and by the multiplication of D6 otherwise. Hyperaddition is given by F \{0} if x 6= y. x ⊞ y = ( F if x = y. It is easy to check that F is a skew hyperfield. Definition 2.4. [Su20] A skew tract is a group G (written multiplicatively), together with an additive relation structure on G, which is a subset NG of the group semiring N[G] satisfying:

(1) The zero element of N[G] belongs to NG. (2) The identity element 1 of G is not in NG. (3) There is a unique element ε of G with 1 + ε ∈ NG. (4) NG is closed under the natural left and right actions of G on N[G]. A tract is a skew tract with the group G abelian. One thinks of N[G] as those linear combinations of elements of G which “sum to zero” (the N in N[G] stands for “null”). We let T = G ∪{0} and T × = G. We often refer to the skew tract (G, NG) simply as T , and we often write −1 instead of ε and −x instead of εx. For a skew hyperfield F with hyperaddition ⊞, we could define a skew tract (G, NG) associated to this k ⊞k skew hyperfield by setting G = F \{0} and NG = { i=1 gi | ∀i,gi ∈ G and 0 ∈ i=1gi}. If T is a skew tract and X, Y ∈ T E, then we define, P X + Y := {Z | ∀e ∈ E,X(e)+ Y (e) − Z(e) ∈ NG}, T acts on T E by componentwise multiplication.

Deﬁnition 2.5. [Su20] A homomorphism f : (G, NG) → (H,NH ) of skew tracts is a group homomorphism k k f : G → H, together with a map f : N[G] → N[H] satisfying f( i=1 gi)= i=1 f(gi) for gi ∈ G, such that if k g ∈ N then k f(g ) ∈ N . i=1 i G i=1 i H P P DeﬁnitionP 2.6. [Su20]P Let T be a skew tract. An involution of T is a homomorphism τ : T → T such that τ 2 is the identity map. Denote the image of x ∈ T under τ by x. EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS7

Definition 2.7. [Su20] Let T be a skew tract endowed with an involution x 7→ x. For X, Y ∈ T E, the product of X and Y is defined as X · Y := X(e) · Y (e). e E X∈ We say that X, Y are orthogonal, denoted by X ⊥ Y , if X · Y ∈ NG. E Let C, D ⊆ T . We say that C, D are orthogonal, denoted by C ⊥ D, if X · Y ∈ NG for all X ∈ C and Y ∈ D. We say that C, D are k-orthogonal, denoted by C ⊥k D, if X ⊥ Y for all X ∈C and Y ∈ D such that |X ∩ Y |≤ k. When T is the field C of complex numbers or the phase matroid P, the usual involution on T is complex conjugation. For T is K or S, the usual involution on T is the identity map. 2.2. Matroids over skew tracts. Notation 2.8. Throughout E denotes a non-empty finite set. T denotes a skew tract. For a skew tract T , T × denotes T −{0}. For simplicity, E\a and E ∪ a denote E\{a} and E ∪{a} respectively. The support of X ∈ T E is X := {e ∈ E | X(e) 6=0}. The zero set of X is X0 := {e ∈ E | X(e)=0}. For S ⊆ T E, supp(S) or S denotes the set of supports of elements of S, and MinSupp(S) denotes the set of elements of S of minimal support. We will always view a skew tract T as being equipped with an involution x 7→ x. First, we will talk about modular pairs and modular family in T -matroids. Definition 2.9. [BB19] Let E be a set and let C be a collection of pairwise incomparable nonempty subsets of E. We say that C1, C2 ∈ C form a modular pair in C if the height of their join in the lattice U(C) is 2. We say that C1, ..., Ck ∈ C form a modular family in C if the height of their join in the lattice U(C) is the same as the size of the family k. Definition 2.10. [Su20] Let C be a subset of T E. We say that X, Y ∈C form a modular pair in C if X, Y form a modular pair in the lattice of unions of supports of elements of C. We say that X1, ..., Xk ∈ C form a modular family in C if X1, ..., Xk form a modular family in the lattice of unions of supports of elements of C. Following is a lemma for modular pair in terms of rank function of a matroid.

Lemma 2.11. Let M be a matroid with rank function r. If Y1, Y2 form a modular pair of cocircuits of M, then r(E − (Y1 ∪ Y2)) = rank(M) − 2. Proof. Let d = rank(M). We know that for a cocircuit Y , E − Y is a hyperplane of M. Thus by Deﬁnition of hyperplane, r(E − Y )= d − 1. As E − (Y1 ∪ Y2) is a ﬂat of M, then

r(E − (Y1 ∪ Y2)) < r(E − Y1)= d − 1.

By way of contradiction, we assume r(E − (Y1 ∪ Y2)) < d − 2. Then there exists a ﬂat E − Z with Z ∈ C∗(M) such that

E − Y1 ) E − Z ) E − (Y1 ∪ Y2),

Y1 ( Z ( Y1 ∪ Y2.

So (Y1, Y2) is not a modular pair, contradicting the assumption. So r(E − (Y1 ∪ Y2)) = d − 2.

Definition 2.12. [Su20] Let E be a non-empty finite set and let T = (G, NG) be a skew tract. A subset C of T E is called the T -circuit set of a weak left T -matroid M on E if C satisfies the following axioms: (C1) 0 ∈C/ . (C2) (Symmetry) If X ∈C and α ∈ T ×, then α · X ∈C. 8 TING SU

(C3) (Incomparability) If X, Y ∈C and X ⊆ Y , then there exists α ∈ T × such that Y = α · X. (C4) (Modular Elimination) If X, Y ∈ C are a modular pair of T -circuits and e ∈ E is such that X(e)= −Y (e) 6= 0, there exists a T -circuit Z ∈C such that Z(e) = 0 and X(f)+ Y (f) − Z(f) ∈ NG for all f ∈ E. In the Modular Elimination axiom, we say Z eliminates e between X and Y . A weak right T -matroid is defined analogously, with α · X replaced by X · α in (C2) and (C3). If C is the set of T -circuits of a weak (left or right) T -matroid M with ground set E, then there is an underlying matroid (in the usual sense) M on E whose circuits are the supports of the T -circuits of M. Definition 2.13. [Su20] The rank of M is defined to be the rank of the underlying matroid M. Definition 2.14. [Su20] A subset C of T E is called the T -circuit set of a strong left T -matroid M on E if C satisfies (C1), (C2) and (C3) in Definition 2.12 and the following stronger version of the Modular Elimination axiom (C4):

(C4)′ (Strong Modular Elimination) Suppose X1, ..., Xk and X are T -circuits of M which together form a modular family of size k + 1 such that X 6⊆ 1 i k Xi, and for 1 ≤ i ≤ k let ≤ ≤

ei ∈ (X ∩ XSi)\ Xj 1 j k ≤j[=≤i 6 be such that X(ei) = −Xi(ei) 6= 0. Then there exists a T -circuit Z ∈ C such that Z(ei) = 0 for 1 ≤ i ≤ k and X(f)+ X1(f)+ ··· + Xk(f) − Z(f) ∈ NG for every f ∈ E. A strong right T -matroid is defined analogously, with α · X replaced by X · α in (C2) and (C3). From the definition, it is easy to see that any strong left (resp. right) T -matroid on E is also a weak left (resp. right) T -matroid on E. A projective T -circuit of a (weak or strong) left T -matroid M is an equivalence class of T -circuits of M under the equivalence relation X1 ∼ X2 if and only if X1 = α · X2 for some α ∈ T ×. Analogously, a projective T -circuit of a (weak or strong) right T -matroid M is an equivalence class of T -circuits of M under the equivalence relation X1 ∼ X2 if and only if X1 = X2 · α for some α ∈ T ×. As [BB19] shows, a matroid over a field T corresponds to a linear subspace of some T n. A K-matroid corresponds to a usual matroid. An S-matroid is an oriented matroid. A P-matroid is a phased matroid, defined in [AD12]. Weak matroids and strong matroids coincide over a field, K and S, but they do not coincide over P. There is a cryptomorphic characterization of weak and strong matroids over a skew tract T in terms of quasi-Plücker coordinates. First we define some terms. Let T be a skew tract. For any collection U ⊆ T E of sets with same size, we define

A := {(U,U ′) ∈ U × U | |U\U ′| =1}. U Let N be a matroid with bases B. We name the set of ordered pairs of adjacent bases AN := A . B Let F be a subset of E and let a1, ..., an be distinct elements of E\F , we write Fa1...an := F ∪{a1, ..., an} for simplicity.

Deﬁnition 2.15. [Su20] Let T be a skew tract and let N be a matroid on E with bases B. Then [·]: AN → T are weak left quasi-Pl¨ucker coordinates if (P1) [Fa,Fb] · [Fb,Fa]=1 if Fa,Fb ∈B. (P2) [Fac,Fbc] · [Fab,Fac] · [Fbc,Fab]= −1 if Fab,Fac,Fbc ∈B. (P3) [Fa,Fb] · [Fb,Fc] · [Fc,Fa]=1 if Fa,Fb,Fc ∈B. (P4) [Fac,Fbc] = [Fad,Fbd] if Fac,Fad,Fbc,Fbd ∈B, and Fab∈B / or Fcd∈B / . (P5) −1 + [Fbd,Fab] · [Fac,Fcd] + [Fad,Fab] · [Fbc,Fcd] ∈ NG if Fac, F ad, Fbc, F bd, Fab, F cd ∈B.

Definition 2.16. [Su20] Let d be the rank of N.[·]: AN → T are strong left quasi-Plücker coordinates if [·] satisfies (P1), (P2) and (P3) in Definition 2.15 and the following stronger versions of (P4) and (P5) : EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS9

(P4)′ For any two subsets I,J of E with |I| = d + 1, |J| = d − 1 and |I\J| ≥ 3, we let I1 = {x ∈ I | both I\x and Jx are bases of N}. If |I1| =2 and we say I = {a,b}, then [I\a, I\b] = [Jb,Ja].

(P5)′ For any two subsets I,J of E with |I| = d + 1, |J| = d − 1 and |I\J| ≥ 3, we let I1 = {x ∈ I | both I\x and Jx are bases of N}. If |I1|≥ 3, then for any z ∈ I1,

−1+ [I\x, I\z] · [Jx,Jz] ∈ NG. x I1 z ∈X\ The definition of weak right quasi-Plücker coordinates and strong right quasi-Plücker coordinates are obtained by reversing the order of multiplication throughout. Theorem 2.17. [Su20] Let E be a finite set, let N be a matroid and let T be a skew tract. There is a natural bijection between the collections of strong (resp. weak) circuit sets C ⊆ T E satisfying all circuit axioms and the collections of maps [·]: AN → T satisfying all strong (resp. weak) quasi-Plücker axioms. Parallel to matroids and oriented matroids, for every strong (resp. weak) left T -matroid M of rank d on E with T -circuit set C(M), there is a strong (resp. weak) right T -matroid M∗ of rank |E|− d with T -circuit E set C∗(M) := MinSupp({Y ∈ T | X · Y ∈ NG,X ∈ C(M)}−{0}), where T is a skew tract endowed with an involution x 7→ x. M∗ is called the dual T -matroid of M. The T -circuits of M∗ are called the T -cocircuits of M, and vice-versa. If M is a right T -matroid, then the dual matroid M∗ is a left T -matroid and the T -cocircuit set C∗(M) are obtained by reversing the order of multiplication throughout. Lemma 2.18. [Su20] (Dual pivoting property) Let T be a skew tract and let M be left (weak or strong) T -matroid with T -cocircuit set C∗ and left quasi-Plücker coordinates [·]. Let Y ∈ C∗. Choose a maximal 0 independent set J in Y . Then for every y1,y2 ∈ Y , 1 Y (y1)Y (y2)− = [Jy1,Jy2].

Lemma 2.19. Let cl be the closure operator of M. Let Y1, Y2 ∈C∗(M) such that Y1, Y2 form a modular pair 0 0 of T -cocircuits. Let I be a maximal independent set in Y1 ∩ Y2 . Then |I| = d − 2, and for every e ∈ Y1 ∩ Y2, there exists Ye ∈C∗(M) with Ye = E\cl(e ∪ I).

Proof. As Y1, Y2 form a modular pair in C∗(M), then Y1, Y2 form a modular pair in C∗(M). Then by 0 0 0 0 Lemma 2.11, rank(Y1 ∩ Y2 )= d − 2. So we can choose a maximal independent set {z1, ..., zd 2} in Y1 ∩ Y2 . 0 0 − Let e ∈ Y1 ∩ Y2. Then e 6∈ Y1 ∪ Y2 . Thus e 6∈ cl({z1, ..., zd 2}). So rank({e,z1, ..., zd 2}) = (d − − − 2)+1 = d − 1, and thus {e,z1, ..., zd 2} is a hyperplane of M. Then there exists Ye ∈ C∗(M) with − Ye = E\cl({e,z1, ..., zd 2}). − E E A 2.3. Minors. Let X ∈ T and let A ⊆ E. Define X\A ∈ T \ by (X\A)(e)= X(e) for e ∈ E\A. For U ⊆ T E, define the deletion of A from U as U\A = {X\A | X ∈U,X ∩ A = ∅}. Define the contraction of A in U as U/A = MinSupp({X\A | X ∈ U}). Theorem 2.20. [Su20] C\A is the set of T -circuits of a strong (resp. weak) left T -matroid M\A on E\A, called the deletion of M by A, whose underlying matroid is M\A. Similarly, C/A is the set of T -circuits of a strong (resp. weak) left T -matroid M/A on E\A, called the contraction of M by A, whose underlying matroid is M/A. Moreover, (M\A)∗ = M∗/A and (M/A)∗ = M∗\A.

Lemma 2.21. [Su20] Let N be a matroid on E, let T be a skew tract, let [·]: AN → T be weak left (resp. right) quasi-Pl¨ucker coordinates, and let A be a subset of E. 10 TING SU

(1) (Contraction) Let IA be a maximal independent subset of A in N. Deﬁne [·]/A : AN/A → T by

[B,B′]/A := [B ∪· IA,B′ ∪· IA]

for all (B,B′) ∈ AN/A. [·]/A are weak left (resp. right) quasi-Plücker coordinates of N/A. If [·] are strong left (resp. right) quasi-Plücker coordinates, so is [·]/A. The definition of [·]/A is independent of the choice of IA. (2) (Deletion) Let JA ⊆ A be such that (E\A) ∪ JA spans N. Define [·]\A : AN A → T by \ [B,B′]\A := [B ∪ JA,B′ ∪ JA]

for all (B,B′) ∈ AN A. [·]\A are weak left\ (resp. right) quasi-Plücker coordinates of N\A. If [·] are strong left (resp. right) quasi-Plücker coordinates, so is [·]\A. The definition of [·]\A is independent of the choice of JA. Definition 2.22. Let T be a skew tract, let E be a non-empty finite set, and let U ⊆ T E. A function f : U → T is called right T ×-equivariant if it satisfies f(U · α)= f(U) · α, for all U ∈U and all α ∈ T ×. Similarly, a function g : U → T is called left T ×-equivariant if it satisfies g(β · V )= β · g(V ), for all V ∈U and all β ∈ T ×. If T is a (commutative) tract, then a function is called T ×-equivariant if it is both left and right T ×-equivariant.

Proposition 2.23. Let M be a left (resp. right) T -matroid on E and let f : C∗(M) → T be a right (resp. left) T ×-equivariant function. Let A ⊆ E. We can get induced maps f/A : C∗(M/A) → T on C∗(M/A) and f\A : C∗(M\A) → T on C∗(M\A) by (f/A)(Z)= f(Y ), (f\A)(U)= f(X), where Z = Y \A, Y ∈C∗(M), Y ∩ A = ∅, and U = X\A, X ∈C∗(M). 2.4. Rescaling.

E Deﬁnition 2.24. [Su20] Let T be a skew tract, let X ∈ T and let ρ : E → T ×. Then right rescaling X by ρ yields the vector X · ρ ∈ T × with entries (X · ρ)(e)= X(e) · ρ(e) for all e ∈ E. Similarly, left rescaling 1 1 1 gives a vector ρ · X. We use ρ− for the function from E to T × such that ρ− (e)= ρ(e)− for all e ∈ E. Lemma 2.25. [Su20] Let M be a weak (resp. strong) left T -matroid on E with T -circuit set C and T - 1 cocircuit set D and let ρ : E → T ×. Then C· ρ− and ρ · D are the T -circuit set and T -cocircuit set of a weak (resp. strong) left T -matroid Mρ, where 1 1 C· ρ− := {X · ρ− | X ∈ C} and ρ · D := {ρ · Y | Y ∈ D}. Mρ is called the T -matroid arising from M by right rescaling. 2.5. Crapo characterization of extension. In this subsection, we will ﬁrst show a useful lemma due to Crapo. Then we will present Crapo’s result on extension of matroids which we are going to generalize to T -matroids. Lemma 2.26. [Cra65, BLVS+99] The hyperplanes of a single-element extension M of a matroid M by p are given by one of the following two types: (1) either H or H ∪ p, for every hyperplane H of M, and f EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS11

(2) the sets G ∪ p, where G = H1 ∩ H2 is an intersubsection of two hyperplanes of M for which there is no hyperplane H ⊃ G of M such that H ∪ p is a hyperplane of M. Deﬁnition 2.27. Let M be a T -matroid. We say that a function σ : C (M) → T deﬁnes an extension of f∗ a minor of M if and only if the map induced by σ is a localization of this minor.

Theorem 2.28. [Cra65] Let M be a matroid with cocircuit set C∗(M). Then, for a function σ : C∗(M) → {0, 1}, which to every Y ∈ C∗(M) assigns a signature σ(Y ) ∈{0, 1}, the following statements are equivalent: (1) σ defines a single-element extension M of M. (2) σ defines a single-element extension of every rank 2 contraction of M. f 3. Extension and Localization In this section, we will introduce single-element extensions of matroids over skew tracts and localizations, and show that localizations characterize extensions. Definition 3.1. Let T be a skew tract and let M be a weak (resp. strong) left (resp. right) T -matroid on E. A weak (resp. strong) extension of M is a weak (resp. strong) left (resp. right) T -matroid M on a ground set E that contains E, such that the deletion M\(E − E) is equal to M. M is a weak (resp. strong) single-element extension of M if |E\E| = 1, that is, E = E ∪ p forf some p∈ / E. So, M\e p = M. f e Wef will exclude the trivial case where p is a coloop of M (equivalently,e if rank(M) =e rank(M)+1) as 0 0 α C∗(M) = {Xpf : X ∈ C∗(M)}∪{E p : α ∈ T ×}. Thus all single-element extensions considered in this paper are non-trivial. f f f If Y ∈ T E, p∈ / E and α ∈ T , then we denote by (Y, α) (or Ypα) to denote the extension of Y to E ∪ p with Y (p)= α when there is no confusion. Proposition 3.2. Let T be a skew tract and let M be a weak (resp. strong) left T -matroid on E with E T -cocircuit set C∗(M) ⊆ T . Let M be a weak (resp. strong) single-element extension of M by an element E p p with T -cocircuit set C∗(M) ⊆ T ∪ . Then for every T -cocircuit Y ∈ C∗(M), there is a unique way to extend Y to a T -cocircuit of M: theref is a unique function f σ : C∗(M) → T f such that {(Y, σ(Y )) : Y ∈C∗(M)}⊆C∗(M).

That is, (Y, σ(Y )) is a T -cocircuit of M for every T -cocircuit Y of M. Furthermore, σ is right T ×- equivariant. f f The statement also holds when M is a (weak or strong) right T -matroid and σ is left T ×-equivariant. Deﬁnition 3.3. The functions σ that correspond to weak (resp. strong) single-element extensions (via Proposition 3.2) are called weak (resp. strong) localizations. The deﬁnition of localizations for right T -matroids are obtained by reversing the order of multiplication throughout. Note that any strong T -matroid on E is a weak T -matroid on E, and any weak T -matroid of rank ≤ 3 on E is also a strong T -matroid on E. If M is a weak (resp. strong) T -matroid, then of course extensions of M are weak (resp. strong) T -matroid and localizations are weak (resp. strong). We will omit “weak (resp. strong)” if theorems, propositions and lemmas are true for both weak and strong cases.

Proof of Proposition 3.2. Let Y ∈C∗(M). By Theorem 2.20, Y = Y \p for some Y ∈C∗(M). By Incompa- rability in C∗(M), Y is uniquely deﬁned. Deﬁne σ(Y )= Y (p). Thus (Y, σ(Y )) ∈C∗(M). Also for all α ∈ T ×, (Y, σ(Y )) · α ∈C∗(M), by Symmetry. Thate is, (Y · α, σ(Y e) · α) ∈Cf∗(M). f e e f f f 12 TING SU

So σ(Y · α)= σ(Y ) · α. and so σ is right T ×-equivariant. For the remainder of this section, we take M to be a left T -matroid of rank d on E with T -cocircuit set C∗(M) and left quasi-Pl¨ucker coordinates [·], M to be an extension of M by p, and σ : C∗(M) → T to be the corresponding localization of M. Let cl be the closure operator of M. f Lemma 3.4. Let B be the set of basis of M. The set of basis of M is

B = B∪{Fp ⊆ E ∪ p | |F | = d − 1, E\cl(F )= Y and σ(Y ) 6=0 for some Y ∈C∗(M)}. f Proof. As Me = M\p and rank(M) = rank(M), we know that the independent sets I(M)= I(M) ∩P(E) and rank(M) = rank(M). So B ⊆ B and for B ∈ B\B, B = Fp for some F ∈ I(M). So we only need to prove that f f f f e e B\B = {Fp ⊆ E ∪ p | |F | = d − 1, E\cl(F )= Y and σ(Y ) 6= 0 for some Y ∈C∗(M)}.

For ⊆, let B ∈ B\B with B = Fp and F ∈ I(M). As |F | = d − 1, then there exists Y ∈C∗(M) such that e 0 E\cl(F )= Y . We claim that σ(Y ) 6= 0. Otherwise, Yp ∈C∗(M). Then p∈ / E\cl f(F ) and this contradicts e M that Fp is a basis of M. f e For ⊇, let F be an independent set in M with |F | = d − 1. Then there exists Y ∈ C∗(M) such that E\cl(F ) = Y . If σ(Yf) 6= 0, then p ∈ E\cl f(F ). So Fp ∈ B. If σ(Y ) = 0, then p∈ / E\cl f(F ). So M M Fp∈ / B. e e e Lemmae 3.5. Let [·] f be left quasi-Pl¨ucker coordinates for M. Let F ⊆ E be independent in M with M |F | = d − 1 and let Y ∈C∗(M) with Y = E\cl(F ). Let y ∈ Y . If σ(Y ) 6=0, then 1 f σ(Y ) · Y (y)− = [Fp,Fy] f. M Proof. This is proved by Lemma 2.18.

Proposition 3.6. The left T -coordinates [·]p : A f → T deﬁned by M [Fs,Ft] if p∈ / F st, σ(Y ) · Y (t) 1 if p = s and Y ∈C (M) with Y = E\cl(F ),  − ∗  Y (s) · σ(Y ) 1 if p = t and Y ∈C (M) with Y = E\cl(F ),  − ∗  [Fs,Ft]p =  [Gsg, Gtg] if p ∈ F, G = F \{p},Gst∈B / and Gsg, Gtg ∈B (2)   for some g ∈ E, 1 1 −Yt(s) · σ(Yt) · σ(Ys) · Ys(t) if p ∈ F, G = F \{p},Gst ∈B, Yi ∈C∗(M) with  − −  Y = E\cl(Gi) for i ∈{s,t}.  i   are left quasi-Pl¨ucker coordinates of M. In particular, M is uniquely determined by [·]p.

Proof. Let Fs, Ft be adjacent basesf of M and let [·] f fbe left quasi-Pl¨ucker coordinates of M. M If p∈ / Fst, then Fs and Ft are also adjacent bases of M. Then there exists Y ∈ C∗(M) such that f 1 1f Y = E\cl(F ) and Y := (Y, σ(Y ) ∈ C∗(M). So [Fs,Ft] f = Y (s) · Y (t)− = Y (s) · Y (t)− = [Fs,Ft] by Lemma 2.18. M If p ∈{s,t}, thene there exists Y ∈C∗(fM) such that Y = E\ecl(F ).e If p = s, then by Lemma 3.5, we have 1 1 [Fp,Ft] f = σ(Y ) · Y (t)− . If p = t, then by (P1) and Lemma 3.5, we have [Fs,Fp] f = ([Fp,Fs] f)− = M 1 1 1 M M (σ(Y ) · Y (s)− )− = Y (s) · σ(Y )− . If p ∈ F , then let G = F \{p}. As Fs,Ft ∈ B, then both Gs and Gt are independent sets in M. Now we consider Gst. e EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS13

If Gst∈ / B, then we let g ∈ E such that Gsg, Gtg ∈ B. We also have Gsg, Gtg ∈B. So by (P4) and above argument, [Fs,Ft] f = [Gsg, Gtg] f = [Gsg, Gtg]. M M If Gst ∈ Be, then Gst ∈B. So there exist Yi ∈C∗(Me) such that Yi = E\cl(Gi) for i ∈{s,t}. As Gst ∈B, then t ∈ Ys and s ∈ Yt. By (P2), we have [Gsp, Gtp] f · [Gst, Gsp] f · [Gtp, Gst] f = −1. Then by (P1) and above argument,e we have M M M 1 1 [Gsp, Gtp] f = −[Gst, Gtp] f · [Gsp, Gst] f = −Yt(s) · σ(Yt)− · σ(Ys) · Ys(t)− . M M M So, [Fs,Ft] if p∈ / F st, 1  σ(Y ) · Y (t)− if p = s and Y ∈C∗(M) with Y = E\cl(F ),  Y (s) · σ(Y ) 1 if p = t and Y ∈C (M) with Y = E\cl(F ),  − ∗  [Fs,Ft] f =  [Gsg, Gtg] if p ∈ F, G = F \{p},Gst∈B / and Gsg, Gtg ∈B M   for some g ∈ E, 1 1  −Yt(s) · σ(Yt)− · σ(Ys) · Ys(t)− if p ∈ F, G = F \{p},Gst ∈B, Yi ∈C∗(M) with   Yi = E\cl(Gi) for i ∈{s,t}.   As [·] f is uniquely determined by σ, thus M is uniquely determined by σ. M If M is a right T -matroid, then the rightf quasi-Plücker coordinates of the extension M are defined analogously by reversing the order of multiplication throughout. In subsection 1.1.1, we talked about how to find the signed cocircuit set of the extended orientedf matroid, determined by a localization. Now we will generalize that to matroids over skew tracts. First, for matroid over skew tracts, we would like to find all X ∈C∗(M) that arise via modular elimination by p. The following lemma characterizes those T -cocircuits. f Lemma 3.7. Let (Y1, Y2) be a modular pair of T -cocircuits of M with σ(Y1) = −σ(Y2) 6= 0. Then there exists a unique X ∈C∗(M) such that X(p)=0 and Y1(f)+ Y2(f) − X(f) ∈ NG for all f ∈ E. Further, if e ∈ Y1 ∩ Y2, then 1 1 f X(e)= −Y1(e) · σ(Y1)− · σ(Ye) · Ye(e1)− · Y2(e1) 0 0 where Ye ∈C∗(M) with Ye = E\cl((Y1 ∩ Y2 ) ∪ e) and e1 ∈ Y2\Y1.

Recall that such a Ye was guaranteed by Lemma 2.19.

Proof. The Modular Elimination axiom in M shows that there exists X ∈C∗(M) such that X eliminates p between (Y1, σ(Y1)) and (Y2, σ(Y2)), that is X(p) = 0 and Y1(f)+ Y2(f) − X(f) ∈ NG for all f ∈ E. Now, let e ∈ Y1 ∩ Y2. Let us ﬁnd the valuef of X(e). f 0 0 Let F be a maximal independent set in Y1 ∩ Y2 . Then |F | = d − 2. Let e1 ∈ Y2\Y1. Thus X(e1)= Y2(e1) and Y1 = E\cl(Fe1). So Fe1p,Fe1e,Fep ∈ B. Let Ye ∈C∗(M) with Ye = E\cl(Fe). 1 By Dual pivoting property, we have that X(e) · X(e1)− = [Fep,Fe1p]p. By Proposition 3.6, we also have that e 1 1 [Fep,Fe1p]p = −Y1(e) · σ(Y1)− · σ(Ye) · Ye(e1)− . Then 1 1 1 X(e) · X(e1)− = −Y1(e) · σ(Y1)− · σ(Ye) · Ye(e1)− . So 1 1 X(e)= −Y1(e) · σ(Y1)− · σ(Ye) · Ye(e1)− · Y2(e1).

If M is a right T -matroid, then the value of X(e) is obtained by reversing the order of multiplication throughout.

Deﬁnition 3.8. We denote X as in Lemma 3.7 by Mod(Y1, Y2,p). 14 TING SU

Proposition 3.9. The set of T -cocircuits of M is

C∗(M)={(Y, σ(Y )) : Y ∈C∗(M)}∪ f {Mod(Y1, Y2,p): Y1, Y2 ∈C∗(M), (Y1, Y2) is a modular pair of T -cocircuits, f and σ(Y1)= −σ(Y2) 6=0}.

Proof. (⊇): Proposition 3.2 and Lemma 3.7 show that the right side of the equation is contained in C∗(M). (⊆): As M\p = M\p, then M is also a single-element extension of M by p. 0 0 f Let X ∈C∗(M). Thus X is a hyperplane of M. Lemma 2.26 describes 2 possible types for X . 0 f f f 0 0 If X is of type (1), then either X or X \p is a hyperplane of M. So there exists Y ′ ∈C∗(M) such that Y ′ = X\p or Y ′f= X. As (Y ′, σ(Y ′)) ∈C∗(M), byf Incomparability, X = (Y ′, σ(Y ′)) · α, for some α ∈ T ×. So X ∈{(Y, σ(Y )) : Y ∈C∗(M)}. 0 E 0 If X is of type (2), then p∈ / X. That is,fX = (Z, 0), for some Z ∈ T . And Z = H1 ∩ H2, where H1 0 and H2 are two hyperplanes of M and there is no hyperplane H ⊃ Z of M such that H ∪ p is a hyperplane of M. 0 0 Let Y1, Y2 ∈C∗(M) such that Y1 = H1 and Y2 = H2. Then Z = Y1∪Y2. As rank(H1) = rank(H2)= d−1, 0 0 0 thenf rank(H1 ∩H2) ≤ d−2. Since rank(X )= d−1 and H1 ∩H2 = Z = X \p, then rank(H1 ∩H2) ≥ d−2. 0 So rank(H1 ∩ H2) = d − 2. Thus (Y1, Y2) is a modular pair of T -cocircuits. As Hi ⊃ Z , Hi ∪ p is not a hyperplane of M, for i =1, 2. So σ(Yi) 6= 0, for i =1, 2. Without loss of generality, choose Y1, Y2 such that σ(Y1)= −σ(Y2) 6= 0 and Y1(e)= Z(e), for e ∈ Y1\Y2.

By Modularf Elimination in M, there exists X1 ∈ C∗(M) such that X1(p) = 0 and for every e ∈ E, Y1(e)+ Y2(e) − X1(e) ∈ NG. So X1 ⊆ Y1 ∪ Y2. As X = Z = Y1 ∪ Y2, X1 ⊆ Xf. By Incomparability, X =fX1 · α, for some α ∈ T ×. As X1(e)= Y1(e), for all e ∈ Y1\Y2, then α =1. So X = X1. So X = Mod(Y1, Y2,p).

Corollary 3.10. The support of Mod(Y1, Y2,p) is equal to Y1 ∪ Y2. It follows from the proof of Proposition 3.6 and the proof of Proposition 3.9 that the characterization of quasi-Pl¨ucker coordinates [·]p and the characterization of T -cocircuit set C∗(M) also hold if M is a strong T matroid. f 4. Pathetic Cancellation Property

Recall (Theorem 1.3) that if a function σ : C∗(M) → S defines a single-element extension of every rank 2 contraction of an oriented matroid M, then it is a localization. But it is not always true for other skew tracts. Now we will introduce a property for a skew tract T , which is necessary and sufficient for Theorem 1.3 to generalize to weak matroids over skew tracts (Theorem 1.5). Theorem 4.3 proves the necessity and Theorem 5.1 proves the sufficiency. Definition 4.1. Let T be a skew tract. We say T satisfies the Pathetic Cancellation Property if for every a,b,x,y,z ∈ T × with

1+ a − x ∈ NG, ax = xa,

−1+ b − y ∈ NG, by = yb,

a + b − z ∈ NG, 1 1 1 1 a− zb− = b− za− ,

x + y − z ∈ NG, EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS15

1 1 1 1 x− zy− = y− zx− , we have xb − ay − z ∈ NG. The name Pathetic Cancellation comes from how the property behaves in a field. When T is a field, the hypothesis can be stated as x =1+ a, y = −1+ b, z = a + b, z = x + y. and the conclusion can be stated as z = xb − ay. It is a cancellation in a field as xb − ay = (1+ a)b − a(−1+ b) = (a + b) + (ab − ab)= a + b = z. And it is Pathetic because it needs all hypotheses, but when T is a field, the hypotheses become less and any three of them imply the fourth one and give the conclusion via cancellation. Here are one example of hyperfields that does not satisfy Pathetic Cancellation.

1+i 1+i √3+i 1+√3i Example 4.2. The example is over P. Let a = − , b = , x = , y = − , and z = i. It is easy √2 √2 2 2 1+√3+i(1+√3) to check that a,b,x,y,z satisﬁes all hypotheses in Deﬁnition 4.1. However, z∈ / xb⊞−ay = { − }, 2√2 as shown in Figure 4. We depict a, b, x, y and z by labelled points on a picture of S1. The left circle in Figure 4 depicts a, b, x, y and z. The dashed lines indicate the hyperadditions a ⊞ 1, −1 ⊞ b, a ⊞ b and x ⊞ y. And the right circle depicts −ay and xb.

y z −ay = xb z

a b x

−1 1

Figure 4. Illustration for Example 4.2

Theorem 4.3. Let T be a skew tract not satisfying Pathetic Cancellation. There is a both weak and strong left T -matroid M on E and a right T ×-equivariant function σ : C∗(M) → T such that σ deﬁnes a single- element extension by a new element p on every rank 2 contraction of M but σ is not a localization. Before showing the proof, we will ﬁrst introduce a useful lemma for determining localizations of rank 2 T -matroids on three elements. Lemma 4.4. Let T be a skew tract, let M be a uniform rank 2 left T -matroid on three elements with T - cocircuit set C∗(M), and let σ : C∗(M) → T be a right T ×-equivariant function. Then σ is a localization if and only if there exist Y1, Y2, Y3 ∈ C∗(M) such that Y3 eliminates some element e between Y1 and Y2, and σ(Y1)+ σ(Y2) − σ(Y3) ∈ NG. 16 TING SU

Proof. Let E be the ground set of M and E = {e1,e2,e3}. (⇒): We suppose that σ is a localization. As M is a rank 2 T -matroid, then every pair of T -cocircuits of M form a modular pair. Let e ∈ E and (Y1, Y2) be a modular pair of T -cocircuits of M with Y1(e)= −Y2(e) 6= 0. Without loss of generality, we may assume e = e3, Y1(e1) = 0 and Y2(e2) = 0. There exists Y3 ∈C∗(M) such that Y3 eliminates e3 between Y1 and Y2. Thus Y3(e3) = 0 and Y1(f)+ Y2(f) − Y3(f) ∈ NG for all f ∈ E. So Y3(e1)= Y2(e1), Y3(e2)= Y1(e2) and Y3 = {e1,e2}.

Let M be the extension of M on E ∪ p determined by σ. As (Y1, σ(Y1)),(Y2, σ(Y2)) form a modular pair in C∗(M) with Y1(e) = −Y2(e), then there exists Y ∈ C∗(M) such that Y eliminate e between (Y1, σ(Y1)) and (Y2f, σ(Y2)). Thus Y (e) = 0, Y1(f)+ Y2(f) − Y (f) ∈ NG for all f ∈ E, and σ(Y1)+ σ(Y2) − Y (p) ∈ NG. So Y (ef1)= Y2(e1), Y (e2)= Y1(e2) and {e1,e2}⊆ Ye ⊆{e1,ef2,p}. e Now let us look at thee T -cocircuits (Y3, σ(Y3)) ande Y . As {e1,e2}⊆ (Y3, σ(Y3)) ⊆{e1,e2,p} ande{e1,e2}⊆ e e e Y ⊆{e1,e2,p}, then either (Y3, σ(Y3)) ⊆ Y or Y ⊆ (Y3, σ(Y3)). By Symmetry, Y = (Y3, σ(Y3)) · α for some e α ∈ T ×. As Y3(e1)= Y2(e1)= Y (e1), then α = 1. Thus Y = (Y3, σ(Y3)). So σ(Y1)+ σ(Y2) − σ(Y3) ∈ NG. e (⇐): We suppose that there exist Y1, Y2e, Y3 ∈Ce ∗(M) such that Y3 eliminatese some element e between Y1 and Y2, and σ(Y1)+ σ(Y2) − σ(Ye3) ∈ NG. Then without losse of generality, we may assume e = e3, Y1(e1)=0 and Y2(e2) = 0. We list a representative from each projective T -cocircuit of M in Table 1.

e1 e2 e3

Y2 Y2(e1) 0 −Y1(e3)

Y1 0 Y1(e2) Y1(e3)

Y3 Y2(e1) Y1(e2) 0 Table 1

E p Let Z ∈ T ∪ be such that 1 1 1 1 Z = (Y2(e1) · σ(Y2)− , −Y1(e2) · σ(Y1)− , −Y1(e3) · (σ(Y1)− + σ(Y2)− ), 0) 1 1 E p and let α ∈ T × be such that α = σ(Y1)− + σ(Y2)− . Then we deﬁne a set C ⊆ T ∪ by

C := {(Y , σ(Y )) · β : β ∈ T ×}∪{(Y , σ(Y )) · β : β ∈ T ×}∪{(Y , σ(Y )) · β : β ∈ T ×}∪{Z · β : β ∈ T ×}. 1 1 2 2 3 3 e We would like to show that C is the T -cocircuit set of a rank 2 left T -matroid M on the set E ∪ p and M e is the extension of M determined by σ. As M is of rank 2, then everye pair of T -cocircuits of M is a modular pair. f f As σ(Y1)+ σ(Y2) − σ(Y3) ∈ NG, it is easy to verify that 1 1 Z = Mod(−Y1 · σ(Y1)− , Y2 · σ(Y2)− ,p), 1 Z = Mod(Y2 · α, −Y3 · σ(Y1)− ,p), 1 Z = Mod(−Y1 · α, Y3 · σ(Y2)− ,p). So σ is a localization.

The statement also holds for a uniform rank 2 right T -matroid on three elements and a left T ×-equivariant function. Now we will give the proof of Theorem 4.3.

Proof of Theorem 4.3. As T does not satisfy Pathetic Cancellation, then there exist a,b,x,y,z ∈ T × with 1 1 1 1 1+ a − x ∈ NG, ax = xa, −1+ b − y ∈ NG, by = yb, a + b − z ∈ NG, a− zb− = b− za− , x + y − z ∈ NG 1 1 1 1 and x− zy− = y− zx− , but xb − ay − z∈ / NG. Now we deﬁne a weak left T -matroid M on the set E = {y1,y2,y3,y4} of rank 3 with T -cocircuit set C∗(M). We list a representative from each projective T -cocircuit of M in Table 2. EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS17

y1 y2 y3 y4

Y23 1 0 0 1 1 Y13 0 1 0 b− 1 Y12 0 0 1 a−

Y24 1 0 −a 0

Y34 -1 b 0 0

Y14 0 b −a 0 Table 2

Y Y3 13

Y34

Y14 Y2

Y 23 Y24 y2 Y12 Y1 y4 y3 p y1

Figure 5. Collinearities for the counterexample

Figure 5 shows the collinearities for cocircuits of the underlying matroid on elements of E. It is easy to check C∗(M) satisﬁes Modular Elimination. As M is of rank 3 with fewer than 6 elements, M is both a weak and a strong left T -matroid. Let σ : C∗(M) → T be the right T -equivariant function such that

σ(Y23)= σ(Y13)=1,

σ(Y12)= −1,

σ(Y24)= x,

σ(Y34)= y and σ(Y14)= z. First, we will verify that σ deﬁnes a single-element extension of every rank 2 contraction of M using Lemma 4.4. We can see that Y13\y1, Y12\y1 and Y14\y1 are representatives for the T -cocircuits of the rank 2 contraction 1 1 M/y1. And Y14\y1 eliminates y4 between (Y13\y1) · Y13(y4)− and (Y12\y1) · (−Y12(y4)− ). We also have 1 1 σ(Y13) · Y13(y4)− + σ(Y12) · (−Y12(y4)− ) − σ(Y14)= b + a − z ∈ NG. 18 TING SU

So by Lemma 4.4, σ induces a function σ/y1 which is a localization on M/y1. Similarly, Y23\y2, Y12\y2 and Y24\y2 are representatives for the T -cocircuits of the rank 2 contraction 1 M/y2. And Y24\y2 eliminates y4 between Y23\y2 and (Y12\y2) · (−Y12(y4)− ). We also have 1 σ(Y23)+ σ(Y12) · (−Y12(y4)− ) − σ(Y24)=1+ a − x ∈ NG.

So by Lemma 4.4, σ induces a function σ/y2 which is a localization on M/y2. Similarly, Y23\y3, Y13\y3 and Y34\y3 are representatives for the T -cocircuits of the rank 2 contraction 1 M/y3. And Y34\y3 eliminates y4 between −Y23\y3 and (Y13\y3) · Y13(y4)− . We also have 1 −σ(Y23)+ σ(Y13) · Y13(y4)− − σ(Y34)= −1+ b − y ∈ NG.

So by Lemma 4.4, σ induces a function σ/y3 which is a localization on M/y3. Similarly, Y24\y4, Y34\y4 and Y14\y4 are representatives for the T -cocircuits of the rank 2 contraction M/y4. And Y14\y4 eliminates y1 between Y24\y4 and Y34\y4. We also have

σ(Y24)+ σ(Y34) − σ(Y14)= x + y − z ∈ NG.

So by Lemma 4.4, σ induces a function σ/y4 which is a localization on M/y4. So σ deﬁnes a single-element extension of every rank 2 contraction of M. Next we would like to show that σ is not a localization of M. Suppose by way of contradiction that σ is a localization of M. Let M be the single-element extension of M determined by σ. Now we list a representative from each projective T -cocircuit of M in the form of (Y, σ(Y )), Y ∈C∗(M) in Table 3. f

y1 fy2 y3 y4 p

(Y23, σ(Y23)) 1 0 0 1 1 1 (Y13, σ(Y13)) 0 1 0 b− 1 1 (Y12, σ(Y12)) 0 0 1 a− -1

(Y24, σ(Y24)) 1 0 −a 0 x

(Y34, σ(Y34)) -1 b 0 0 y

(Y14, σ(Y14)) 0 b −a 0 z Table 3

By Proposition 3.9, the extension M will also have T -cocircuits

Y1 = Mod(Y23, Y12,p), f Y2 = Mod(−Y23, Y13,p),

Z = Mod(Y13, Y12,p), 1 1 Y3 = Mod(Y24 · σ(Y24)− , Y34 · (−σ(Y34)− ),p). So by Lemma 3.7, we have

Y1(y1)= Y23(y1)=1 since Y12(y1)=0,

Y1(y2)=0 since Y23(y2)= Y12(y2)=0,

Y1(y3)= Y12(y3)=1 since Y23(y3)=0, 1 1 1 Y1(y4)= −Y23(y4)σ(Y23)− σ(Y24)Y24(y3)− Y12(y3)= xa− , and so 1 Y1 = (1, 0, 1, xa− , 0). Similarly by Lemma 3.7, we have

Y2(y1)= −Y23(y1)= −1 since Y13(y1)=0, EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS19

Y2(y2)= Y13(y2)=1 since Y23(y2)=0,

Y2(y3)=0 since Y23(y3)= Y13(y3)=0, 1 1 1 Y2(y4)= −(−Y23(y4))σ(−Y23)− σ(Y34)Y34(y2)− Y13(y2)= −yb− , and so 1 Y2 = (−1, 1, 0, −yb− , 0). Similarly by Lemma 3.7, we have

Z(y1)=0 since Y13(y1)= Y12(y1)=0,

Z(y2)= Y13(y2)=1 since Y12(y2)=0,

Z(y3)= Y12(y3)=1 since Y13(y3)=0, 1 1 1 1 Z(y4)= −Y13(y4)σ(Y13)− σ(Y14)Y14(y3)− Y12(y3)= b− za− , and so 1 1 Z = (0, 1, 1,b− za− , 0). 0 0 We can see that Y1 = {y2,p} and Y2 = {y3,p}, thus Y1 and Y2 form a modular pair. As Y1(y1) = 1, 0 Y2(y1)= −1 and Z = {y1,p}, thus Z should eliminate y1 between Y1 and Y2. Then

Y1(y2)+ Y2(y2) − Z(y2)=0+1 − 1=0 ∈ NG,

Y1(y3)+ Y2(y3) − Z(y3)=1+0 − 1=0 ∈ NG, but 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Y1(y4)+ Y2(y4) − Z(y4)= xa− − yb− − b− za− = a− x − yb− − a− zb− = a− (xb − ay − z)b− ∈/ NG, by Pathetic Cancellation. We got a contradiction. So σ is not a localization of M.

There is also an example of a right T -matroid and a left T ×-equivariant function deﬁned analogously. This proves the necessity of Pathetic Cancellation for extending Crapo and Las Vergnas’ results. We will prove the suﬃciency in the next section.

5. Characterization of localization for weak T -matroid Our main theorem (Theorem 5.1) in this section proves the converse of Theorem 4.3. Theorem 5.1. Let T be a skew tract satisfying Pathetic Cancellation, let M be a weak left T -matroid on E, and let σ : C∗(M) → T be a right T ×-equivariant function. Then the following statements are equivalent. (1) σ is a weak localization of M. (2) σ deﬁnes a weak single-element extension of every rank 2 contraction of M. (3) σ deﬁnes a weak single-element extension of every rank 2 minor of M on three elements.

The statement also holds if M is a weak right T -matroid and σ is left T ×-equivariant. Before showing the main theorem, we will ﬁrst introduce some useful lemmas. Lemma 5.2. Let M be a (weak or strong) left T -matroid of rank d on E, let [·] be left quasi-Pl¨ucker coordinates of M, and let σ : C∗(M) → T be a right T ×-equivariant function. Let cl be the closure operator of M. Then for any F ⊆ E independent in M with |F | = d − 1, Y ∈C∗(M), y ∈ E such that Y = E\cl(F ) and y ∈ Y , we have 1 Y (y) · σ(Y )− is independent of the choice of Y . 20 TING SU

Proof. Let F be an independent subset of E with |F | = d − 1. Then there exists a unique projective T -cocircuit D such that Y = E\cl(F ) for any T -cocircuit Y ∈ D. Let Y1, Y2 ∈ D. Then by definition, there exists α ∈ T × such that Y1 = Y2 · α. Let y ∈ Y1 = Y2. We have 1 1 1 Y2(y) · σ(Y2)− = Y2(y) · α · α− · σ(Y2)− 1 = (Y2(y) · α) · (σ(Y2) · α)− 1 = (Y2(y) · α) · σ(Y2 · α)− 1 = Y1(y) · σ(Y1)− . 1 So Y (y) · σ(Y )− is independent of the choice of Y ∈ D. So for a weak left T -matroid M of rank d with bases B and left quasi-Plücker coordinates [·] and a right T ×-equivariant function σ : C∗(M) → T , we can define a collection B of subsets of E ∪ p by

B = B∪{Fp ⊆ E ∪ p | |F | = d − 1, E\cl(F )= Y and σ(Y ) 6= 0 for some Y ∈C∗(M)}, e where cl is the closure operator of M. It is trivial to see that every set of B has the same size. Then we e E p define the collection A e of adjacent sets by A e := {(B,B′) ∈ B× B | |B\B′| = 1} ⊆ T ∪ and then define B B left T -coordinates [·]p : A e → T by e B e e [Fs,Ft] if p∈ / F st, σ(Y ) · Y (t) 1 if p = s and Y ∈C (M) with Y = E\cl(F ),  − ∗  Y (s) · σ(Y ) 1 if p = t and Y ∈C (M) with Y = E\cl(F ),  − ∗  [Fs,Ft]p =  [Gsg, Gtg] if p ∈ F, G = F \{p},Gst∈B / and Gsg, Gtg ∈B   for some g ∈ E, 1 1  −Yt(s) · σ(Yt)− · σ(Ys) · Ys(t)− if p ∈ F, G = F \{p},Gst ∈B, Yi ∈C∗(M) with   Yi = E\cl(Gi) for i ∈{s,t}.   Lemma 5.3. [·]psatisfies (P3) and (P5) in weak left quasi-Plücker coordinates axioms if and only if σ is a localization of M. Proof. (⇐): This is proved by Proposition 3.6. (⇒): By definition, [·]p satisfies (P1), (P2) and (P4) in weak left quasi-Plücker coordinates axioms. Then if [·]p satisfies (P3) and (P5) in weak left quasi-Plücker coordinates axioms, [·] are weak left quasi-Plücker coordinates of M. It is easy to check that [·]p satisfies the Dual Pivoting Property with C∗(M). So σ is a localization. f Now we would like to introduce a lemma extending one direction of Lemma 4.4 to weak left T -matroids.

Lemma 5.4. Let M be a (weak or strong) left T -matroid on E and let σ : C∗(M) → T be a localization of M. Let (Y1, Y2) be a modular pair of T -cocircuits of M with Y1(e) = −Y2(e) 6= 0 for some e ∈ E. Let Y3 ∈C∗(M) eliminate e between Y1 and Y2. Then σ(Y1)+ σ(Y2) − σ(Y3) ∈ NG.

Proof. We denote (Yi, σ(Yi)) by Yi for i ∈ {1, 2}. As (Y1, Y2) is a modular pair of T -cocircuits of M with Y1(e) = −Y2(e) 6= 0, then Y1 and Y2) form a modular pair of T -cocircuits of M with Y1(e) = −Y2(e) 6= 0. Let Z ∈ C∗(M) eliminate e betweene Y1 and Y2. Thus Z(e) = 0 and Y1(f)+ Y2(f) − Z(f) ∈ NG for all f ∈ E ∪ p. Then σ(Y1)+ σf(Y2) − Zf(p) ∈ NG. f f f We wouldf like to show that Z = (Y3f, σ(Y3)),f from which it follows thatf σ(Y1)+fσ(Y2) − σ(Y3) ∈ NG. By Proposition 3.9, we know that

C∗(M)={(W, σ(W )) : W ∈C∗(M)}∪

{Mod(W1, W2,p): W1, W2 ∈C∗(M), (W1, W2) is a modular pair of T -cocircuits, f and σ(W1)= −σ(W2) 6=0}. EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS21

We ﬁrst claim that Z/∈ {Mod(Y1, Y2,p): Y1, Y2 ∈ C∗(M), (Y1, Y2) is a modular pair of T -cocircuits, and σ(Y1) = −σ(Y2) 6= 0}. Otherwise, there exist (Z1,Z2) a modular pair of T -cocircuits of M such that σ(Z1)= −σ(Z2) 6= 0 and Z = Mod(Z1,Z2,p). By Corollary 3.10, Z = Z1 ∪Z2. As Z eliminates e between Y1

and Y2, then Z ⊆ (Y1∪Y2)\{e}. As Z(p) = 0, then Z ⊆ (Y1∪Y2)\{e}⊂ Y1∪Y2. So Z1,Z2 ⊂ Z1∪Z2 ⊂ Y1∪Y2. As (Y1, Y2) is a modular pair of T -cocircuits of M, by Deﬁnition 2.10, the height of Y1 ∪ Y2 is 2 in the latticef U(C∗f(M)). We gotf a contradiction.f So our claim holds. Then from our claim, we have that Z ∈ {(Y, σ(Y )) : Y ∈ C∗(M)}. Let x ∈ Y1\Y2. Then there exists

Z′ ∈C∗(M) such that Z = (Z′, σ(Z′)). As Z eliminates e between Y1 and Y2, then Z ⊆ (Y1 ∪ Y2)\{e} and Z(x)= Y1(x). Thus Z′ ⊆ (Y1 ∪ Y2)\{e} and Z′(x)= Y1(x). As Y3 eliminates e between Y1 and Y2, then Y3 ⊆ (Y1 ∪ Y2)\{e} andf Y3(xf)= Y1(x). f f Suppose by way of contradiction that Z′ 6= Y3. As Z′ ⊆ (Y1 ∪ Y2)\{e} and Y3 ⊆ (Y1 ∪ Y2)\{e}, then Z′ ∪ Y3 ⊆ (Y1 ∪ Y2)\{e}⊂ Y1 ∪ Y2. As (Y1, Y2) is a modular pair of T -cocircuits of M, by Deﬁnition 2.10, the height of Y1 ∪ Y2 is 2 in the lattice U(C∗(M)), contradicting that

Z′, Y3 ⊂ Z′ ∪ Y3 ⊂ Y1 ∪ Y2.

So Z′ = Y3, and then Z = (Y3, σ(Y3)). So σ(Y1)+ σ(Y2) − σ(Y3) ∈ NG. The statement also hold if M is a (weak or strong) right T -matroid. Following is a useful lemma showing that σ · α is a localization if σ is, for all α ∈ T ×.

Lemma 5.5. Let M be a (weak or strong) left T -matroid on E, let σ : C∗(M) → T be a localization, and let M be the extension of M by an element p determined by σ. Let α ∈ T ×. Then α · σ is also a localization of M and the corresponding extension is the left T -matroid Mρ arsing from M by right rescaling, where ρ : Ef∪ p → T × is a function deﬁned by f f 1 if e ∈ E, ρ(e)= ( α if e = p.

Proof. First we consider the left T -matroid Mρ arsing from M by right rescaling. By Lemma 2.25, we know ρ that C∗(M )= ρ ·C∗(M). By definition of ρ, we have f f C (Mρ\p)= C (Mρ)/p f ∗ ∗ = (ρ ·C (M))/p f f∗ = MinSupp({(ρ · Y )\p | Y ∈C (M)}) f ∗ = MinSupp({Y \p | Y ∈C (M)}) ∗ f = C (M)/p ∗ f = C (M\p) ∗ f = C∗(M). f So by definition, Mρ is also a weak extension of M by the same element p. ρ Now we would like to show that α · σ is the localization corresponding to M . Let Y ∈ C∗(M). By definition, we knowf that (Y, σ(Y )) ∈C∗(M). Then f C (Mρ) ∋ ρ · (Y, σ(Y )) = (Y, α · σ(Y )). ∗ f ρ So by Proposition 3.2, α · σ is the localizationf corresponding to M . Now we would like to prove Theorem 5.1. But the proof willf be a very long calculation. So we will first introduce a lemma which shows a general version of the direction (1) ⇒ (2). 22 TING SU

Lemma 5.6. Let M be a (weak or strong) left T -matroid on E and let σ : C∗(M) → T be a localization of M. Then σ deﬁnes a single-element extension of every contraction of M.

Proof. Let M be the extension of M by an element p determined by σ and let E0 ⊆ E. We would like to consider the contraction M/E0 of M. By deﬁnition, we know that f C∗((M/E0)\p)= C∗((M\p)/E0)= C∗(M/E0). So M/E is an extension of M/E by the element p. 0 0f f Let σ′ : C∗(M/E0) → T be the function induced by σ. We would like to show that σ′ is the localization of Mf/E0 corresponding to M/E0. It suﬃces to show that C (M/E )= {(Z, σ (Z)) : Z ∈C (M/E )}∪ ∗ 0 f ′ ∗ 0 {Mod(Z1,Z2,p) : (Z1,Z2) is a modular pair of T -cocircuits of f M/E0 and σ(Z1)= −σ(Z2) 6=0}. By Theorem 2.20 and Proposition 3.9,

C∗(M/E0)=C∗(M)\E0 ={Y \E : Y ∈C (M), Y ∩ E = ∅} f f0 ∗ 0 ={(Y, σ(Y ))\E0 : Y ∈C∗(M), Y ∩ E0 = ∅}∪{Mod(Y1, Y2,p)\E0 : (Y1, Y2) f is a modular pair of T -cocircuits of M, σ(Y1)= −σ(Y2) 6= 0 and

Mod(Y1, Y2,p) ∩ E0 = ∅}.

={(Y \E0, σ(Y )) : Y ∈C∗(M), Y ∩ E0 = ∅}∪{Mod(Y1, Y2,p)\E0 : (Y1, Y2)

is a modular pair of T -cocircuits of M, σ(Y1)= −σ(Y2) 6= 0 and

(Y1 ∪ Y2) ∩ E0 = ∅}.

={(Z, σ′(Z)) : Z ∈C∗(M/E0)}∪{Mod(Z1,Z2,p) : (Z1,Z2) is a modular

pair of T -cocircuits of M/E0 and σ(Z1)= −σ(Z2) 6=0}.

The statement also holds if M is a (weak or strong) right T -matroid. Now we will introduce a lemma which shows a general version of the direction (2) ⇒ (3) in Theorem 5.1.

Lemma 5.7. Let M be a (weak or strong) left T -matroid on E and let σ : C∗(M) → T be a localization of M. Then σ deﬁnes a single-element extension of every deletion of M.

Proof. Let M be the extension of M by an element p determined by σ and let E0 ⊆ E. We will prove that σ deﬁnes a single-element extension of M\E0 when |E0| = 1 and the claim of the lemma follows by induction on the size offE0. Let E0 = {e0}. By deﬁnition, we know that

C∗((M\e0)\p)= C∗((M\p)\e0)= C∗(M\e0). So M\e is an extension of M\e by the element p. 0 0 f f Let σ′ : C∗(M\e0) → T be the function induced by σ. We would like to show that σ′ is the localization of M\f e0 corresponding to M\e0. Let Z ∈C∗(M\e0). Then by definition, there exists Y ∈C∗(M) such that Z = Y \e0. By Proposition 3.2, Y := (Y, σ(Y )) ∈C∗(M). Wef claim that Y \e0 ∈C∗(M\e0). Otherwise, there exists W ∈C∗(M) such that W \e0 ⊂ Y \e0. Then either W \{e0,p} ⊂ Y \{e0,p} = Z or W \{e0,p} = Y \{e0,p} and W (p) = 0. The first casee contradicts the definitionf of Z. e f f Now wee consider the second case. As We\{e0,p} = Y \{e0,p}, then bye comparability there exists α ∈ T ×

such that W \{e0,p} = (Y \{e0,p}) · α. Without loss of generality, we assume that α = −1. As W (p) = 0, e e EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS23

0 0 then W (e0) 6= 0 and Y (e0) = 0. So rank f(W ∩ Y ) = rank(M) − 2 and so W and Y form a modular M pair of T -cocircuits in M. Let e1 ∈ W ∩ Y = W \{e0,p}. By Modular Elimination, there exists V ∈C∗(M) e e f e such that V (e1) = 0 and W (f)+ Y (f) − V (f) ∈ NG. Then V ⊆ (W ∪ Y )\e1 = (Z ∪{e0,p})\e1. So V \{e0,p} ⊆ Z\e1 ⊂ Z,f contradicting thee deﬁnition of Z. f e e So our claim is true, that is Y \e0 ∈C∗(M\e0). So

(Z,e σ′(Z)) =f (Y \e0, σ(Y )) = Y \e0 ∈C∗(M\e0).

So σ′ is the localization of M\e0 corresponding to M\ee0, and so σfdeﬁnes a single-element extension of M\e0. f The statement also holds if M is a (weak or strong) right T -matroid. Then we will introduce a lemma which shows a general version of the direction (3) ⇒ (2) in Theorem 5.1.

Lemma 5.8. Let M be a T -matroid on E of rank 2 and let σ : C∗(M) → T be a function. If σ defines a single-element extension of every minor of M on three elements, then σ is a localization of M. Proof. Let cl be the closure operator of M. Let B be set of bases of M and let [·]: A → T be left B quasi-Plücker coordinates of M. We define a collection B of subsets of E ∪ p and the left T -coordinates [·]p : A e → T as in Lemma 5.3. Then B e B := B∪{{e,p} | e ∈ E, E\cl({e})= Y and σ(Y ) 6= 0 for some Y ∈C∗(M)} and e [{e,s}, {e,t}] if p∈{ / e,s,t}, σ(Y ) · Y (t) 1 if p = s and Y ∈C (M) with Y = E\cl({e}),  − ∗  Y (s) · σ(Y ) 1 if p = t and Y ∈C (M) with Y = E\cl({e}),  − ∗  [{e,s}, {e,t}]p =  [{s,g}, {t,g}] if p = e, {s,t} ∈B/ and {s,g}, {t,g}∈B (3)   for some g ∈ E, 1 1 −Yt(s) · σ(Yt) · σ(Ys) · Ys(t) if p = e, {s,t}∈B, Yi ∈C∗(M) with  − −   Yi = E\cl({i}) for i ∈{s,t}.   Now we just need to show that [·]p satisfies (P3) and (P5) in weak left quasi-Plücker coordinates axioms. So we need to show that

(a) for any e, x1, x2, x3 ∈ E ∪ p with {e, xi} ∈ B for all i ∈{1, 2, 3}, we have [{e, x }, {e, x }] · [{e, x }, {e, x }] · [{e, x }, {e, x }] =1, (4) 1 2 p 2 e 3 p 3 1 p

(b) for any y1,y2,y3,y4 ∈ E ∪ p with {yi,yj } ∈ B for all i, j ∈{1, 2, 3, 4} and i 6= j, we have − 1 + [{y ,y }, {y ,y }] · [{y ,y }, {y ,y }] + [{y ,y }, {y ,y }] · [{y ,y }, {y ,y }] ∈ N . (5) 2 4 1 2 p 1 3 3 4 pe 1 4 1 2 p 2 3 3 4 p G

First, we prove Equation (4). If p∈{ / e, x1, x2, x3}, then from Formula (3) we know that [·] and [·]p coincide on each pair of the bases in (4). So Equation (4) holds because [·] satisfies (P3). If p ∈{e, x1, x2, x3}, then we consider a minor M3 of M on {e, x1, x2, x3}\p. By assumption, σ defines a single-element extension of M3. So Equation (4) holds. Now, we prove the inclusion (5). If p∈ / {y1,y2,y3,y4}, then from Formula (3) we know that [·] and [·]p coincide on each pair of the bases in (5). So the inclusion (5) holds because [·] satisfies (P5). If p ∈ {y1,y2,y3,y4}. Now we consider a minor M3′ of M on {y1,y2,y3,y4}\p. By assumption, σ defines a single-element extension of M3′ . So the inclusion (5) holds.

Finally, we will prove the main theorem (Theorem 5.1) in this section. 24 TING SU

Proof of Theorem 5.1. (1) ⇒ (2): This is proved by Lemma 5.6. (2) ⇒ (3): This is proved by Lemma 5.7. (3) ⇒ (2): This is proved by Lemma 5.8. (2) ⇒ (1): Let d = rank(M). Let r be the rank function of M and let cl be closure operator of M. Let B be set of bases of M and let [·]: A → T be weak left quasi-Pl¨ucker coordinates of M. B We deﬁne a collection B of subsets of E ∪ p by

B = B∪{Fp ⊆eE ∪ p | |F | = d − 1, E\cl(F )= Y and σ(Y ) 6= 0 for some Y ∈C∗(M)}, as in Lemmae 5.3. Now we consider the left T -coordinates [·]p : A e → T defined in Lemma 5.3: B [Fs,Ft] if p∈ / F st, σ(Y ) · Y (t) 1 if p = s and Y ∈C (M) with Y = E\cl(F ),  − ∗  Y (s) · σ(Y ) 1 if p = t and Y ∈C (M) with Y = E\cl(F ),  − ∗  [Fs,Ft]p =  [Gsg, Gtg] if p ∈ F, G = F \p,Gst∈B / and Gsg, Gtg ∈B (6)   for some g ∈ E, 1 1 −Yt(s) · σ(Yt) · σ(Ys) · Ys(t) if p ∈ F, G = F \p,Gst ∈B, Yi ∈C∗(M) with  − −  Y = E\cl(Gi) for i ∈{s,t}.  i   By Lemma 5.3, we just need to show that [·]p satisfies (P3) and (P5) in weak left quasi-Plücker coordinates axioms. So we need to show

(A) for any x1, x2, x3 ∈ E ∪ p and H ⊆ E ∪ p with Hx1, Hx2, Hx3 ∈ B, we have

[Hx1, Hx2]p · [Hx2, Hx3]p · [Hx3, Hx1]p =1e, (7)

(B) for any y1,y2,y3,y4 ∈ E ∪ p and F ⊆ E ∪ p with Fyiyj ∈ B for all i, j ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4} and i 6= j, we have e − 1 + [Fy2y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy1y3,Fy3y4]p + [Fy1y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy2y3,Fy3y4]p ∈ NG. (8)

First, we will prove Equation (7). If p∈ / H ∪{x1, x2, x3}, then we know that [·] and [·]p coincide on each pair of the bases in (7). So Equation (7) holds because [·] satisﬁes (P3). If p ∈ {x1, x2, x3}, without loss of generality we assume p = x1. Then there exists Y ∈ C∗(M) with Y = E\cl(H) and σ(Y ) 6= 0. Then x2, x3 ∈ Y . By Formula (6), we get that

[Hx1, Hx2]p · [Hx2, Hx3]p · [Hx3, Hx1]p = [Hp,Hx2]p · [Hx2, Hx3]p · [Hx3,Hp]p 1 1 1 = σ(Y )Y (x2)− · Y (x2)Y (x3)− · Y (x3)σ(Y )− =1.

If p ∈ H, then let G = H\{p}. As r(G) = d − 2, then let M′ = M/G and [·]′ = [·]/G. Then M′ is a rank 2 contraction of M and [·]′ are weak left quasi-Pl¨ucker coordinates of M′. Let σ′ : C∗(M′) → T be the function induced by σ. As σ deﬁnes a single-element extension of every rank 2 contraction of M, then σ′ is a localization of M′ and we call the corresponding extension M′. So by Lemma 3.4, the set of bases of M′ is f f B′ = B(M′) ∪ {{e,p}⊆ (E\G) ∪ p | (E\G)\cl ′ ({e})= X and σ′(X) 6= 0 for some X ∈C∗(M′)}. M

By Propositione 3.6, the corresponding weak left quasi-Pl¨ucker coordinates [·]p′ : A e′ → T are given by B

[{e,s}, {e,t}]p′ EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS25

[{e,s}, {e,t}]′ if p∈{ / e,s,t}, 1 σ′(X) · X(t)− if p = s and X ∈C∗(M′) with X = (E\G)\cl ′ ({e}),  M  X(s) · σ (X) 1 if p = t and X ∈C (M ) with X = (E\G)\cl ′ ({e}),  ′ − ∗ ′  M =  [{s,g}, {t,g}]′ if p = e, {s,t} ∈B/ (M′) and {s,g}, {t,g}∈B(M′)   for some g ∈ E\G, 1 1  −Xt(s) · σ′(Xt)− · σ′(Xs) · Xs(t)− if p = e, {s,t}∈B(M′),Xi ∈C∗(M′) with   Xi = (E\G)\cl ′ ({i}) for i ∈{s,t}.  M  Let k, j ∈ {x1, x2, x3} with k 6= j. If Gkj ∈ B, then there exists Yk, Yj ∈ C∗(M) with Yk = E\cl(Gk), σ(Yk) 6= 0, Yj = E\cl(Gj) and σ(Yj ) 6= 0. Let Xk = Yk\G and Xj = Yj \G. Then Xk,Xj ∈M′. So

[Hk,Hj]p = [Gpk, Gpj]p 1 1 = −Yj (k) · σ(Yj )− · σ(Yk) · Yk(j)− 1 1 = −Xj (k) · σ′(Xj )− · σ′(Xk) · Xk(j)−

= [{p, k}, {p, j}]p′ . If Gkj∈B / , then let g ∈ E such that Gkg,Gjg ∈B. So

[Hk,Hj]p = [Gpk, Gpj]p = [Gkg,Gjg] = [{k,g}, {j, g}]′ = [{k,p}, {j, p}]p′ .

So Equation (7) holds because [·]p′ satisﬁes (P3). Now we would like to prove the inclusion (8):

−1 + [Fy2y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy1y3,Fy3y4]p + [Fy1y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy2y3,Fy3y4]p ∈ NG.

By Formula (6) and our argument above, we know that [·]p satisﬁes (P1), (P2), (P3) and (P4). So we can multiply both sides of (8) on the left by [Fy1y2,Fy1y4]p and on the right by [Fy3y4,Fy2y3]p, and get

−[Fy1y2,Fy1y4]p · [Fy3y4,Fy2y3]p − [Fy2y4,Fy1y4]p · [Fy1y3,Fy2y3]p +1 ∈ NG.

Then from this inclusion and (8), we know that switching y1 and y2 or switching y1 and y4 in (8) will result in an inclusion equivalent to the inclusion (8). Now we begin our proof and will divide it into three cases. Case 1: p∈ / F ∪{y1,y2,y3,y4}. From Formula (6), we know that [·] and [·]p coincide on each pair of the bases in (8). So the inclusion (8) holds because [·] satisﬁes (P5). Case 2: p ∈ {y1,y2,y3,y4}. Then there exists Yi ∈ C∗(M) such that Yi = E\cl(Fi) and σ(Yi) 6= 0 for i ∈ {y1,y2,y3,y4}\{p}. Moreover, {y1,y2,y3,y4}\{p,i} ⊆ Yi for i ∈ {y1,y2,y3,y4}\{p}. We denote

(Yi, σ(Yi)) by Yi.

Case 2.1: If p ∈{y1,y2,y4}, then without loss of generality, we may assume p = y1. Now we consider Y2 and e Y3. As r(F ) = d − 2, then Y2 and Y3 form a modular pair in C∗(M). So (Y2, Y3) is a modular pair in C∗(M). By symmetry in weak circuit axioms, we may assume that σ(Y2) = −σ(Y3). Let Z = Mod(Y2, Y3,p). Then Z(y2) = Y3(y2) and Y2(y4)+ Y3(y4) − Z(y4) ∈ NG.e Soe by Formula (6) and Dual Pivotingf property,

− 1 + [Fy2y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy1y3,Fy3y4]p + [Fy1y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy2y3,Fy3y4]p

= − 1 + [Fy2y4,Fy2p]p · [Fy3p,Fy3y4]p + [Fy4p,Fy2p]p · [Fy2y3,Fy3y4]p 1 1 1 1 = − 1+ Y2(y4)σ(Y2)− · σ(Y3)Y3(y4)− + Z(y4)Z(y2)− · Y3(y2)Y3(y4)− 1 1 = − 1 − Y2(y4)Y3(y4)− + Z(y4)Y3(y4)− 1 = − (Y3(y4)+ Y2(y4) − Z(y4)) · Y3(y4)−

∈NG. 26 TING SU

Case 2.2: If p = y3, then we consider Y1 and Y2. Similarly, (Y1, Y2) is a modular pair in C∗(M). By symmetry in weak circuit axioms, we may assume that σ(Y1) = −σ(Y2). Let Z = Mod(Y1, Y2,p). Then Z(y1) = Y2(y1), Z(y2) = Y1(y2) and Y1(y4)+ Y2(ey4)e− Z(y4) ∈ NG. So by Formulaf (6) and Dual Pivoting property,

− 1 + [Fy2y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy1y3,Fy3y4]p + [Fy1y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy2y3,Fy3y4]p

= − 1 + [Fy2y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy1p,Fy4p]p + [Fy1y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy2p,Fy4p]p 1 1 1 1 = − 1+ Y2(y4)Y2(y1)− · Z(y1)Z(y4)− + Y1(y4)Y1(y2)− · Z(y2)Z(y4)− 1 1 = − 1+ Y2(y4)Z(y4)− + Y1(y4)Z(y4)− 1 =(−Z(y4)+ Y2(y4)+ Y1(y4)) · Z(y4)−

∈NG.

Case 3: p ∈ F . Let G = F \{p}. So rank f(G) = rank (G)= d − 3. M M As r(Gyiyj )= d − 1 for any two distinct elements i, j ∈{1, 2, 3, 4}, then r(Gyiyjyk) ≥ d − 1 for any three distinct elements i, j, k ∈{1, 2, 3, 4}. There is an easy case and two harder cases to check:

Case 3.1: r(Gy1y2y3y4)= d − 1. Then r(Gyiyj yk)= d − 1 for any three distinct elements i, j, k ∈{1, 2, 3, 4}. So cl(Gy1y2) = cl(Gy1y3) = cl(Gy1y4) = cl(Gy2y3) = cl(Gy2y4) = cl(Gy3y4). Let e ∈ E such that Gy1y2e ∈B. Then Gy1y3e,Gy1y4e,Gy2y3e,Gy2y4e,Gy3y4e ∈B. As [·] satisﬁes (P5), we have

− 1 + [Fy2y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy1y3,Fy3y4]p + [Fy1y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy2y3,Fy3y4]p

= − 1 + [Gy2y4p,Gy1y2p]p · [Gy1y3p,Gy3y4p]p + [Gy1y4p,Gy1y2p]p · [Gy2y3p,Gy3y4p]p

= − 1 + [Gy2y4e,Gy1y2e] · [Gy1y3e,Gy3y4e] + [Gy1y4e,Gy1y2e] · [Gy2y3e,Gy3y4e]

∈NG.

Case 3.2: r(Gy1y2y3y4)= d, and there exists f ∈{y1,y2,y3,y4} such that r(Gy1y2y3y4\{f})= d − 1. Case 3.2.1: If f ∈{y1,y2,y4}, then without loss of generality we assume f = y2 and so r(Gy1y3y4)= d − 1. So cl(Gy1y3) = cl(Gy1y4) = cl(Gy3y4) = cl(Gy1y3y4) and Gy1y2y4, Gy1y2y3, Gy2y3y4 ∈ B. So there exists Y134 ∈C∗(M) with Y134 = E\cl(Gy1y3y4) ∋ y2 and σ(Y134) 6= 0. Then we have

1 [Gy1y4p,Gy1y2y4]p = σ(Y134) · Y134(y2)− = [Gy3y4p,Gy2y3y4]p.

As [·]p satisﬁes (P3), then

[Fy1y4,Fy1y2]p = [Gpy1y4,Gpy1y2]p = −[Gy1y2y4, Gy1y2p]p · [Gy1y4p,Gy1y2y4]p,

[Fy2y3,Fy3y4]p = [Gpy2y3,Gpy3y4]p = −[Gy2y3y4, Gy3y4p]p · [Gy2y3p,Gy2y3y4]p. So

[Fy1y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy2y3,Fy3y4]p

=[Gy1y2y4, Gy1y2p]p · [Gy1y4p,Gy1y2y4]p · [Gy2y3y4, Gy3y4p]p · [Gy2y3p,Gy2y3y4]p

=[Gy1y2y4, Gy1y2p]p · [Gy2y3p,Gy2y3y4]p.

As [·]p satisﬁes (P4), then

[Fy1y3,Fy3y4]p = [Gy1y3y2, Gy3y4y2]. So to prove the inclusion (8), we only need to verify,

−1 + [Gy2y4p,Gy1y2p]p · [Gy1y3y2, Gy3y4y2] + [Gy1y2y4, Gy1y2p]p · [Gy2y3p,Gy2y3y4]p ∈ NG.

Let J = Gy2. Let M2 = M/J and [·]2 = [·]/J. M2 is a rank 2 contraction of M and [·]2 are weak left quasi-P¨ucker coordinates of M2. Let σ2 : C∗(M2) → T be the function induced by σ. As σ deﬁnes a single-element extension of every rank 2 contraction of M, then σ2 is a EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS27

localization of M2 and we call the corresponding extension M2. So by Lemma 3.4, the set of bases of M2 is f B2 = B(M2) ∪ {{e,p}⊆ (E\J) ∪ p | (E\J)\cl 2 ({e})= X and σ2(X) 6= 0 for some X ∈C∗(M2)}. f M By Proposition 3.6, the corresponding weak left quasi-Pl¨ucker coordinates [·]2 : A e → T are e p 2 given by B 2 [{e,s}, {e,t}]p

[{e,s}, {e,t}]2 if p∈{ / e,s,t}, 1 σ2(X) · X(t)− if p = s and X ∈C∗(M2) with X = (E\J)\cl 2 ({e}),  M 1  X(s) · σ2(X)− if p = t and X ∈C∗(M2) with X = (E\J)\cl 2 ({e}),  M  =  [{s,g}, {t,g}]2 if p = e, {s,t} ∈B/ (M2) and {s,g}, {t,g}∈B(M2)   for some g ∈ E\J, 1 1  −Xt(s) · σ2(Xt)− · σ2(Xs) · Xs(t)− if p = e, {s,t}∈B(M2),Xi ∈C∗(M2) with   Xi = (E\J)\cl 2 ({i}) for i ∈{s,t}.  M   As Gy1y2y4, Gy2y3y4 ∈ B, then there exists Y2i ∈ C∗(M) such that Y2i = E\cl(Giy2) = E\cl(Ji), σ(Y2i) 6= 0 for i ∈{1, 3, 4}. Let X2i = Y2i\J for i ∈{1, 3, 4}. Then X2i ∈C∗(M2) for i ∈{1, 3, 4}. So

1 1 [Gy2y4p,Gy1y2p]p = −Y12(y4)σ(Y12)− σ(Y24)Y24(y1)− 1 1 = −X12(y4)σ2(X12)− σ2(X24)X24(y1)− 2 = [{p,y4}, {p,y1}]p, 2 [Gy1y3y2, Gy3y4y2] = [{y1,y3}, {y3,y4}]p, 1 1 [Gy1y2y4, Gy1y2p]p · [Gy2y3p,Gy2y3y4]p = Y12(y4)σ(Y12)− · σ(Y23)Y23(y4)− 1 1 = X12(y4)σ2(X12)− · σ2(X23)X23(y4)− 2 2 = [{y1,y4}, {y1,p}]p · [{y3,p}, {y3,y4}]p. So to prove the inclusion (8), we only need to verify, 2 2 2 2 −1 + [{p,y4}, {p,y1}]p · [{y1,y3}, {y3,y4}]p + [{y1,y4}, {y1,p}]p · [{y3,p}, {y3,y4}]p ∈ NG. 2 As σ2 is a localization of M2, then [·]p satisﬁes (P5). So the inclusion (8) holds. Case 3.2.2: If f = y3, then r(Gy1y2y4)= d − 1. So cl(Gy1y2) = cl(Gy1y4) = cl(Gy2y4) = cl(Gy1y2y4) and Gy1y3y4, Gy1y2y3, Gy2y3y4 ∈B. So there exists Y124 ∈C∗(M) with Y124 = E\cl(Gy1y2y4) ∋ y3 and σ(Y124) 6= 0. Then we have

[Fy2y4,Fy1y2]p = [Gpy2y4,Gpy1y2]p = [Gy2y4y3, Gy1y2y3}],

[Fy1y4,Fy1y2]p = [Gpy1y4,Gpy1y2]p = [Gy1y4y3, Gy1y2y3]. So to prove the inclusion (8), we only need to verify,

−1 + [Gy2y4y3, Gy1y2y3}] · [Gpy1y3,Gpy3y4]p + [Gy1y4y3, Gy1y2y3] · [Gpy2y3,Gpy3y4]p.

Let K = Gy3. Let M2′ = M/K and [·]2′ = [·]/K. M2′ is a rank 2 contraction of M and [·]2′ are weak left quasi-P¨ucker coordinates of M2′ . Let σ2′ : C∗(M2′ ) → T be the function induced by σ. As σ deﬁnes a single-element extension of every rank 2 contraction of M, then σ2′ is a localization of M2′ and we call the corresponding extension M2′ . So by Lemma 3.4, the set of bases of M2′ is f ′ B2′ = B(M2′ ) ∪ {{e,p}⊆ (E\K) ∪ p | (E\K)\cl 2 ({e})= X and σ2′ (X) 6= 0 for some X ∈C∗(M2′ )}. f M e 28 TING SU

2 By Proposition 3.6, the corresponding weak left quasi-Pl¨ucker coordinates [·] : A e′ → T are p 2 given by B

′ 2 [{e,s}, {e,t}]p

[{e,s}, {e,t}]2′ if p∈{ / e,s,t}, 1 ′ σ2′ (X) · X(t)− if p = s and X ∈C∗(M2′ ) with X = (E\K)\cl 2 ({e}),  M  1 ′  X(s) · σ2′ (X)− if p = t and X ∈C∗(M2′ ) with X = (E\K)\cl 2 ({e}),  M  =  [{s,g}, {t,g}]2′ if p = e, {s,t} ∈B/ (M2′ ) and {s,g}, {t,g}∈B(M2′ )   for some g ∈ E\K, 1 1  −Xt(s) · σ2′ (Xt)− · σ2′ (Xs) · Xs(t)− if p = e, {s,t}∈B(M2′ ),Xi ∈C∗(M2′ ) with   X = (E\K)\cl ′ ({i}) for i ∈{s,t}.  i 2  M   As Gy1y3y4, Gy2y3y4 ∈ B, then there exists Y3i ∈ C∗(M) such that Y3i = E\cl(Giy3) = E\cl(Ki), σ(Y3i) 6= 0 for i ∈ {1, 2, 4}. Let X3i = Y3i\K for i ∈ {1, 2, 4}. Then X3i ∈ C∗(M2′ ) for i ∈{1, 2, 4}. So

′ 2 [Gy2y4y3, Gy1y2y3] = [{y2,y4}, {y1,y2}]p , 1 1 [Gpy1y3,Gpy3y4]p = −Y34(y1)σ(Y34)− σ(Y13)Y13(y4)− 1 1 = −X34(y1)σ2′ (X34)− σ2′ (X13)X13(y4)− ′ 2 = [{y1,y3}, {y3,y4}]p , ′ 2 [Gy1y4y3, Gy1y2y3] = [{y1,y4}, {y1,y2}]p , 1 1 [Gpy2y3,Gpy3y4]p = −Y34(y2)σ(Y34)− σ(Y23)Y23(y4)− 1 1 = −X34(y2)σ2′ (X34)− σ2′ (X23)X23(y4)− ′ 2 = [{y2,y3}, {y3,y4}]p .

So to prove the inclusion (8), we only need to verify,

′ ′ ′ ′ 2 2 2 2 −1 + [{y2,y4}, {y1,y2}]p · [{y1,y3}, {y3,y4}]p + [{y1,y4}, {y1,y2}]p · [{y2,y3}, {y3,y4}]p .

′ 2 As σ2′ is a localization of M2′ , then [·]p satisﬁes (P5). So the inclusion (8) holds. Case 3.3: For any three distinct elements i, j, k ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}, r(Gyiyj yk) = d. Then for each partition {i, j} ∪·{k,l} of {1, 2, 3, 4}, there exists Yij ∈ C∗(M) such that Yij = E\cl(Gyiyj ), σ(Yij ) 6= 0 and yk,yl ∈ Yij . By symmetry in weak circuit axioms, we may assume Y23(y1) = Y13(y2) = Y12(y3) = 1 Y24(y1)= −Y34(y1) = 1 and Y14(y2)= Y13(y4)− Y23(y4). By Lemma 5.5, we can choose σ(Y23) = 1. We list values of Y23, Y13, Y12, Y34, Y24 and Y14 on elements {y1,y2,y3,y4} and the corresponding σ values in Table 4. We now ﬁnd relationships between some numbers in this table. 1 Let α ∈ T × with α = Y12(y4)− Y23(y4). We consider the rank 2 contraction M/Gy2. Let σy2 : C∗(M/Gy2) → T be the function induced by σ. As σ is a localization on the rank 2 contraction

M/Gy2, then σy2 is a localization of M/Gy2. Now we consider the T -cocircuits Y23\Gy2, Y12\Gy2 · (−α) and Y24\Gy2 of M/Gy2. We list their values on elements {y1,y3,y4} and the corresponding

σy2 values in Table 5, EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS29

y1 y2 y3 y4 σ

Y23 1 0 0 Y23(y4) 1

Y13 0 1 0 Y13(y4) σ(Y13)

Y12 0 0 1 Y12(y4) σ(Y12)

Y24 1 0 Y24(y3) 0 σ(Y24)

Y34 -1 Y34(y2) 0 0 σ(Y34) 1 Y14 0 Y13(y4)− Y23(y4) Y14(y3) 0 σ(Y14) Table 4

y1 y3 y4 σy2

Y23\Gy2 1 0 Y23(y4) 1

Y12\Gy2 · (−α) 0 −α −Y23(y4) σ(Y12) · (−α)

Y24\Gy2 1 Y24(y3) 0 σ(Y24) Table 5

Note that Y24\Gy2 eliminates y4 between Y23\Gy2 and Y12\Gy2 · (−α). So

Y24(y3)= −α.

Also as σy2 is a localization of M/Gy2, then by Lemma 5.4

1 − σ(Y12)α − σ(Y24) ∈ NG. (9) 1 We still consider M/Gy2. (Y23\Gy2, Y12\Gy2 · (−σ(Y12)− )) forms a modular pair in C∗(M/Gy2) 1 and σy2 (Y23\Gy2)=1= −σy2 (Y12\Gy2 · (−σ(Y12)− )). We apply Lemma 3.7 with choosing Y1 = 1 Y23\Gy2, Y2 = Y12\Gy2 · (−σ(Y12)− ), e1 = y3, e = y4 and Ye = Y24\Gy2, and get 1 1 1 Mod(Y1, Y2,p)(y4)= −Y23(y4) · σ(Y23)− · σ(Y24) · Y24(y3)− · (Y12(y3) · (−σ(Y12)− )) 1 1 = −Y23(y4) · σ(Y24) · α− · σ(Y12)− . 1 Similarly, we apply Lemma 3.7 with choosing Y1′ = Y12\Gy2 · (−σ(Y12)− ), Y2′ = Y23\Gy2, e1 = y1, e = y4 and Ye = Y24\Gy2, and get 1 1 Mod(Y1′, Y2′,p)(y4)= −(−Y12(y4) · σ(Y12)− ) · (−1) · σ(Y24) · Y24(y1)− · Y23(y1) 1 = −Y12(y4) · σ(Y12)− · σ(Y24).

As Mod(Y1, Y2,p)(y4) = Mod(Y1′, Y2′,p)(y4), then 1 1 1 −Y23(y4) · σ(Y24) · α− · σ(Y12)− = −Y12(y4) · σ(Y12)− · σ(Y24). 1 Multiplying on the left by −Y23(y4)− and we get 1 1 1 1 σ(Y24) · α− · σ(Y12)− = α− · σ(Y12)− · σ(Y24). 1 1 σ(Y24) · (σ(Y12) · α)− = (σ(Y12) · α)− · σ(Y24). (10) 1 Next, let β ∈ T × with β = Y13(y4)− Y23(y4). We consider the rank 2 contraction M/Gy3. Let

σy3 : C∗(M/Gy3) → T be the function induced by σ. As σ is a localization on the rank 2 contraction

M/Gy3, then σy3 is a localization of M/Gy3. Now we consider the T -cocircuits −Y23\Gy3, Y13\Gy3·β

and Y34\Gy3. We list their values on elements {y1,y2,y4} and the corresponding σy3 values in Table 6. 30 TING SU

y1 y2 y4 σy3

−Y23\Gy3 -1 0 −Y23(y4) -1

Y13\Gy3 · β 0 β Y23(y4) σ(Y13) · β

Y34\Gy3 -1 Y34(y2) 0 σ(Y34) Table 6

Note that Y34\Gy3 eliminates y4 between −Y23\Gy3 and Y13\Gy3 · β. So

Y34(y2)= β.

Also as σy3 is a localization of M/Gy3, then by Lemma 5.4

− 1+ σ(Y13)β − σ(Y34) ∈ NG. (11) 1 We still consider M/Gy3. (−Y23\Gy3, Y13\Gy3 · σ(Y13)− ) forms a modular pair in C∗(M/Gy3) 1 and σy3 (−Y23\Gy3) = −1 = −σy3 (Y13\Gy3 · σ(Y13)− ). We apply Lemma 3.7 with choosing Y1 = 1 −Y23\Gy3, Y2 = Y13\Gy3 · σ(Y13)− , e1 = y2, e = y4 and Ye = Y34\Gy3, and get 1 1 1 Mod(Y1, Y2,p)(y4)= −(−Y23(y4)) · (−σ(Y23)− ) · σ(Y34) · Y34(y2)− · (Y13(y2) · σ(Y13)− ) 1 1 = −Y23(y4) · σ(Y34) · β− · σ(Y13)− . 1 Similarly, we apply Lemma 3.7 with choosing Y1′ = Y13\Gy3 · σ(Y13)− , Y2′ = −Y23\Gy3, e1 = y1, e = y4 and Ye = Y34\Gy3, and get 1 1 Mod(Y1′, Y2′,p)(y4)= −(Y13(y4) · σ(Y13)− ) · 1 · σ(Y34) · Y34(y1)− · (−Y23(y1)) 1 = −Y13(y4) · σ(Y13)− · σ(Y34).

As Mod(Y1, Y2,p)(y4) = Mod(Y1′, Y2′,p)(y4), then 1 1 1 −Y23(y4) · σ(Y34) · β− · σ(Y13)− = −Y13(y4) · σ(Y13)− · σ(Y34). 1 Multiplying on the left by −Y23(y4)− and we get 1 1 1 1 σ(Y34) · β− · σ(Y13)− = β− · σ(Y13)− · σ(Y34). 1 1 σ(Y34) · (σ(Y13) · β)− = (σ(Y13) · β)− · σ(Y34). (12)

Next, we consider the rank 2 contraction M/Gy1. Let σy1 : C∗(M/Gy1) → T be the function

induced by σ. As σ is a localization on the rank 2 contraction M/Gy1, then σy1 is a localization of M/Gy1. Now we consider the T -cocircuits Y13\Gy1 · β, Y12\Gy1 · (−α) and Y14\Gy1. We list their

values on elements {y2,y3,y4} and the corresponding σy1 values in Table 7.

y2 y3 y4 σy1

Y13\Gy1 · β β 0 Y23(y4) σ(Y13) · β

Y12\Gy1 · (−α) 0 −α −Y23(y4) σ(Y12) · (−α)

Y14\Gy1 β Y14(y3) 0 σ(Y14) Table 7

Note that Y14\Gy1 eliminates y4 between Y13\Gy1 · β and Y12\Gy1 · (−α). So

Y14(y3)= −α.

Also as σy1 is a localization of M/Gy1, then by Lemma 5.4

σ(Y13)β − σ(Y12)α − σ(Y14) ∈ NG. (13) EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS31

1 1 We still consider M/Gy1. (Y13\Gy1 · σ(Y13)− , Y12\Gy1 · (−σ(Y12)− )) forms a modular pair in 1 1 C∗(M/Gy1) and σy1 (Y13\Gy1 · σ(Y13)− )=1= −σy1 (Y12\Gy1 · (−σ(Y12)− )). We apply Lemma 3.7 1 1 with choosing Y1 = Y13\Gy1 · σ(Y13)− , Y2 = Y12\Gy1 · (−σ(Y12)− ), e1 = y3, e = y4 and Ye = Y14\Gy1, and get 1 1 1 Mod(Y1, Y2,p)(y4)= −(Y13(y4) · σ(Y13)− ) · 1 · σ(Y14) · Y14(y3)− · (−Y12(y3) · σ(Y12)− ) 1 1 1 = −Y13(y4) · σ(Y13)− · σ(Y14) · α− · σ(Y12)− . 1 1 Similarly, we apply Lemma 3.7 with choosing Y1′ = Y12\Gy1 · (−σ(Y12)− ), Y2′ = Y13\Gy1 · σ(Y13)− , e1 = y2, e = y4 and Ye = Y14\Gy1, and get 1 1 1 Mod(Y1′, Y2′,p)(y4)= −(−Y12(y4) · σ(Y12)− ) · (−1) · σ(Y14) · Y14(y2)− · (Y13(y2) · σ(Y13)− ) 1 1 1 = −Y12(y4) · σ(Y12)− · σ(Y14) · β− · σ(Y13)− .

As Mod(Y1, Y2,p)(y4) = Mod(Y1′, Y2′,p)(y4), then 1 1 1 1 1 1 −Y13(y4) · σ(Y13)− · σ(Y14) · α− · σ(Y12)− = −Y12(y4) · σ(Y12)− · σ(Y14) · β− · σ(Y13)− . 1 Multiplying on the left by −Y23(y4)− and we get 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 β− · σ(Y13)− · σ(Y14) · α− · σ(Y12)− = α− · σ(Y12)− · σ(Y14) · β− · σ(Y13)− . 1 1 1 1 (σ(Y13) · β)− · σ(Y14) · (σ(Y12) · α)− = (σ(Y12) · α)− · σ(Y14) · (σ(Y13) · β)− . (14)

Next, we consider the rank 2 contraction M/Gy4. Let σy4 : C∗(M/Gy4) → T be the function

induced by σ. As σ is a localization on the rank 2 contraction M/Gy4, then σy4 is a localization of M/Gy4. Now we consider the T -cocircuits Y24\Gy4, Y34\Gy4 and Y14\Gy4. We list their values on

elements {y1,y2,y3} and the corresponding σy4 values in Table 8.

y1 y2 y3 σy4

Y24\Gy4 1 0 Y24(y3) σ(Y24)

Y34\Gy4 -1 Y34(y2) 0 σ(Y34)

Y14\Gy4 0 β Y14(y3) σ(Y14) Table 8

As Y34(y2)= β, then Y14\Gy4 eliminates y1 between Y24\Gy4 and Y34\Gy4. So

Y14(y3)= Y24(y3)= −α.

As σy4 is a localization of M/Gy4, then by Lemma 5.4

σ(Y24)+ σ(Y34) − σ(Y14) ∈ NG. (15) 1 1 We still consider M/Gy4. (Y24\Gy4 · σ(Y24)− , Y34\Gy4 · (−σ(Y34)− )) forms a modular pair in 1 1 C∗(M/Gy4) and σy4 (Y24\Gy4 · σ(Y24)− )=1= −σy4 (Y34\Gy4 · (−σ(Y34)− )). We apply Lemma 3.7 1 1 with choosing Y1 = Y24\Gy4 · σ(Y24)− , Y2 = Y34\Gy4 · (−σ(Y34)− ), e1 = y2, e = y1 and Ye = Y14\Gy4, and get 1 1 1 Mod(Y1, Y2,p)(y1)= −(Y24(y1) · σ(Y24)− ) · 1 · σ(Y14) · Y14(y2)− · (−Y34(y2) · σ(Y34)− ) 1 1 1 = −σ(Y24)− · σ(Y14) · β− · (−β · σ(Y34)− ) 1 1 = σ(Y24)− · σ(Y14) · σ(Y34)− . 1 1 Similarly, we apply Lemma 3.7 with choosing Y1′ = Y34\Gy4 · (−σ(Y34)− ), Y2′ = Y24\Gy4 · σ(Y24)− , e1 = y3, e = y1 and Ye = Y14\Gy4, and get 1 1 1 Mod(Y1′, Y2′,p)(y1)= −(−Y34(y1) · σ(Y34)− ) · (−1) · σ(Y14) · Y14(y3)− · (Y24(y3) · σ(Y24)− ) 32 TING SU

1 1 1 = σ(Y34)− · σ(Y14) · (−α)− · (−α · σ(Y24)− ) 1 1 = σ(Y34)− · σ(Y14) · σ(Y24)− .

As Mod(Y1, Y2,p)(y1) = Mod(Y1′, Y2′,p)(y1), then we get 1 1 1 1 σ(Y24)− · σ(Y14) · σ(Y34)− = σ(Y34)− · σ(Y14) · σ(Y24)− . (16) So now we can revise our previous Table 4 to Table 9.

y1 y2 y3 y4 σ

Y23 1 0 0 Y23(y4) 1

Y13 0 1 0 Y13(y4) σ(Y13)

Y12 0 0 1 Y12(y4) σ(Y12)

Y24 1 0 −α 0 σ(Y24)

Y34 -1 β 0 0 σ(Y34)

Y14 0 β −α 0 σ(Y14) Table 9

Then from Formula (6) and by values in Table 9, we have

1 1 1 [Fy2y4,Fy1y2]p = −Y12(y4)σ(Y12)− σ(Y24)Y24(y1)− = −Y12(y4)σ(Y12)− σ(Y24), 1 1 1 1 [Fy1y3,Fy3y4]p = −Y34(y1)σ(Y34)− σ(Y13)Y13(y4)− = σ(Y34)− σ(Y13)Y13(y4)− , 1 1 1 1 [Fy1y4,Fy1y2]p = −Y12(y4)σ(Y12)− σ(Y14)Y14(y2)− = −Y12(y4)σ(Y12)− σ(Y14)β− , 1 1 1 1 [Fy2y3,Fy3y4]p = −Y34(y2)σ(Y34)− σ(Y23)Y23(y4)− = −βσ(Y34)− Y23(y4)− . Thus the inclusion (8) can be written as

∋− 1 + [Fy2y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy1y3,Fy3y4]p + [Fy1y4,Fy1y2]p · [Fy2y3,Fy3y4]p 1 1 1 = − 1 + (−Y12(y4)σ(Y12)− σ(Y24)) · σ(Y34)− σ(Y13)Y13(y4)− + 1 1 1 1 (−Y12(y4)σ(Y12)− σ(Y14)β− ) · (−βσ(Y34)− Y23(y4)− ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 =−1 − Y12(y4)σ(Y12)− σ(Y24)σ(Y34)− σ(Y13)Y13(y4)− + Y12(y4)σ(Y12)− σ(Y14)σ(Y34)− Y23(y4)− 1 1 1 1 =−Y12(y4)σ(Y12)− · (σ(Y12)Y12(y4)− Y23(y4)σ(Y34)+ σ(Y24)σ(Y34)− σ(Y13)Y13(y4)− Y23(y4)σ(Y34) − σ(Y14)) 1 1 ·σ(Y34)− Y23(y4)− 1 1 1 1 =−Y12(y4)σ(Y12)− · (σ(Y12)ασ(Y34)+ σ(Y24)σ(Y34)− σ(Y13)βσ(Y34) − σ(Y14)) · σ(Y34)− Y23(y4)− . Now we will use Pathetic Cancellation to see that 1 σ(Y12)ασ(Y34)+ σ(Y24)σ(Y34)− σ(Y13)βσ(Y34) − σ(Y14) ∈ NG, from which the inclusion (8) will hold. Let

a = −σ(Y12)α,

b = σ(Y13)β,

x = σ(Y24),

y = σ(Y34), EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS33

z = σ(Y14). Then we can restate the inclusion (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15) and (16) as

1+ a − x ∈ NG, 1 1 xa− = a− x implying ax = xa,

−1+ b − y ∈ NG, 1 1 yb− = b− y implying by = yb,

b + a − z ∈ NG, 1 1 1 1 b− za− = a− zb− ,

x + y − z ∈ NG, 1 1 1 1 x− zy− = y− zx− . All of these inclusions are exactly the hypothesis of Pathetic Cancellation property. So by Pathetic Cancellation, 1 1 xb − ay − z = xy− by − ay − z = σ(Y24)σ(Y34)− σ(Y13)βσ(Y34)+ σ(Y12)ασ(Y34) − σ(Y14) ∈ NG. So the inclusion (8) holds.

We can get the following Corollary to Lemma 5.4, Lemma 4.4 and Theorem 5.1.

Corollary 5.9. Let M be a weak left (resp. right) T -matroid and let σ : C∗(M) → T be a right (resp. left) T ×-equivariant function. Then σ is a weak localization if and only if for any modular pair (Y1, Y2) of T -cocircuits with Y1(e) = −Y2(e) 6= 0 for some e ∈ E and Y3 eliminating e between Y1 and Y2, we have σ(Y1)+ σ(Y2) − σ(Y ) ∈ NG. Finally, we ﬁnish the proof of our main theorem (Theorem 1.5) in this paper. There is also an interesting fact showed in Su’s thesis ([Su18]) that a hyperﬁeld not satisfying the Pathetic Cancellation property might fail even weaker generalization of Crapo and Las Vergnas’ characterization of extensions, as follows.

Theorem 5.10. [Su18] There is a strong T -matroid M of rank 4 on 6 elements and a T ×-equivariant function σ : C∗(M) → T such that σ deﬁnes a strong single-element extension by a new element p on every contraction of M of rank ≤ 3 but σ is not a strong localization.

6. Stringent Skew Hyperfields Stringent skew hyperﬁelds behave in many ways like skew ﬁelds and the notions of weak and strong F -matroid coincide if F is stringent ([BP19]). This leads to a strengthening of Theorem 5.1, given in Theorem 1.6.

6.1. Characterization of strong Pathetic Cancellation for skew hyperfields. In this section, we will first show a stronger property that implies Pathetic Cancellation for skew hyperfields. Definition 6.1. Let F be a skew hyperfield. We say F satisfies the strong Pathetic Cancellation Property if for every a,b,x,y ∈ F × with x ∈ 1 ⊞ a and y ∈−1 ⊞ b we have (x ⊞ y) ∩ (a ⊞ b) ⊆ xb ⊞ −ay, It is easy to see that the strong Pathetic Cancellation Property and the Pathetic Cancellation Property will be the same when F is a hyperfield. Theorem 6.2. Let F be a skew hyperfield. If F satisfies strong Pathetic Cancellation, then F satisfies Pathetic Cancellation. 34 TING SU

1 1 1 1 Proof. Let a,b,x,y,z ∈ F × with x ∈ 1 ⊞ a, ax = xa, y ∈ −1 ⊞ b, by = yb, z ∈ a ⊞ b, a− zb− = b− za− , 1 1 1 1 z ∈ x ⊞ y and x− zy− = y− zx− . As F satisfies strong Pathetic Cancellation, then z ∈ (x ⊞ y) ∩ (a ⊞ b) ⊆ xb ⊞ −ay. So F satisfies Pathetic Cancellation. Proposition 6.3. Let F be a skew hyperfield. The following are equivalent. (1) F satisfies strong Pathetic Cancellation. (2) For any a,b ∈ F × and x, y in F with x ∈ 1 ⊞ a, y ∈−1 ⊞ b, we have (x ⊞ y) ∩ (a ⊞ b) ⊆ xb ⊞ −ay, (a ⊞ b) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) ⊆ x ⊞ y, (x ⊞ y) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) ⊆ a ⊞ b.

(3) For any a,b ∈ F × and x, y in F with x ∈ 1 ⊞ a, y ∈−1 ⊞ b, we have (x ⊞ y) ∩ (a ⊞ b) = (x ⊞ y) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) = (a ⊞ b) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay). Proof. (1)⇒(3): By deﬁnition, for any x ∈ 1 ⊞ a, y ∈−1 ⊞ b, we have (x ⊞ y) ∩ (a ⊞ b) ⊆ xb ⊞ −ay. Then (x ⊞ y) ∩ (a ⊞ b) ⊆ (xb ⊞ −ay) ∩ (x ⊞ y) (17) and (x ⊞ y) ∩ (a ⊞ b) ⊆ (xb ⊞ −ay) ∩ (a ⊞ b). (18) 1 1 1 1 As x ∈ 1⊞a and y ∈−1⊞b, then a− x ∈ 1⊞a− and −yb− ∈−1⊞b− . By strong Pathetic Cancellation, we have 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (a− ⊞ b− ) ∩ (a− x ⊞ −yb− ) ⊆ a− xb− ⊞ a− yb− = a− (x ⊞ y)b− , thus (a ⊞ b) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) ⊆ x ⊞ y. Then (a ⊞ b) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) ⊆ (x ⊞ y) ∩ (a ⊞ b). (19) and (a ⊞ b) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) ⊆ (x ⊞ y) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay). (20) 1 1 1 1 Similarly, as x ∈ 1 ⊞ a and y ∈ −1 ⊞ b, then x− a ∈ 1 ⊞ −x− and −by− ∈ −1 ⊞ −y− . By strong Pathetic Cancellation, we have 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (−x− ⊞ −y− ) ∩ (x− a ⊞ −by− ) ⊆−x− ay− ⊞ −x− by− = −x− (a ⊞ b)y− , thus (x ⊞ y) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) ⊆ a ⊞ b. Then (x ⊞ y) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) ⊆ (a ⊞ b) ∩ (x ⊞ y). (21) and (x ⊞ y) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) ⊆ (a ⊞ b) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay). (22) So by Inclusion (17), (18), (19), (20), (21) and (22), we have (x ⊞ y) ∩ (a ⊞ b) = (x ⊞ y) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) = (a ⊞ b) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay). (3)⇒(2): If for any x, y in F with x ∈ 1 ⊞ a, y ∈−1 ⊞ b, we have (x ⊞ y) ∩ (a ⊞ b) = (x ⊞ y) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) = (a ⊞ b) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay). Then (x ⊞ y) ∩ (a ⊞ b) = (x ⊞ y) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) ⊆ xb ⊞ −ay, (a ⊞ b) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) = (x ⊞ y) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) ⊆ x ⊞ y, EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS35

(x ⊞ y) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) = (a ⊞ b) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) ⊆ a ⊞ b. (2)⇒(1): This is immediate by deﬁnition of stong Pathetic Cancellation.

Corollary 6.4. For every skew hyperﬁeld satisfying strong Pathetic Cancellation, we have 1 ⊞ −1 ⊞ 1 ⊞ −1=1 ⊞ −1. (23) Proof. We ﬁrst prove the direction (⊆). Let f ∈ 1⊞−1⊞1⊞−1. Then there exist x, y such that x, y ∈ 1⊞−1 and f ∈ x ⊞ y. Let a = −1 and b = 1. Then x ∈ 1 ⊞ a and y ∈−1 ⊞ b. Then by By Proposition 6.3, x ⊞ y = (x ⊞ y) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) ⊆ a ⊞ b =1 ⊞ −1. So f ∈ x ⊞ y =1 ⊞ −1, and so 1 ⊞ −1 ⊞ 1 ⊞ −1 ⊆ 1 ⊞ −1. Now we prove the direction (⊇). It is clear that 1 ⊞ −1 ⊆ 1 ⊞ −1 ⊞ 0 ⊆ 1 ⊞ −1 ⊞ 1 ⊞ −1. So 1 ⊞ −1 ⊞ 1 ⊞ −1=1 ⊞ −1.

6.2. Pathetic Cancellation for stringent skew hyperfields. In this section, we will show that the stringency implies the strong Pathetic Cancellation property and so implies Pathetic Cancellation. This helps to generalize the characterization of localization of strong matroids over stringent skew hyperfields. Definition 6.5. [BS21] A skew hyperfield F is said to be stringent if for any a,b ∈ F , a ⊞ b is a singleton whenever a 6= −b. Fields, K, and S are all stringent, but P does not satisfy stringency. Lemma 6.6. [BS21] Let R be a skew hyperfield and let G be a totally ordered group. Consider a short exact sequence of groups ϕ ψ 1 → R× −→ H −→ G → 1 , h 1 where ϕ is the identity. Define x to be h− · x · h for x, h ∈ H and we extend this operation by setting h 0R := 0R. Assume that the short exact sequence has stable sums, that is, if for each h ∈ H the operation x 7→ xh is an automorphism of R. Choose some object not in H, denoted by 0. Define a multiplication · on H ∪{0} by x · y = 0 if x or y is 0 and by the multiplication of H otherwise. Define a hyperaddition ⊞ on H ∪{0} by taking 0 to be the additive identity and setting {x} if ψ(x) > ψ(y), {y} if ψ(x) < ψ(y), x ⊞ y =   x(1 ⊞ x 1y) if ψ(x)= ψ(y) and 0 6∈ x(1 ⊞ x 1y),  R − R −  1 1 1 x(1 ⊞R x− y) ∪ ψ− (ψ(x) ↓) if ψ(x)= ψ(y) and 0 ∈ x(1 ⊞R x− y).  ⊞ Then the G-layering R ⋊H,ψ G := (H ∪{0}, , ·, 0, 1) of R along this short exact sequence is a skew hyperfield. If R is stringent, then so is R ⋊H,ψ G.

Theorem 6.7. [BS21] Any skew stringent hyperfield has the form R ⋊H,ψ G, where R is either K, or S, or a skew field. Theorem 6.8. Any stringent skew hyperfield satisfies strong Pathetic Cancellation and Pathetic Cancella- tion. Before showing Theorem 6.8, we will first introduce a useful lemma for any skew hyperfields. 36 TING SU

Lemma 6.9. Let F be a skew hyperﬁeld and let a,b ∈ F . For any x, y in F with x ∈ 1 ⊞ a, y ∈−1 ⊞ b, we have (x ⊞ y) ∩ (a ⊞ b) 6= ∅, (x ⊞ y) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) 6= ∅, and (a ⊞ b) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) 6= ∅. Proof. As x ∈ 1 ⊞ a and y ∈−1 ⊞ b, we have 1 ∈ x ⊞ −a and −1 ∈ y ⊞ −b. Thus 0 ∈ 1 ⊞ −1 ⊆ x ⊞ −a ⊞ y ⊞ −b = (x ⊞ y) ⊞ −(a ⊞ b). So (x ⊞ y) ∩ (a ⊞ b) 6= ∅. As x ∈ 1 ⊞ a and y ∈−1 ⊞ b, we have xy ∈ y ⊞ ay and −xy ∈ x ⊞ −xb. Thus 0 ∈ xy ⊞ −xy ⊆ y ⊞ ay ⊞ x ⊞ −xb = (x ⊞ y) ⊞ −(xb ⊞ −ay). So (x ⊞ y) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) 6= ∅. As x ∈ 1 ⊞ a and y ∈−1 ⊞ b, we have a ∈−1 ⊞ x and b ∈ 1 ⊞ y. Then ab ∈−b ⊞ xb and −ab ∈−a ⊞ −ay. Thus 0 ∈ ab ⊞ −ab ⊆−b ⊞ xb ⊞ −a ⊞ −ay = −(a ⊞ b) ⊞ (xb ⊞ −ay). So (a ⊞ b) ∩ (xb ⊞ −ay) 6= ∅.

Now we prove Theorem 6.8 by using the above lemma.

Proof of Theorem 6.8. Let F = R ⋊H,ψ G be a stringent skew hyperﬁeld. By Theorem 6.2, we only need to show that F satisﬁes strong Pathetic Cancellation. Let a,b,x,y ∈ F × with x ∈ 1 ⊞ a and y ∈−1 ⊞ b,. We need to show that (a ⊞ b) ∩ (x ⊞ y) ⊆ xb ⊞ −ay. We will divide the proof into three cases. Case 1: If a = −1 and b = 1, then xb ⊞ −ay = x ⊞ y. So (a ⊞ b) ∩ (x ⊞ y) ⊆ x ⊞ y = xb ⊞ −ay. Case 2: If a = −1 and b 6=1 or a 6= −1 and b = 1, then without loss of generality we may assume that a = −1 and b 6= 1. So by stringency, −1 ⊞ b = {y}. Then a ⊞ b = −1 ⊞ b = {y}. By Lemma 6.9, a ⊞ b = {y}⊆ x ⊞ y and a ⊞ b = {y}⊆ xb ⊞ −ay. So (a ⊞ b) ∩ (x ⊞ y)= {y}⊆ xb ⊞ −ay. 1 1 1 Case 3: If a 6= −1 and b 6= 1, then 1 ⊞ a = {x} and −1 ⊞ b = {y}. So a− ⊞ 1= {a− · x} = {x · a− }, and so xa = ax. If a 6= −b, then a ⊞ b = {z} for some z ∈ F ×. By Lemma 6.9, a ⊞ b = {z}⊆ x ⊞ y and a ⊞ b = {z}⊆ xb ⊞ −ay. So (a ⊞ b) ∩ (x ⊞ y)= {z}⊆ xb ⊞ −ay. EXTENSIONS OF WEAK MATROIDS OVER SKEW TRACTS AND STRONG MATROIDS OVER STRINGENT SKEW HYPERFIELDS37

If a = −b, then x = −y. As1 ⊞ a = {x}, then ψ(x) ≥ 1G. So ψ(ax) ≥ ψ(a). Then a ⊞ b = a(1 ⊞ −1), x ⊞ y = x(1 ⊞ −1), and xb ⊞ −ay = xa ⊞ −ax = ax ⊞ −ax = ax(1 ⊞ −1). So (a ⊞ b) ∩ (x ⊞ y) ⊆ a(1 ⊞ −1) ⊆ ax(1 ⊞ −1) = xb ⊞ −ay. So F satisfies strong Pathetic Cancellation and also Pathetic Cancellation. From [BP19], we know the following theorem for matroids over stringent skew hyperfields. Theorem 6.10. [BP19] Any weak matroid over a stringent skew hyperfield is strong. Then we can get a similar characterization of extension for a strong matroid over a stringent skew hyperfield as for a weak matroid, and so Theorem 1.6 holds. Next we would like to talk about the following important property for skew hyperfields. Definition 6.11. A skew hyperfield F is doubly distributive if for any a,b,c,d ∈ F , (a ⊞ b)(c ⊞ d) = ac ⊞ ad ⊞ bc ⊞ bd. Double distributivity is very important in matroid theory. Fields, K, and S are all doubly distributive. In [BS21], Bowler and Su showed that any doubly distributive skew hyperfield is stringent. So we will also get the following Theorem. Theorem 6.12. Let F be a doubly distributive skew hyperfield, let M be a strong left (resp. right) F -matroid on E with F -cocircuit set C∗(M), and let

σ : C∗(M) → F

be a right (resp. left) F ×-equivariant function. Then the following statements are equivalent. (1) σ defines a strong single-element extension of M. (2) σ defines a strong single-element extension of every rank 2 contraction of M. (3) σ defines a strong single-element extension of every rank 2 minor of M on three elements. References [AD12] Laura Anderson and Emanuele Delucchi. Foundations for a theory of complex matroids. Discrete Comput. Geom., 48(4):807–846, 2012. [BB16] Matthew Baker and Nathan Bowler. Matroids over hyperfields. arXiv:1601.01204, 2016. [BB19] Matthew Baker and Nathan Bowler. Matroids over partial hyperstructures. Adv. Math., 343:821–863, 2019. [BLV78] Robert G. Bland and Michel Las Vergnas. Orientability of matroids. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. B., 24(1):94–123, 1978. [BLVS+99] Anders Björner, Michel Las Vergnas, Bernd Sturmfels, Neil White, and Günter M. Ziegler. Oriented matroids, volume 46 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 1999. [BP19] Nathan Bowler and Rudi Pendavingh. Perfect matroids over hyperfields. arXiv:1908.03420, 2019. [BS21] Nathan Bowler and Ting Su. Classification of doubly distributive skew hyperfields and stringent hypergroups. J. Algebra, 574:669–698, 2021. [CR70] Henry H. Crapo and Gian-Carlo Rota. On the foundations of combinatorial theory: Combinatorial geometries. The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass.-London, preliminary edition, 1970. [Cra65] Henry H. Crapo. Single-element extensions of matroids. J. Res. Nat. Bur. Standards Sect. B, 69B:55–65, 1965. [Dre86] Andreas W. M. Dress. Duality theory for finite and infinite matroids with coefficients. Adv. in Math., 59(2):97–123, 1986. [FL78] Jon Folkman and Jim Lawrence. Oriented matroids. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 25(2):199 – 236, 1978. [Kra57] Marc Krasner. Approximation des corps valués complets de caractéristique p =6 0 par ceux de caractéristique 0. In Colloque d’algèbre supérieure, tenu àBruxelles du 19 au 22 décembre 1956, Centre Belge de Recherches Mathématiques, pages 129–206. Etablissements´ Ceuterick, Louvain; Librairie Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1957. 38 TING SU

[LV75] Michel Las Vergnas. Matro¨ıdes orientables. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A-B, 280:Ai, A61–A64, 1975. [LV78] Michel Las Vergnas. Extensions ponctuelles d’une géométrie combinatoire orientée. In Problèmes combinatoires et théorie des graphes (Colloq. Internat. CNRS, Univ. Orsay, Orsay, 1976), volume 260 of Colloq. Internat. CNRS, pages 265–270. CNRS, Paris, 1978. [Oxl92] James G. Oxley. Matroid theory. Oxford Science Publications. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1992. [Pen18] Rudi Pendavingh. Field extensions, derivations, and matroids over skew hyperfields. arXiv:1802.02447, 2018. [Sta12] Richard P. Stanley. Enumerative combinatorics. Volume 1, volume 49 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathe- matics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 2012. [Su18] Ting Su. Extensions of Matroids over Tracts and Doubly Distributive Partial Hyperfields. PhD thesis, (Order No. 10973187, State University of New York at Binghamton), 2018. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. [Su20] Ting Su. Matroids over skew tracts. arXiv:2012.03253, 2020. [SW96] Charles Semple and Geoff Whittle. Partial fields and matroid representation. Adv. in Appl. Math., 17(2):184–208, 1996. [Vir10] Oleg Viro. Hyperfields for tropical geometry i. hyperfields and dequantization. arXiv:1006.3034v2, 2010. [Wel76] D. J. A. Welsh. Matroid theory. Academic Press [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], London-New York, 1976. L. M. S. Monographs, No. 8. Email address: [email protected]

Department of Mathematics, Universitat¨ Hamburg, Germany