On the Packing/Covering Conjecture of Infinite Matroids
Extracted source text · arXiv 2103.14881
%rajz
%Onkel
\documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{amsart}
\pdfoutput=1
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usepackage{thmtools, thm-restate}%For duplicating theorem numbers.
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{enumitem}
%references
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{
colorlinks,
linkcolor={red!60!black},
citecolor={green!60!black},
urlcolor={blue!60!black},
}
\usepackage[abbrev, msc-links]{amsrefs}
\usepackage{comment}
%input
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{lmodern}
\usepackage[babel]{microtype}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
%pagesetup
\linespread{1.19}
\usepackage{geometry}
\geometry{left=25mm,right=25mm, top=22.5mm, bottom=22.5mm}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\def\rmlabel{\upshape({\itshape \roman*\,})}
\def\RMlabel{\upshape(\Roman*)}
\def\alabel{\upshape({\itshape \alph*\,})}
\def\Alabel{\upshape({\itshape \Alph*\,})}
\def\nlabel{\upshape({\itshape \arabic*\,})}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{fact}[thm]{Fact}
\newtheorem{prop}[thm]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{ass}[thm]{Assumption}
\newtheorem{claim}[thm]{Claim}
\newtheorem{cor}[thm]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{lem}[thm]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{conclusion}[thm]{Conclusion}
\newtheorem{obs}[thm]{Observation}
\newtheorem{exmp}[thm]{Example}
\newtheorem{quest}[thm]{Question}
\newtheorem{conj}[thm]{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{problem}[thm]{Problem}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{rem}[thm]{Remark}
\newtheorem{dfn}[thm]{Definition}
\newtheorem{case}{Case}
%Document info
\title{On the Packing/Covering Conjecture of Infinite Matroids}
\author{Attila Jo\'{o}}
\thanks{The author would like to thank the generous support of the Alexander
von Humboldt Foundation and NKFIH
OTKA-129211}
\address{Attila Jo\'{o},
University of Hamburg, Department of Mathematics, Bundesstra{\ss}e 55 (Geomatikum), 20146 Hamburg, Germany}
\email{attila.joo@uni-hamburg.de}
\address{Attila Jo\'{o},
Alfr\'{e}d R\'{e}nyi Institute of Mathematics, Set theory and general topology research division, 13-15 Re\'{a}ltanoda St.,
Budapest, Hungary}
\email{jooattila@renyi.hu}
\keywords{infinite matroid, packing, covering, matroid intersection}
\subjclass[2020]{Primary: 05B35, 05B40}
%matroid, packing-covering, inf graph 05C63
\begin{document}
\begin{abstract}
The Packing/Covering Conjecture was introduced by Bowler and Carmesin motivated by the Matroid Partition Theorem
by Edmonds and Fulkerson. A packing for a family $ (M_i: i\in\Theta) $ of matroids on the common
edge set $ E $ is a system $ (S_i: i\in\Theta ) $ of pairwise disjoint subsets of $ E $ where $ S_i $ is panning in $ M_i $. Similarly,
a covering is a system $ (I_i: i\in\Theta ) $ with $\bigcup_{i\in\Theta} I_i=E $ where $ I_i $ is independent in $ M_i $. The
conjecture states that for every matroid family on $ E $ there is a partition $E=E_p \sqcup E_c$ such that
$ (M_i \upharpoonright E_p: i\in \Theta) $ admits a packing and $ (M_i. E_c: i\in \Theta) $ admits a covering. We prove the
special case where $ E $ is countable and each $ M_i $ is either finitary or cofinitary. The connection between packing/covering
and matroid intersection problems discovered by Bowler and Carmesin can
be established for every well-behaved matroid class. This makes possible to approach the problem from the direction of matroid
intersection. We show that the generalized version of Nash-Williams' Matroid Intersection Conjecture holds for
countable matroids having only finitary and cofinitary
components.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
\section{Introduction}
Rado asked in 1966 (see Problem P531 in \cite{rado1966abstract}) if it is possible to extend the concept of matroids to infinite
without loosing
duality and minors. Based on the works of Higgs (see \cite{higgs1969matroids}) and
Oxley (see \cite{oxley1978infinite} and \cite{oxley1992infinite}) Bruhn, Diestel, Kriesell, Pendavingh and Wollan
settled Rado's problem affirmatively in \cite{bruhn2013axioms} by finding a
set of cryptomorphic axioms for infinite matroids, generalising the usual independent set-, bases-, circuit-, closure- and
rank-axioms for finite mastoids. Higgs named originally these structures B-matroids to distinguish from the original concept.
Later this terminology vanished and in the context of infinite combinatorics B-matroids are referred as matroids and the term
`finite matroid' is used to
differentiate.
An $ M=(E, \mathcal{I}) $ is a matroid if $ \mathcal{I}\subseteq \mathcal{P}(E) $ with
\begin{enumerate}
[label=(\arabic*)]
\item\label{item axiom1} $ \varnothing\in \mathcal{I} $;
\item\label{item axiom2} $ \mathcal{I} $ is downward closed;
\item\label{item axiom3} For every $ I,J\in \mathcal{I} $ where $J $ is $ \subseteq $-maximal in $ \mathcal{I} $ but $ I $ is
not, there exists an $ e\in J\setminus I $ such that
$ I+e\in \mathcal{I} $;
\item\label{item axiom4} For every $ X\subseteq E $, any $ I\in \mathcal{I}\cap
\mathcal{P}(X) $ can be extended to a $ \subseteq $-maximal element of
$ \mathcal{I}\cap \mathcal{P}(X) $.
\end{enumerate}
If $ E $ is finite, then \ref{item axiom4} is redundant and \ref{item axiom1}-\ref{item axiom3} is one of the usual
axiomatizations
of finite matroids. One can show that every dependent set in an infinite matroid contains a minimal dependent set which is called
a circuit. Before Rado's program
was settled, a more restrictive axiom was used as a replacement of \ref{item axiom4}:
\begin{enumerate}[label={(4')}]
\item\label{item axiom4'} If all the finite subsets of an $ X\subseteq E $ are in $ \mathcal{I} $, then $ X\in \mathcal{I} $.
\end{enumerate}
The implication \ref{item axiom4'}$ \Longrightarrow $\ref{item axiom4} follows directly from Zorn's lemma thus axioms
\ref{item axiom1}, \ref{item axiom2}, \ref{item axiom3} and \ref{item axiom4'} describe a subclass $ \mathfrak{F} $ of the
the matroids. This $ \mathfrak{F} $ consists of the matroids having only finite circuits and called the class of \emph{finitary}
matroids. Class $ \mathfrak{F} $ is closed under several important operations like direct sums and taking minors but not under
taking
duals which was the main motivation of Rado's program for looking for a more general matroid concept. The class $
\mathfrak{F}^{*} $ of the duals of the matroids in $ \mathfrak{F} $
consists of the \emph{cofinitary} matroids, i.e. matroid whose all cocircuits are finite. In order to being closed under all
matroid operations we need, we work with the class $
\mathfrak{F}\oplus \mathfrak{F}^{*} $ of matroids having only finitary and cofinitary components, equivalently that are the
direct sum of a finitary and cofinitary matroid.
Matroid union is a fundamental concept in the theory of finite matroids. For a finite family $ (M_i: i\leq n) $ of matroids on a
common finite edge set $ E $ one can define a matroid $ \bigvee_{i\leq n}M_i $ on $ E $ by letting $ I\subseteq E $ be
independent in $ \bigvee_{i\leq n}M_i $ if $ I=\bigcup_{i\leq n}I_i $ for suitable $ I_i\in \mathcal{I}_{M_i} $ (see
\cite{edmonds1968matroid}). This
phenomenon fails for infinite families of finitary matroids. Indeed, let $ E $ be uncountable and let $ M_i $ be the $ 1
$-uniform
matroid on $ E $ for $ i\in \mathbb{N} $. Then exactly the countable subsets of $ E $ would be independent in
$ \bigvee_{i\in \mathbb{N}}M_i $ and hence there would be no maximal independent set contradicting
\ref{item axiom4}.\footnote{For a finite family of finitary matroids the union operation results in a matroid (Proposition 4.1
in \cite{aigner2018intersection}).} Even so,
Bowler and Carmesin observed (see section 3 in \cite{bowler2015matroid}) that the rank formula in the Matroid Partition
Theorem by Edmonds and Fulkerson (Theorem 13.3.1 in \cite{frank2011connections}), namely:
\[ r\left( \bigvee_{i\leq n}M_i \right) =\max_{I_i\in \mathcal{I}_{M_i}}\left|\bigcup_{i\leq n}I_i\right|=\min_{E=E_p\sqcup
E_c}\left|E_c\right|+\sum_{i\leq n}r_{M_i}(E_p),\]
can be interpreted in infinite setting via the complementary slackness conditions. In the minimax formula above there is equality
for the family $ (I_i: i\leq n) $ and partition $ E=E_p\sqcup E_c $ iff
\begin{itemize}
\item $ I_i $ is independent in $ M_i $,
\item $\bigcup_{i\leq n} I_i\supseteq E_c $,
\item $ I_i\cap E_p $ spans $ E_p $ in $ M_i $ for every $ i $,
\item $ I_i\cap I_j\cap E_p=\varnothing $ for $ i\neq j$.
\end{itemize}
Bowler and Carmesin conjectured that for
every family $\mathcal{M}:= (M_i: i\in\Theta) $ of matroids on a common edge set $ E $ there is a family $ (I_i: i\in \Theta) $
and partition $
E=E_p\sqcup E_c $ satisfying
the conditions above. To explain the name ``Packing/Covering Conjecture'' let us provide an alternative formulation. A
\emph{packing} for $ \mathcal{M} $ is a system $ (S_i: i\in\Theta ) $ of pairwise disjoint subsets of $ E $ where $ S_i $ is
spanning in $ M_i $. Similarly, a \emph{covering} for $ \mathcal{M} $ is a system $ (I_i: i\in\Theta ) $ with
$\bigcup_{i\in\Theta} I_i=E $ where $ I_i $ is independent in $ M_i $.
\begin{conj}[Packing/Covering, Conjecture 1.3 in \cite{bowler2015matroid} ]\label{conj: Pack/Cov}
For every family $ (M_i: i\in \Theta) $ of matroids on a common edge set $ E $ there is a partition $E=E_p \sqcup E_c$ in such a
way that $ (M_i \upharpoonright E_p: i\in \Theta) $ admits a packing and $ (M_i. E_c: i\in \Theta) $ admits a covering.
\end{conj}
We shall prove the following special case of the Pacing/Covering Conjecture \ref{conj: Pack/Cov}:
\begin{restatable}{thm}{PC}\label{t: main result0}
For every family $ (M_i: i\in \Theta) $ of matroids on a common countable edge set $ E $ where $ M_i \in
\mathfrak{F}\oplus \mathfrak{F}^{*} $, there is a partition $E=E_p \sqcup E_c$ such
that $ (M_i \upharpoonright E_p: i\in \Theta) $ admits a packing and $ (M_i. E_c: i\in \Theta) $ admits a covering.
\end{restatable}
It is worth to mention that packings and coverings have a crucial role in other problems as well. For example if $ (M_i: i\in\Theta)
$ is as
in Theorem
\ref{t: main result0} and admits
both a packing and a covering, then there is a partition
$ E=\bigsqcup_{i\in \Theta}B_i $ where $ B_i $ is a base of $ M_i $ (see \cite{erde2019base}). Maybe surprisingly, the failure
of the analogous statement
for arbitrary
matroids is consistent with set theory ZFC (Theorem 1.5 of \cite{erde2019base}) which might raise some scepticism about the
provability of Conjecture
\ref{conj: Pack/Cov} for general matroids.
The Packing/Covering Conjecture \ref{conj: Pack/Cov} is closely related to the Matroid Intersection Conjecture which has
been one of the central open problems in the theory of infinite matroids:
\begin{conj}[Matroid Intersection Conjecture by Nash-Williams, \cite{aharoni1998intersection}]\label{MIC}
If $ M $ and $ N $ are finitary matroids on the same edge set $ E $, then they admit a common
independent set $ I $ for which there is a partition $ E=E_M\sqcup E_N $ such that $ I_M:=I\cap E_M $ spans $ E_M $ in $
M $ and $ I_N:=I\cap E_N $ spans $ E_N $ in $ N $.
\end{conj}
Aharoni proved in \cite{aharoni1984konig} based on his earlier works with Nash-Williams and Shelah (see
\cite{aharoni1983general} and \cite{aharoni1984another})
that the special case of Conjecture \ref{MIC} where $ M $ and $ N $ are partition matroids holds. The conjecture
is also known
to be true if we assume that $ E $ is countable but $ M $ and
$ N $ can be otherwise arbitrary (see \cite{joo2020MIC}).
Let us call Generalized Matroid Intersection Conjecture what we obtain from \ref{MIC} by extending it to arbitrary matroids
(i.e. omitting the word ``finitary''). Several partial results has been obtained for this generalization but only for well-behaved
matroid classes. The positive answer is known for example if: $ M $ is finitary and $ N $ is cofinatory
\cite{aigner2018intersection} or both
matroids are
singular\footnote{A matroid is singular if it is the direct sum of $ 1 $-uniform matroids and duals of $ 1
$-uniform matroids.} and countable \cite{ghaderi2017} or $ M $ is arbitrary and $ N $ is the direct sum of
finitely many uniform matroids \cite{joó2020intersection}.
Bowler and Carmesin showed that their Pacing/Covering Conjecture \ref{conj: Pack/Cov} and the
Generalized Matroid Intersection Conjecture are equivalent and they also found an important reduction for both (see Corollary
3.9 in \cite{bowler2015matroid}). By analysing their proof it is clear that the equivalence can be established if we restrict both
conjectures to a class of matroids closed under certain operations. It allows us to prove Theorem \ref{t: main result} by showing
the following instance of the Generalized Matroid Intersection Conjecture which itself is a common extension of the singular case
by Ghaderi \cite{ghaderi2017} and our previous work \cite{joo2020MIC}:
\begin{restatable}{thm}{MI}\label{t: main result}
If $ M $ and $ N $ are matroids in $ \mathfrak{F}\oplus \mathfrak{F}^{*} $ on the same countable edge set $ E $, then they
admit a common independent set $ I $ for which there is a partition $ E=E_M\sqcup E_N $ such that $ I_M:=I\cap E_M $ spans
$ E_M $ in $ M $ and $ I_N:=I\cap E_N $ spans $ E_N $ in $ N $.
\end{restatable}
The paper is organized as follows. In the following section we introduce some notation and fundamental facts about matroids that
are mostly well-know for finite ones. In Section \ref{s: premil} we collect some previous results and relatively easy technical
lemmas in order be able the discuss later the proof of the main results without any distraction. Then in Section
\ref{s: reduction} we reduce the main results to a key-lemma. After these preparations the actual proof begins with
Section \ref{s: augP} by developing and analysing an `augmenting path' type of technique. Our main principle from this point is
to
handle the
finitary and the
cofinitary parts of matroid $ N $ differently in order to exploit the advantage
of the finiteness of the circuits and cocircuits respectively. Equipped with these ``mixed'' augmenting paths we discuss the proof
of our key-lemma in Section
\ref{s: proof of key-lemma}. Finally, we introduce an application in Section \ref{s: application} about orientations of a graph with
in-degree requirements.
\section{Notation and basic facts}\label{sec notation}
In this section we introduce the notation and recall some basic facts about
matroids that we will use later without further explanation. For more details we refer to \cite{nathanhabil}.
An enumeration of a countable set $ X $ is an $ \mathbb{N}\rightarrow X $ surjection that we write as $ \{x_n: n\in \mathbb{N}
\} $. We denote the symmetric difference $ (X\setminus Y)\cup (Y\setminus X) $ of $ X $ and $ Y $ by $
\boldsymbol{X\vartriangle Y} $.
A pair ${M=(E,\mathcal{I})}$ is a \emph{matroid} if ${\mathcal{I} \subseteq \mathcal{P}(E)}$ satisfies the axioms
\ref{item axiom1}-\ref{item axiom4}.
The sets in~$\mathcal{I}$ are called \emph{independent} while the sets in ${\mathcal{P}(E) \setminus \mathcal{I}}$ are
\emph{dependent}. An $ e\in E $ is a \emph{loop} if $ \{ e \} $ is dependent.
If~$E$ is finite, then \ref{item axiom1}-\ref{item axiom3} is one of the the usual axiomization of matroids in terms of
independent sets (while \ref{item axiom4} is redundant).
The maximal independent sets are called \emph{bases}. If $ M $ admits a finite base, then all the bases have the same size which
is the rank $ \boldsymbol{r(M)} $ of $ M $ otherwise we let $ r(M):=\infty $.\footnote{It is independent of ZFC that the bases of
a fixed matroid have the same
size (see \cite{higgs1969equicardinality} and \cite{bowler2016self}).} The minimal dependent sets are called \emph{circuits}.
Every dependent set contains a circuit. The \emph{components} of a matroid are the
components of the hypergraph of its circuits. The
\emph{dual} of a matroid~${M}$ is the
matroid~${M^*}$ with $ E(M^*)=E(M) $ whose bases are the complements of
the bases of~$M$. For an ${X \subseteq E}$, ${\boldsymbol{M \upharpoonright X} :=(X,\mathcal{I}
\cap \mathcal{P}(X))}$ is a matroid and it is called the \emph{restriction} of~$M$ to~$X$.
We write ${\boldsymbol{M - X}}$ for $ M \upharpoonright (E\setminus X) $ and call it the minor obtained by the
\emph{deletion} of~$X$.
The \emph{contraction} of $ X $ in $ M $ and the contraction of $ M $ onto $ X $ are
${\boldsymbol{M/X}:=(M^* - X)^*}$ and $\boldsymbol{M.X}:= M/(E\setminus X) $ respectively.
Contraction and deletion commute, i.e., for
disjoint
$ X,Y\subseteq E $, we have $ (M/X)-Y=(M-Y)/X $. Matroids of this form are the \emph{minors} of~$M$. The
independence of an $ I\subseteq X $ in $ M.X $ is equivalent with $ I\subseteq \mathsf{span}_{M^{*}}(X\setminus I) $.
If $ I $ is independent in $ M $ but $ I+e $ is dependent for some $ e\in E\setminus I $ then there is a unique
circuit $ \boldsymbol{C_M(e,I)} $ of $ M $ through $ e $ contained in $ I+e $. We say~${X
\subseteq E}$ \emph{spans}~${e \in E}$ in matroid~$M$ if either~${e \in X}$ or there exists a circuit~${C
\ni e}$ with~${C-e \subseteq X}$.
By letting $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{span}_{M}(X)}$ be the set of edges spanned by~$X$ in~$M$, we obtain a closure
operation
$ \mathsf{span}_{M}: \mathcal{P}(E)\rightarrow \mathcal{P}(E) $.
An ${S \subseteq E}$ is \emph{spanning} in~$M$ if~${\mathsf{span}_{M}(S) = E}$. An $ S\subseteq X $ spans $ X $ in $
M.X $ iff $ X\setminus S $ is independent in $ M^{*} $. If $ M_i=(E_i,
\mathcal{I}_i)$ is a matroid for $ i\in
\Theta $ and the sets $ E_i $ are pairwise disjoint, then their direct sum is $ \boldsymbol{\bigoplus_{i\in
\Theta}M_i}=(E,\mathcal{I}) $ where
$ E=\bigsqcup_{i\in \Theta}E_i $ and $ \mathcal{I}=\{ \bigsqcup_{i\in \Theta}I_i : I_i\in \mathcal{I}_i\} $. For a class $
\mathfrak{C} $ of matroids $ \boldsymbol{\mathfrak{C}(E)} $ denotes the subclass $ \{ M\in \mathfrak{C}: E(M)=E \} $.
A matroid is called uniform if for ever base $ B $ and every edges $ e\in B $ and $ f\in E\setminus B $ the set $ B-e+f $ is also a
base. Let
$ \boldsymbol{U_{E,n}}$ be the $ n $-uniform matroid on $ E $, formally $ U_{E,n}:=(E , [E]^{\leq n})$.
We need some further more subject-specific definitions. From now on let $ M
$ and $ N $ be matroids on a common edge set $ E $. We call a $ W\subseteq E $ an
$ (M,N) $-\emph{wave} if $ M\upharpoonright W $ admits an $ N.W $-independent base. Waves in the matroidal context were
introduced by
Aharoni and Ziv in \cite{aharoni1998intersection} but it was also an important tool in the proof of the infinite version of Menger's
theorem \cite{aharoni2009menger} by Aharoni and Berger. We write $ \boldsymbol{\mathsf{cond}(M,N)} $ for
the condition: `For every $ (M,N) $-wave $ W $ there is an $ M $-independent base of $ N.W $.' A set $ I\in\mathcal{I}_M\cap
\mathcal{I}_N $ is \emph{feasible} if $
\mathsf{cond}(M/I,N/I) $ holds.
It is known (see Proposition \ref{wave union}) that there exists a $ \subseteq $-largest $ (M,N) $-wave which we denote by
$ \boldsymbol{W(M,N)} $. Let $ \boldsymbol{\mathsf{cond}^{+}(M,N) }$ be the statement that $ W(M,N) $ consists of $ M
$-loops and $
{r(N.W(M,N))=0} $. As the notation indicates it is a strengthening of $ \mathsf{cond}(M,N) $. Indeed, under the assumption $
\mathsf{cond}^{+}(M,N) $, $ \varnothing $ is an $ M $-independent base of $ N.W $ for every wave $ W $. A feasible $ I $ is
called \emph{nice} if $ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M/I,N/I) $ holds. For $ X\subseteq E $ let $ \boldsymbol{B(M,N,X)} $ be the
(possibly empty) set of common bases of $ M \upharpoonright
X $ and $ N.X $.
\section{Preliminary lemmas and preparation}\label{s: premil}
We collect those necessary lemmas in this section that are either known from previous papers or follow more or less directly
from definitions.
\subsection{Classical results}
The following two statements were proved by Edmonds' in \cite{edmonds2003submodular}:
\begin{prop}\label{prop: simult change}
Assume that~$I$ is independent,
${e_1, \dots, e_{m} \in \mathsf{span}(I) \setminus I}$
and~${f_1, \dots, f_{m} \in I}$
with ${f_j \in C(e_j, I)}$
but ${f_j\notin C(e_k, I)}$ for~${k < j}$.
Then
\[
{\left( I \cup \{e_1,\dots, e_{m}\} \right) \setminus \{f_1,\dots, f_{m}\}}
\]
is independent and spans the same set as~$I$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We use induction on~$m$.
The case~${m = 0}$ is trivial.
Suppose that~${m > 0}$.
On the one hand, the set ${I-f_m+e_m}$ is independent and spans the same set as~$I$.
On the other hand, ${C(e_j, I-f_m+e_m) = C(e_j, I)}$ for~${j < m}$ because ${f_m \notin C(e_j, I)}$ for~${j < m}$.
Hence by using the induction hypothesis for~${I-f_m+e_m}$ and ${e_1,\dots, e_{m-1}, f_1,\dots, f_{m-1}}$ we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}[Edmonds' augmenting path method]\label{l: augP Edmonds}
For $ I\in \mathcal{I}_M\cap \mathcal{I}_N $, exactly one of the following statements holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There is a partition $ E=E_M\sqcup E_N $ such that $ I_M:=I\cap E_M $ spans $ E_M $ in $ M $ and $ I_N:=I\cap E_N $
spans $ E_N $ in $ N $.
\item There is a
$ P=\{ x_1,\dots, x_{2n+1} \}\subseteq E $ with $ x_{1}\notin \mathsf{span}_N(I) $ and $
x_{2n+1}\notin
\mathsf{span}_M(I) $ such that $ I\vartriangle P\in
\mathcal{I}_M\cap \mathcal{I}_N $ with $ \mathsf{span}_{M}(I\vartriangle P) =\mathsf{span}_{M}(I+x_{2n+1}) $ and
$ \mathsf{span}_{N}(I\vartriangle P) =\mathsf{span}_{M}(I+x_{1}) $.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\noindent We will develop in Section
\ref{s: augP} a ``mixed'' augmenting path method which operates differently on the finitary
and on the cofinitary part of an $ N\in (\mathfrak{F}\oplus \mathfrak{F}^{*})(E) $. The phrase `augmenting path' refers always
to our mixed method except in the proof of Lemma \ref{one more edge}.
Note that $ E_M $ is an $ (M,N) $-wave witnessed by $ I_M $ and $ E_N $ is an $ (N,M) $-wave witnessed by $
I_N $.
One can define matroids in the language of circuits (see \cite{bruhn2013axioms}). The following claim is one of the axioms in
that case.
\begin{claim}[Circuit elimination axiom]\label{Circuit elim}
Assume that $ C\ni e $ is a circuit and $ \{ C_x: x\in X \} $ is a family of circuits where $ X\subseteq C-e $ and $ C_x $ is a
circuit with $C\cap X=\{ x \} $ avoiding $ e $. Then there is a circuit through $ e $ contained in
\[ \left( C\cup \bigcup_{x\in X}C_x \right) \setminus X =:Y \]
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Since $ C_x-x$ spans $ x $ we have $ C-e\subseteq\mathsf{span}(Y-e) $ and therefore $e\in \mathsf{span}(\mathsf{span}(Y-e)
)$. But
then $ e\in \mathsf{span}(Y-e) $ because $ \mathsf{span} $ is a closure operator.
\end{proof}
For finite matroids the axiom above is demanded only in the special case where $ X $ is a singleton (known as ``Strong circuit
elimination``) from which the case of arbitrary $ X $ can be derived by repeated application.
\begin{cor}\label{cor: Noutgoing arc}
Let $ I $ be an independent and suppose that there is a circuit $ C\subseteq \mathsf{span}(I) $
with $ e\in I\cap C $. Then there is an $ f\in C\setminus I $ with $e\in C(f,I) $.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
For every $ x\in C\setminus I $ we pick a circuit $ C_x $ with $ C_x\setminus I=\{ x \} $. If $
e\in C_x $
for some $ x $,
then $ f:=x $ is as desired. Suppose for a contradiction that there is no such an $ x $. Then by Circuit elimination (Claim
\ref{Circuit elim}) we obtain a circuit through $ e $ which is
contained entirely in $ I $ contradicting the independence of $ I $.
\end{proof}
The following statement was shown by Aharoni and Ziv in \cite{aharoni1998intersection} using a slightly
different terminology.
\begin{prop}\label{wave union}
The union of arbitrary many waves is a wave.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $ W_{\beta} $ is a wave for $ \beta<\kappa $ and let
$W_{<\alpha}:=\bigcup_{\beta<\alpha}W_{\beta} $ for $ \alpha\leq \kappa $. We fix a base
$ B_{\beta} \subseteq W_{\beta} $
of $ M\upharpoonright W_{\beta} $ which is independent in $ N.W_{\beta} $. Let us define
$ B_{<\alpha} $ by transfinite recursion for $ \alpha\leq \kappa $ as follows.
\[B_{<\alpha}:= \begin{cases} \varnothing &\mbox{if } \alpha=0 \\
B_{<\beta}\cup (B_\beta \setminus W_{<\beta}) & \mbox{if } \alpha=\beta+1\\
\bigcup_{\beta<\alpha}B_{<\beta} & \mbox{if } \alpha \text{ is limit ordinal}.
\end{cases} \]
First we show by transfinite induction
that $ B_{<\alpha} $ is spanning in $ M\upharpoonright W_{<\alpha} $. For $ \alpha=0 $ it is trivial.
For a limit $ \alpha $ it follows directly from the induction hypothesis. If $ \alpha=\beta+1 $, then
by the choice of $ B_\beta $, the set $ B_\beta \setminus W_{<\beta} $ spans $ W_{\beta}\setminus W_{<\beta} $
in $ M/W_{<\beta} $. Since $ W_{<\beta} $ is spanned by $ B_{<\beta} $ in $ M $ by induction, it follows that
$ W_{<\beta+1} $ is spanned by $ B_{<\beta+1} $ in $ M $.
The independence of $ B_{<\alpha} $ in
$ N.W_{<\alpha} $ can be reformulated as ``$W_{<\alpha}\setminus B_{<\alpha}$ is spanning in $
N^{*} \upharpoonright
W_{<\alpha} $'',
which can be proved the same way as above.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Some more recent results and basic facts}
\begin{thm}[Aigner-Horev, Carmesin and Frölich; Theorem 1.5 in \cite{aigner2018intersection}]\label{t: mixed}
If $ M\in \mathfrak{F}(E) $ and $ N\in
\mathfrak{F}^{*}(E) $, then there is an $ I\in \mathcal{I}_M\cap \mathcal{I}_N $ and a partition $ E=E_M\sqcup E_N $ such
that $ I_M:=I\cap E_M $ spans $ E_M $ in $ M $ and $ I_N:=I\cap E_N $ spans $ E_N $ in $ N $.
\end{thm}
\begin{cor}\label{cor: applyMixed}
If $ M\in \mathfrak{F}(E) $ and $ N\in
\mathfrak{F}^{*}(E) $ satisfy $ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M,N) $, then there is an $ M $-independent $ N $-base.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $ E_M, E_N,
I_M $ and $ I_N $ be as in Theorem \ref{t: mixed}. Then $ E_M $ is a wave witnessed by $ I_M $ thus by
$ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M,N) $ we know that $ E_M $ consists of $ M $-loops and $ r(N.E_M)=0 $. But then $ I_M=\varnothing $
and $ I_N $ is a base of $ N $ which is independent in $ M $.
\end{proof}
\begin{obs}\label{o: Mloop}
If $ \mathsf{cond}(M,N) $ holds and $ L $ is a set of the $ M $-loops, then $ r(N.L)=0 $ which means $
L\subseteq\mathsf{span}_N(E\setminus L) $.
\end{obs}
\begin{cor}\label{cor: Mloop}
If $ I $ is feasible, then $ r(N.(\mathsf{span}_{M}(I)\setminus I)=0$.
\end{cor}
\begin{obs}
If $ W_0 $ is an $ (M,N) $-wave and $ W_1 $ is an $ (M/W_0, N-W_0) $-wave, then $ W_0\cup W_1 $ is an $ (M,N)
$-wave.
\end{obs}
\begin{cor}\label{cor: empty wave}
For $ W:=W(M,N) $, the largest $ (M/W, N-W) $-wave is $ \varnothing $. In particular, $ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M/W,N-W) $
holds.
\end{cor}
\begin{obs}\label{o: condRestrict}
$ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M,N) $ implies ${\mathsf{cond}^{+}(M\upharpoonright X,N.X) }$ for every $ X\subseteq E $.
\end{obs}
\begin{prop}\label{p: iterate feasible}
If $ I_0\in \mathcal{I}_N\cap \mathcal{I}_M $ and $ I_1 $ is feasible with respect to $ (M/I_0,
N/I_0) $, then $ I_0\cup I_1 $ is
feasible with respect to $ (M,N) $. If in addition $ I_1 $ is a nice feasible in regards to $ (M/I_0, N/I_0) $, then so is
$ I_0\cup I_1 $ to $ (M,N) $.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By definition the feasibility of $ I_1 $ w.r.t. $ (M/I_0, N/I_0) $ means that the condition $ \mathsf{cond}(M/(I_0\cup
I_1),N/(I_0\cup I_1)) $
holds. The feasibility of $ I_0\cup I_1 $ w.r.t. $ (M, N) $ means the same also by definition. For `nice feasible' the argument is
similar, only $ \mathsf{cond} $ must be replaced by $ \mathsf{cond}^{+} $.
\end{proof}
The following lemma was introduced in \cite{joo2020MIC}.
\begin{lem}\label{one more edge}
Condition $ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M, N) $ implies that
whenever $ W $ is an $ (M/e, N/e) $-wave for some $ e\in E $ witnessed by $ B\subseteq W $, then
$B\in B(M/e,N/e,W) $, i.e. $ B $ is spanning in $ N.W $.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $ W $ be an $ (M/e, N/e) $-wave. Note that
$(N/e).W=N.W $ by definition. Pick a $ B\subseteq W $ which is an $ N.W $-independent base of $ (M/e)\upharpoonright
W $. We may assume
that
$ e\in \mathsf{span}_M(W) $ and $ e $ is not an $ M $-loop. Indeed, otherwise $ (M/e) \upharpoonright
W=M\upharpoonright
W$ holds
and hence $ W $ is also an $ (M,N) $-wave. Thus by $ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M, N) $ we may conclude that $ W $ consists of $ M
$-loops and hence $ B=\varnothing $, moreover, $ r(N.W)=0 $ and therefore $
\varnothing $ is a base of $ N.W $.
Then $ B $ is not a base of
$ M\upharpoonright W $ but ``almost'', namely $r(M/B \upharpoonright W) =1 $. We apply the
augmenting path Lemma \ref{l: augP Edmonds} by Edmonds with $ B$ in regards to $M\upharpoonright W$ and $ N.W $. An
augmenting
path $ P $ cannot exist. Indeed, if $ P $ were an augmenting path then $ B\vartriangle P $ would show that $ W $ is an
$ (M,N) $-wave which does not consist of $ M $-loops, contradiction. Thus we get a partition
$ W=W_{0}\sqcup W_{1} $ instead where $ W_0 $ is an $ (M \upharpoonright W,N.W) $-wave witnessed by $ B\cap W_0 $,
and therefore also an $ (M,N)
$-wave, and $ W_1 $ is an
$ (N.W, M\upharpoonright W) $-wave showed by $ B\cap W_1 $.
Then $ W_0 $ must consist of $ M $-loops by $ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M, N) $ and
therefore $ B\subseteq W_1 $ by the $ M $-independence of $ B $. We need to show that $ B $ is spanning not just in $ N.W_1 $
but also in $ N.W $. To do so let $ B' $ be a base of $ N-W$.
Then $ B\cup B' $ spans $ E\setminus W_0 $ in $ N $ because $ B=B\cap W_1 $ is a base $ N.W_1 $. But
then $ B\cup B' $ is spanning in $ N $ because $ r(N.W_0)=0 $ by Observation \ref{o: Mloop}. We conclude that $ B $ is
spanning in $ N.W $ as desired.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Technical lemmas in regards to \texorpdfstring{$ \boldsymbol{B(M,N,W)} $}{BMNW}}
\begin{prop}\label{prop: WB nice feasible}
For $ W:=W(M,N) $, the elements of $ B(M,N,W) $ are nice feasible sets.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $ B\in B(M,N,W) $. Clearly $ B\in \mathcal{I}_M\cap \mathcal{I}_N $ because $ B\in \mathcal{I}_M\cap
\mathcal{I}_{N.W} $ by definition and $ \mathcal{I}_{N.W} \subseteq \mathcal{I}_N $. We know that $ W\setminus B $ is
an $
(M/B, N/B) $-wave consisting of $ M/B $ loops and $ r(N.(W\setminus B))=0 $ because $ B $ is a
base of $ N.W $. In order to show $ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M/B, N/B)
$, it is enough to prove that $ W\setminus B $ is actually $ W(M/B, N/B)=:W' $. Suppose for a contradiction that $ W'\supsetneq
W\setminus B$. Let $ B' $ be an $ N.W' $-independent base of $ M/B \upharpoonright W' $. Note that $ B\cup B' $ is a base of $
M \upharpoonright (W\cup
W') $ and $ B'\cap (W\setminus B)=\varnothing $. Since $ B $ is $ N^{*} $-spanned by $ W\setminus B\subseteq (W\cup
W')\setminus (B\cup B') $ and $ B' $ is $ N^{*} $-spanned by $ W'\setminus B'\subseteq (W\cup W')\setminus (B\cup B') $, we
may conclude that $ B\cup B' $ is independent in $ N.(W\cup W') $. Thus $ W\cup W' $ is an $ (M,N) $-wave witnessed by $
B\cup B' $ which contradicts the maximality of $ W $.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor: extNice}
Assume that $ I\in \mathcal{I}_M\cap \mathcal{I}_M $ and $ B\in B(M/I,N/I, W) $ where $ W:=W(M/I,N/I) $. Then $ I\cup B
$ is a nice feasible set.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Combine Propositions \ref{p: iterate feasible} and \ref{prop: WB nice feasible}.
\end{proof}
\begin{obs}\label{obs: cond+ loop delete}
If $ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M,N) $ holds and $ L $ is a set of $ M $-loops, then $ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M-L,N-L) $ also holds.
\end{obs}
\begin{obs}\label{obs: common loops remove}
Let $ W $ be a wave and let $ L $ be a set of common loops of $ M $ and $ N $. Then $ W\setminus L $ is also a wave and $
B(M,N,W)=B(M,N,W\setminus L) $.
\end{obs}
\begin{lem}\label{l: wave modify}
Let $ W $ be a wave and $ L\subseteq W $ such that $ L $ consists of $ M $-loops with $ r(N.L)=0 $. Then $ W\setminus L $ is
an $ (M-L, N-L, W\setminus L) $-wave with \[
B(M,N,W)=B(M-L, N-L, W\setminus L). \]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
A set $ B $ is a base of $ M\upharpoonright W $ iff it is a base of
$ M\upharpoonright (W\setminus L) $ because $ L $ consists of $ M $-loops. A $ B\subseteq W\setminus L $ is $ N.W
$-independent iff $ B\subseteq\mathsf{span}_{N^{*}}(W\setminus B) $. This holds if and only if $
B\subseteq\mathsf{span}_{N^{*}/L}(W\setminus
(B\cup L)) $ i.e. $ B $ is independent in $ (N-L).(W\setminus L) $. Note that $ r(N.L)=0 $ is equivalent with the $
N^{*} $-independence of $ L $. Thus for $ B\subseteq W\setminus L $, $ W\setminus B $ is $ N^{*} $-independent iff
$ W\setminus (B\cup L) $ is $ N^{*}/L $-independent. It means that $ B $ is spanning in $ N.W $ iff it is spanning in $
(N-L).(W\setminus L) $.
Thus the sets that are witnessing that $ W\setminus L $ is
an $ (M-L, N-L, W\setminus L) $-wave are exactly those that are witnessing that $ W $ is an $ (M,N) $-wave, moreover, $
B(M,N,W)=B(M-L, N-L, W\setminus L) $ holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{l: minorsChanged}
Assume that $ X_j, Y_j \subseteq E $ for $ j\in \{ 0,1 \} $ where $ X_j\sqcup Y_j=Z $ for $ j\in \{ 0,1 \} $, furthermore
$ \mathsf{span}_M(X_0)=\mathsf{span}_M(X_1) $ and $ \mathsf{span}_{N^{*}}(Y_0) =\mathsf{span}_{N^{*}}(Y_1) $.
Then for every $ X\subseteq E\setminus Z $ we have\[ B(M/X_0-Y_0, N/X_0-Y_0, X)=B(M/X_1-Y_1, N/X_1-Y_1, X). \]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The matroids $ M/X_0-Y_0 $ and $ M/X_1-Y_1$ are the same as well as the matroids $ N/X_0-Y_0$ and $ N/X_1-Y_1 $.
\end{proof}
\section{Reductions}\label{s: reduction}
We repeat here our main results for convenience:
\PC*
\MI*
\subsection{Matroid Intersection with a finitary \texorpdfstring{$\boldsymbol{M} $}{M}}
As we mentioned, the method by Bowler and Carmesin used to prove Corollary 3.9 in \cite{bowler2015matroid} works not only
for the class of all matroids but can be adapted for every class closed under certain operations. We apply their
technique to obtain the following reduction:
\begin{lem}\label{l: M finitary}
Theorems \ref{t: main result0} and \ref{t: main result} are implied by the special case of Theorem \ref{t: main result} where $
M\in \mathfrak{F} $.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
First we show that one can assume without loss of generality in the proof of Theorem \ref{t: main result0} that $ \Theta $ is
countable. To
do so let \[ E':=\{ e\in E: \left|\{i\in
\Theta: \{ e \}\in \mathcal{I}_{M_i} \}\right|\leq \aleph_0 \} \] and
\[ \Theta':= \{ i\in \Theta: (\exists e\in E' ) (\{ e \}\in \mathcal{I}_{M_i}) \}. \]
We apply Theorem \ref{t: main result0} with $ E' $ and with the countable family $(M_i\upharpoonright E': i\in \Theta') $.
Then we obtain a partition
$ E'=E'_p\sqcup E'_c $ such that $ (M_i \upharpoonright E'_p: i\in \Theta') $ admits a packing $ (S_i: i\in \Theta') $ and
$ (M_i\upharpoonright E'. E_c: i\in \Theta') $ admits a covering $ (I_i: i\in \Theta') $. Let $ E_p:=E'_p $ and $ E_c:= E\setminus
E_p=E'_c\cup (E\setminus E') $. By construction $ r_{M_i}(E')=0 $ for $ i\in
\Theta \setminus \Theta' $. Thus by letting $ S_i:=\varnothing $ for $ i\in \Theta \setminus \Theta' $ the
family $ (S_i: i\in \Theta) $ is a packing w.r.t. $ (M_i \upharpoonright E_p: i\in \Theta) $.
Let $ g: E\setminus E'\rightarrow
\Theta\setminus \Theta' $ be injective. For $ i\in \Theta \setminus \Theta' $, we take $ I_i:=\{ g^{-1}(i) \}$ if $ i\in
\mathsf{ran}(g) $ and $ I_i:=\varnothing $ otherwise. Then $ (I_i: i\in \Theta) $ is a covering for $ (M_i. E_c: i\in \Theta) $ and
we are done.
We proceed with the proof of Theorem \ref{t: main result0} assuming that $ \Theta $ is countable. For $ i\in \Theta $, let $ M'_i
$ be the matroid on $
E\times \{ i \} $ that we
obtain by
``copying'' $ M_i $ via the bijection $ e\mapsto (e,i) $. Then for
\[M:= \bigoplus_{i\in \Theta}M_i',\ \text{ and } N:= \bigoplus_{e\in E}U_{ \{ e \}\times \Theta, 1 } \]
we have $M\in ( \mathfrak{F}\oplus \mathfrak{F}^{*})(E\times \Theta) $ and $ N\in \mathfrak{F}(E\times \Theta) $ where $
E\times \Theta $ is countable. Thus by assumption there is a partition $
E\times \Theta=E_M\sqcup E_N $ and an $ I\in \mathcal{I}_{M}\cap \mathcal{I}_{N} $ such that $ I_M:=I\cap E_M $
spans $ E_M $ in $ M$ and $ I_N:=I\cap E_N $
spans $ E_N$ in $ N$. The $ M $-independence of $ I $ ensures that $ J_i:=\{ e\in E: (e,i)\in I \} $ is $ M_i $-independent.
The $ N $-independence of $ I $ guarantees that the sets $ J_i $ are pairwise disjoint. Let
$ E_c:=\{ e\in E: (\exists i\in \Theta) (e,i)\in E_N \} $. Then for each $ e\in E_c $ there must be some $ i\in \Theta $ with $
(e,i)\in
I_N $ because $ E_N\subseteq \mathsf{span}_N(I_N) $. Thus the sets $ J_i $ cover $ E_c $ and so do the sets $
I_i:=J_i\cap E_c $. It is enough to show that $ S_i:=J_i\setminus I_i $ spans $ E_p:=E\setminus E_c $ in $ M_i $ for every $
i\in \Theta $. Let $ f\in E_p $ and $ i\in \Theta $ be given. Then $ \{ f \}\times \Theta \subseteq E_M $ follows directly from the
definition of $ E_p $, in particular $ (f,i)\in E_M $. We know that $(f,i)\in
\mathsf{span}_{M}(I_M)$ and hence $ f\in \mathsf{span}_{M_i}(\{ e\in E: (e,i)\in I_M \}) $. Suppose for a contradiction that
$h\in E_c\cap \{ e\in E: (e,i)\in I_M \} $. Then for some $ j\in
\Theta $ we have $ (h,j)\in E_N $. Since $ (h,j)\in \mathsf{span}_N(I_N) $, we have $ (h,k)\in I_N $ for some $ k\in \Theta $.
But then $ (h,i), (h,k)\in I $ are distinct elements thus $ i\neq k $ which contradict the $ N $-independence of $ I $. Therefore $
E_c\cap \{ e\in E: (e,i)\in I_M \}=\varnothing $. Since $ \{ e\in E: (e,i)\in I_M \}\subseteq J_i $ by the definition of $ J_i
$ we conclude $ \{ e\in E: (e,i)\in I_M \}=S_i $. Therefore $ (S_i: i\in \Theta) $ is a packing for $ (M_i \upharpoonright E_p:
i\in \Theta) $ and $ (I_i: i\in \Theta) $ is a covering for $ (M_i. E_c: i\in \Theta) $ as desired.
Now we derive Theorem \ref{t: main result} from Theorem \ref{t: main result0}. To do so, we take a partition $E=E_p\sqcup
E_c$ such that $ (S_M, S_N) $ is a packing for
$ (M\upharpoonright E_p, N^{*}\upharpoonright E_p) $ and $ (R_M, R_N) $ is a covering for $ (M.E_c, N^{*}.E_c ) $. Let $
I_M\subseteq S_M $ be a base of $ M\upharpoonright E_p $ and we define $ I_N:= R_M $. By construction
$E_p\subseteq \mathsf{span}_M(I_M) $ and $ I_N\in \mathcal{I}_{M.E_c} $. We also know that
\[ I_M\subseteq \mathsf{span}_{N^{*}}(S_N) \subseteq \mathsf{span}_{N^{*}}(E_p\setminus I_M) \]
which means $ I_M\in \mathcal{I}_{N.E_{p}} $.
Finally, $R_N\in \mathcal{I}_{N^{*}.E_c} $ means that $ E_c\setminus R_N $ spans $ E_c $ in $ N $ and therefore so does $
I_N=R_M\supseteq E_c\setminus R_N $.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Finding an \texorpdfstring{$ \boldsymbol{M} $}{M}-independent base of \texorpdfstring{$ \boldsymbol{N}
$}{N}}
The following reformulation of the matroid intersection problem was introduced by Aharoni and Ziv in
\cite{aharoni1998intersection} but its analogue by Aharoni was already an important tool to attack (and eventually solve in
\cite{aharoni2009menger}) the Erdős-Menger Conjecture.
\begin{restatable}{claim}{indepB}\label{c: M-indep N-base}
Assume that $ M\in \mathfrak{F}(E) $ and $ N\in (\mathfrak{F}\oplus\mathfrak{F}^{*})(E) $ such that $ E $ is countable and
$ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M,N) $ holds. Then there is an $ M $-independent base of $ N $.
\end{restatable}
\begin{lem}\label{l: reduc2}
Claim \ref{c: M-indep N-base} implies our main results Theorems \ref{t: main result0} and \ref{t: main result}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{l: M finitary} it is enough to show that the special case of Theorem \ref{t: main result} where $ M\in
\mathfrak{F} $ follows from Claim \ref{c: M-indep N-base}.
To do so, let $ E_M:=W(M,N) $ and let $ I_M\subseteq E_M $ be a witness that $ E_M $ is a wave. For $ E_N:=E\setminus
E_M $, we have $
M/E_M\in \mathfrak{F}(E_N) $ and
$ N-E_M\in (\mathfrak{F}\oplus \mathfrak{F}^{*})(E_N) $, furthermore, $ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M/W,N-W) $ holds (see
Corollary \ref{cor: empty wave}). By Claim \ref{c: M-indep N-base}, there is an $ M/E_M $-independent base $ I_N $ of $
N-E_M $. Then $ I\in \mathcal{I}_M\cap \mathcal{I}_{N}$ and $ E=E_M\sqcup E_N $ such that $ I_M:=I\cap E_M $ spans
$ E_M $ in $ M $ and $ I_N:=I\cap E_N $ spans $ E_N $ in $ N $ as desired.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Reduction to a key-lemma}
From now on we assume that $ M\in \mathfrak{F}(E) $ and $ N\in (\mathfrak{F}\oplus\mathfrak{F}^{*})(E) $ where $ E $ is
countable. Let $
\boldsymbol{E_0} $ be
the union of the finitary components of $ N $ and let
$ \boldsymbol{E_1}:=E\setminus E_0 $. Note that $ N\upharpoonright E_0 $ is finitary,
$ N\upharpoonright E_1 $ is cofinitary and no $ N $-circuit meets both $ E_0 $ and $ E_1 $.
\begin{restatable}[key-lemma]{lem}{keylemma}\label{l: key-lemma}
If $ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M,N) $ holds, then for every $ e\in E_0 $ there is a nice
feasible $ I $ with $ e\in \mathsf{span}_{N}(I) $.
\end{restatable}
\begin{lem}
Lemma \ref{l: key-lemma} implies our main results Theorems \ref{t: main result0} and \ref{t: main result}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It is enough to show that Lemma \ref{l: key-lemma} implies Claim \ref{c: M-indep N-base} because of Lemma \ref{l: reduc2}.
Let us
fix an enumeration $ \{ e_n: n\in
\mathbb{N} \} $ of $ E_0 $.
We build an $ \subseteq $-increasing sequence $ (I_n) $ of nice feasible sets starting
with $ I_0:=\varnothing $ (who is nice feasible by $ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M,N) $) in such a way that $ {e_n\in
\mathsf{span}_N(I_{n+1})} $. Suppose that $ I_n $ is already defined.
If $ e_n\notin \mathsf{span}_N(I_n) $, then we
apply Lemma \ref{l: key-lemma} with $ (M/I_n, N/I_n) $ and $ e_n $ and take the union of the resulting $ I $ with $ I_{n} $ to
obtain $ I_{n+1} $ (see Observation \ref{p: iterate feasible}), otherwise let $ I_{n+1}:=I_n $. The recursion is done. Now we
construct an $ M $-independent
$ I^{+}_n \supseteq I_n $ with $ E_1\subseteq \mathsf{span}_N(I^{+}_n) $ for $ n\in \mathbb{N} $. The matroid $ M/I_n
\upharpoonright
(E_1\setminus I_n) $ is finitary and $ N.(E_1\setminus I_n)=(N\upharpoonright E_1)/(I_n\cap E_1)$ is cofinitary, moreover, by
Observation \ref{o: condRestrict}
\[ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M/I_n, N/I_n) \Longrightarrow \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M/I_n \upharpoonright (E_1\setminus I_n),
N.(E_1\setminus I_n )). \] Thus by Corollary \ref{cor: applyMixed} there is an $ M/I_n $-independent base $ B_n $ of
$ (N\upharpoonright E_1)/(E_1\cap I_n) $ and $
I^{+}_n:=I_n\cup B_n $ is as desired.
Let $ \mathcal{U} $ be a free ultrafilter on $ \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N}) $ ad we define
\[ S:=\{ e\in E: \{ n\in \mathbb{N}: e\in I^{+}_n \}\in \mathcal{U} \}. \] Then $ S $ is $ M
$-independent and $ N $-spanning and therefore we are done. Indeed, suppose for a contradiction that $ S $ contains an $ M
$-circuit $ C $. For $ e\in C $, we pick a $ U_e\in
\mathcal{U} $ with $ e\in I^{+}_n $ for $ n\in U_e $. Since $ M $ is finitary, $ C $ is finite, thus $U:= \cap \{ U_e: e\in C \}\in
\mathcal{U} $.
But then for $ n\in U $ we have $ C\subseteq I^{+}_n $ which contradicts the $ M $-independence of $ I^{+}_n $. Clearly, $
I_{n+1}\subseteq S $ for every $ n\in \mathbb{N} $ and therefore $ E_0\subseteq \mathsf{span}_N(S) $. Finally, suppose for a
contradiction that there is some
$ N^{*}\upharpoonright E_1 $-circuit $ C' $ with $ S\cap C'=\varnothing $. For $ e\in C' $, we can pick a $ U_e'\in
\mathcal{U} $ with $ e\notin I^{+}_n $ for $ n\in U_e' $. Since $ N^{*}\upharpoonright E_1 $ is finitary, $ C' $ is finite, thus
$U':= \cap \{ U_e': e\in
C' \}\in
\mathcal{U} $.
But then for $ n\in U' $ we have $ I^{+}_n\cap C=\varnothing $ which contradicts $E_1\subseteq
\mathsf{span}_N(I^{+}_n) $.
\end{proof}
\section{Mixed augmenting paths}\label{s: augP}
In the section we introduce an `augmenting path' type of method and analyse it in order to show some properties we need later.
On $ E_0 $ the definition will be
the same as in the proof of
the Matroid Intersection Theorem by Edmonds \cite{edmonds2003submodular} but on $ E_1 $ we need to define it in a different
way considering that $ N\upharpoonright E_1 $ is cofinitary. For brevity we write
$ \boldsymbol{\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(F)} $ for $ \mathsf{span}_{M}(F)\setminus F $
and $ \boldsymbol{F^{j}} $ for $F\cap E_j $
where $ F\subseteq E $ and $ j\in \{ 0,1 \} $.
We call an $F\subseteq E $ \emph{dually safe} if $ F^{1} $ is spanned by $
\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_M(F) $ in $ N^{*} $.
\begin{lem}\label{l: enoughAddB}
If $ I\in \mathcal{I}_M\cap \mathcal{I}_n $ is dually safe and $ B\in B(M/I, N/I, W) $ for $ W:=W(M/I, N/I) $, then
$ I\cup B $ is a nice dually safe feasible set.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We already know by Corollary \ref{cor: extNice} that $ I\cup B $ is a nice feasible set. By using that $ I $ is dually safe and $
\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_M(I)\subseteq\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_M(I\cup B) $ we get
\[ I^{1}\subseteq \mathsf{span}_{N^{*}}(\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_M(I))\subseteq
\mathsf{span}_{N^{*}}(\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_M(I\cup B)). \]
Since $ B\in B(M/I, N/I, W) $ we have $ W\setminus B\subseteq \overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_M(I\cup B) $ and $ B $ is a
base of $ N.W $. The latter can be rephrased as `$ W\setminus B $ is a base of $ N^{*}\upharpoonright W $'. By combining
these $ \overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_M(I\cup B) $ spans $ B $ in $ N^{*} $. Therefore
$(I\cup B)\cap E_1 \subseteq \mathsf{span}_{N^{*}}(\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_M(I\cup B)) $, which means that $ I\cup
B $ is dually safe.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop: IE_1 common base}
For a dually safe feasible $ I $, $ \overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1} $ is
a base of $ {N^{*}\upharpoonright \mathsf{span}_{M}(I)^{1} } $.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By the definition of `dually safe', $ \overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1} $ spans $ N^{*}\upharpoonright
\mathsf{span}_{M}(I)^{1} $. Furthermore, $ r(N. \overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I))=0 $ by Corollary \ref{cor: Mloop},
which is equivalent with the $ N^{*} $-independence of $
\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I) $.
\end{proof}
For a dually safe feasible $ I $,
we define an auxiliary digraph $ D(I) $ on $ E $.
Let $ xy $ be an arc of $ D(I) $ iff
one of the following possibilities occurs:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{item: D(I) 1} $ x\in E\setminus I $ and $ I+x $ is $ M $-dependent with $ y\in C_M(x, I)-x $,
\item\label{item: D(I) 2} $x\in I^{0} $ and $ C_{N}(y,I) $ is well-defined and contains $ x $,
\item\label{item: D(I) 3} $x\in I^{1} $ and
$ y\in C_{N^{*}}(x,\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1} ) -x $ (see
Proposition \ref{prop: IE_1 common base}).
\end{enumerate}
An augmenting path for a nice dually safe feasible $ I $ is a $ P=\{ x_1,\dots, x_{2n+1} \} $ where
\begin{enumerate}
[label=(\roman*)]
\item $ x_1\in E_0\setminus \mathsf{span}_N(I) $,
\item $ x_{2n+1}\in E_0\setminus \mathsf{span}_M(I) $,
\item $ x_kx_{k+1}\in D(I) $ for $ 1\leq k\leq 2n $,
\item\label{item: no jumping} $ x_kx_{\ell}\notin D(I) $ if $ k+1<\ell $.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{prop}\label{p: augpath}
If $ I $ is a dually safe feasible set and $ P=\{ x_1,\dots, x_{2n+1} \} $ is an augmenting path for $ I $, then
$ I\vartriangle P$ is a dually safe element of $ \mathcal{I}_M\cap \mathcal{I}_N $ with
\begin{enumerate}
[label=(\Alph*)]
\item\label{item: A} $\mathsf{span}_{M}(I\vartriangle P)=\mathsf{span}_{M}(I+x_{2n+1}) $,
\item\label{item: B} $\mathsf{span}_{N}(I\vartriangle P)\cap E_0=\mathsf{span}_{N}(I+x_1)\cap E_0 $,
\item\label{item: C} $\mathsf{span}_{N^{*}} (\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1})=\mathsf{span}_{N^{*}}
(\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1}\vartriangle P^{1}) $ and $
\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1}\vartriangle P^{1}\in \mathcal{I}_{N^{*}} $.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The set $ I+x_{2n+1} $ is $ M $-independent by the definition of $ P $. Property \ref{item: no jumping} ensures that we can
apply Proposition \ref{prop: simult change} with $I+x_{2n+1},\ e_j=x_{2j-1},\ f_j=x_{2j}\ (1\leq j\leq n) $ and $ M $ and
conclude that
$ I\vartriangle P\in \mathcal{I}_M $ and \ref{item: A} holds.
To prove $ (I\vartriangle P)\cap E_0\in \mathcal{I}_N $ and
\ref{item: B} we
proceed similarly. We start with the $ N $-independent set $ (I+x_{1})\cap E_0 $. In order to satisfy the premisses of
Proposition \ref{prop: simult change} via property
\ref{item: no jumping}, we need to enumerate the relevant edge
pairs backwards.
Namely, for $j\leq \left| I^{0}\cap P \right|$ let $ e_j:=x_{i_j+1} $ where $ i_j $ is the $ j $th largest index with $ x_{i_j}\in
I^{0} $ and $ f_j:=x_{i_j} $. We conclude that $ (I\vartriangle P)\cap E_0\in \mathcal{I}_N
$ and \ref{item: B}
holds.
Finally, we let $ e_j:=x_{i_j} $ for $ j\leq \left|I^{1}\cap P\right| $ where $ i_j $ is the $j$th smallest index with $
x_{i_j}\in I^{1} $ and $
f_j:=x_{i_j+1} $.
Recall that $ \overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1} $ is $ N^{*} $-independent
(see Proposition \ref{prop: IE_1 common base}).
We apply Proposition \ref{prop: simult change} with
$\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1} ,\ e_j,\ f_j $ and $ N^{*} $ to conclude \ref{item: C}. This means that $
\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1}\vartriangle P^{1} $ is a base of $ N^{*}\upharpoonright
\mathsf{span}_{M}(I)^{1}$ because $ \overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1} $ was a base
of it by Proposition \ref{prop: IE_1 common base}. By \ref{item: A} and by the definition of $ P $ we
know that \[ (I\vartriangle P)\cap
E_1\subseteq
I^{1}\cup P^{1}\subseteq \mathsf{span}^{1}_{M}(I).
\] By combining these we obtain \[ (I\vartriangle P)\cap
E_1\subseteq \mathsf{span}_{N^{*}}(\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1}\vartriangle P^{1}). \] The set $
I\vartriangle
P $ is disjoint from
$ \overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)\vartriangle P$ because $ I $ is disjoint
from $
\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I) $, moreover, $ \overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)\vartriangle P $ contained in $
\mathsf{span}_{M}(I\vartriangle P) $. Hence $ \overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I\vartriangle P) $
contains $
\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1}\vartriangle P^{1} $ and therefore $ N^{*} $-spans
$ (I\vartriangle P) \cap E_1 $, i.e. $ I\vartriangle P $ is dually safe. It means that $ (I\vartriangle P)\cap E_1 $ is independent in $
N.\mathsf{span}_{M}(I\vartriangle P)^{1} $.
Thus uniting $ (I\vartriangle P)\cap E_0\in \mathcal{I}_N $
with $ (I\vartriangle P)\cap E_1 $ preserves $ N
$-independence, i.e. $ I\vartriangle P\in \mathcal{I}_N $.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{l: aug extend}
If $ I $ is a nice dually safe feasible set and $ P=\{ x_1,\dots, x_{2n+1} \} $ is an augmenting path for $ I $, then
$ I \vartriangle P $ can be extended to a nice dually safe feasible set.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $ M':= M/(I\vartriangle P)$ and $ N':=N/(I\vartriangle P) $. By Lemma \ref{l: enoughAddB} it is enough to show that
$ B(M', N', W)\neq \varnothing $ for $
W:=W(M', N') $. Statements \ref{item: A} and \ref{item: B} of Proposition \ref{p: augpath} ensure that the elements of $ L:=
\{
x_1, x_3,\dots,
x_{2n-1} \}\cap E_0 $ are common
loops of $ M'$ and $ N' $. Statement \ref{item: C} tells that $ Y_0:=\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1}
$ and $
Y_1:=\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1}\vartriangle P^{1} $ have the same $ N^{*}
$-span, furthermore, $ Y_1 $ is $ N^{*} $-independent, i.e. $ r(N.Y_1)=0 $. Note that $ Y_1 $ consists of $ M' $-loops by
\ref{item: A}.
Thus by applying Observation \ref{obs: common loops remove} with $ W $ and $ L $ and then Lemma \ref{l: wave modify}
with $ W\setminus L $ and $ Y_1 $ we can conclude that $ W\setminus (L\cup Y_1) $ is an
$ (M'-Y_1, N'-Y_1) $-wave, furthermore,
\[ B(M',N', W)=B(M'-Y_1, N'-Y_1, W\setminus (L\cup Y_1)). \]
The sets $X_0:= I+x_{2n+1} $ and $X_1:= I\vartriangle P $ have the same $ M $-span (see
Proposition \ref{p: augpath}/ \ref{item: A}). Recall
that $ M'=M/X_1 $ and
$
N'=N/X_1 $ by definition. Hence Lemma \ref{l: minorsChanged}
ensures that $ W\setminus (Y_1\cup L) $ is also an $ (M/X_0-Y_0, M/X_0-Y_0) $-wave with
\[ B(M/X_1-Y_1, N/X_1-Y_1, W\setminus (Y_1\cup L))=B(M/X_0-Y_0, M/X_0-Y_0, W\setminus (Y_1\cup L)). \]
We have $ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M/I, N/I) $ because $ I $ is a nice feasible set by assumption. Then by
Observation \ref{obs: cond+ loop delete}
$ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M/I-Y_0, N/I-Y_0) $ also holds. Applying Lemma \ref{one more edge} with $ M/I-Y_0,\ N/I-Y_0,\
W\setminus(Y_0\cup L) $ and $ x_{2n+1}$ tells
$ B(M/X_0-Y_0, M/X_0-Y_0, W\setminus (Y_1\cup L))\neq \varnothing $ which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{l: arc remain lemma}
If $ P=\{ x_1, \dots, x_{2n+1} \} $ is an augmenting path for $ I $ which contains neither $x$ nor any of its out-neighbours in $
D(I) $, then $xy\in D(I) $ implies $ xy \in D(I \vartriangle P) $.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $ xy\in D(I) $. First we assume that $ x\notin I $. Then the set of the out-neighbours of $ x $ is
$ C_M(x,I)-x $. By
assumption $ P\cap C_M(x,I)=\varnothing $ and
therefore $C_M(x,I)\subseteq I \vartriangle P$ thus $ C_M(x,I)=C_M(x,I \vartriangle P) $. This means by definition that $ x $
has the same out-neighbours in
$ D(I) $ and $ D(I \vartriangle P) $.
If $ x\in I^{1} $, then we can argue similarly. The set of the out-neighbours of $ x $ in $ D(I) $ is
$ C_{N^{*}}(x,\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1} ) -x $. By
assumption $ P\cap C_{N^{*}}(x,\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1} )=\varnothing $ and
therefore $ C_{N^{*}}(x,\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1} ) \cap (I \vartriangle P)=\{ x\} $. Since $
\mathsf{span}^{1}_{M}(I\vartriangle P) \supseteq
\mathsf{span}^{1}_{M}(I)$ because of Proposition \ref{p: augpath}/\ref{item: A}, we also have $
C_{N^{*}}(x,\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1} )\subseteq
\mathsf{span}^{1}_{M}(I\vartriangle P) $. By combining these we conclude
\[ C_{N^{*}}(x,\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I\vartriangle P)^{1} )
=C_{N^{*}}(x,\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I)^{1} ). \] This means
by definition that $ x $ has the same out-neighbours in $ D(I) $ and $ D(I \vartriangle P) $.
We turn to the case where $ x\in I^{0} $. By definition $ C_N(y,I) $ is well-defined and
contains $ x $, in particular $ y\in E_0 $.
For $ k\leq n $, let us denote
$ I+x_1-x_2+x_3-\hdots -x_{2k}+x_{2k+1} $ by $ I_k $. Note that
$ {I_n=I \vartriangle P} $. We show by induction on $ k $ that $ I_k $ is $ N $-independent and
$ {x\in C_N(y, I_k)} $. Since
$ I+x_1 $ is $ N $-independent by definition and $ x_1\neq y $ because $ y\notin P$ by assumption, we obtain $
C_N(y,I)=C_N(y,I_0) $, thus for $ k=0 $ it holds. Suppose that $ n>0 $ and
we already know the statement for some $ k<n $. We have $ C_N(x_{2k+3},I_k)=C_N(x_{2k+3},I)\ni x_{2k+2} $ because
there is no ``jumping arc'' in the augmenting path by property \ref{item: no jumping}. It follows via the $ N $-independence of
$ I_k $ that $ I_{k+1} $ is also $ N
$-independent.
If $ x_{2k+2}\notin C_N(y, I_k) $ then $ C_N(y, I_k)=C_N(y, I_{k+1}) $
and the induction step is done. Suppose that $ x_{2k+2}\in C_N(y, I_k) $. Then $x_{2k+2}, x_{2k+3}\in E_0 $, moreover,
$x\notin C_N(x_{2k+3},I) $ since
otherwise $P$ would contain the out-neighbour $x_{2k+3} $ of $ x $ in $ D(I) $. We apply circuit elimination (Claim
\ref{Circuit elim})
with $C= C_N(y, I_k),\ e=x,\ X=\{ x_{2k+2} \},\ C_{x_{2k+2}}=C_N(x_{2k+3},I_k) $. The resulting circuit $ C'\ni x $ can
have at most one element out of $ I_{k+1} $, namely $ y $. Since $ I_{k+1} $ is $ N $-independent, there must be at least one
such an element and therefore $ C'=C_N(y,I_{k+1}) $.
\end{proof}
\begin{obs}\label{arc remain fact}
If $ xy \in D(I) $ and $ J\supseteq I $ is a dually safe feasible set with
$ \{ x,y \}\cap J=\{ x, y \}\cap I $, then $ xy \in D(J) $ (the same circuit is the witness).
\end{obs}
\section{Proof of the key-lemma}\label{s: proof of key-lemma}
\keylemma*
\begin{proof}
It is enough to build a sequence $(I_n)$ of nice dually safe feasible sets such that
$ (\mathsf{span}_N(I_n)\cap E_0) $ is an ascending sequence exhausting $ E_0 $. We fix a well-order $ \boldsymbol{\prec} $
of type $ \left|E_0\right| $ on $ E_0 $. Let $ I_0=\varnothing $, which is a nice dually safe feasible set by $
\mathsf{cond}^{+}(M,N) $.
Suppose that $ I_n $ is already defined. If there is no augmenting path for $ I_n $, then we let $ I_m:=I_n $ for $ m>n $.
Otherwise we pick an augmenting path $ P_n $ for $ I_n $ in such a way that its first element is as $ \prec $-small as possible.
Then we apply Lemma \ref{p: augpath} to extend $ I\vartriangle P $ to a nice dually safe feasible set which we define to be $
I_{n+1} $. The recursion is done.
Let $ \boldsymbol{X}:=E\setminus \bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\mathsf{span}_{N}(I_n) $ and for $ x\in X $, let $
\boldsymbol{E(x,n)} $ be the set of elements that are
reachable from $ x $ in $ D(I_n) $ by a directed path. We define $\boldsymbol{n_x} $ to be the smallest
natural number such that for every $ y\in E\setminus X $ with $ y \prec x $ we have $ y\in \mathsf{span}_N(I_{n_x}) $.
We shall prove that \[\boldsymbol{W}:= \bigcup_{x\in X}\bigcup_{n\geq n_x}E(x,n) \] is a wave.
\begin{lem}\label{l: stabilazing stuff}
For every $ x\in X $ and $ \ell\geq m\geq n_x $,
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{item stabilize} $ I_m\cap E(x,m)=I_{\ell}\cap E(x,m) $,
\item\label{item same circuit} $ C_M(y,I_\ell)=C_M(y,I_{m})\subseteq E(x,m)$ for every $y\in E(x,m)\setminus I_m $,
\item \label{item same cocircuit} $C_{N^{*}}(y,\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I_\ell)^{1})=
C_{N^{*}}(y,\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I_{m})^{1}) $ for every $y\in E(x,m)\cap I_m^{1} $,
\item\label{item subdigraph} If $ yz\in D(I_m)$ with $y,z\in E(x,m)$, then $yz\in D(I_\ell) $,
\item\label{item increasing} $ E(x,m)\subseteq E(x,\ell) $.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that there is an $ n\geq n_x $ such that we know already the statement whenever $m,\ell \leq n $. For the induction step
it is
enough to
show that the claim holds for $ n $ and $ n+1 $. We may assume that $ P_n $ exists, i.e. $ I_n\neq I_{n+1} $, since otherwise
there is nothing to prove.
\begin{prop}\label{p: nx no aug}
$ P_n \cap E(x,n)=\varnothing $.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
A common element of $ P_n $ and $ E(x,n) $ would show that there is also an augmenting path in $ D(I_n) $ starting at $ x $
which is impossible since $ x\in X $ and $ n\geq n_x $.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
$ I_{n}\cap E(x,n)=(I_n \vartriangle P_n)\cap E(x,n) $.
\end{cor}
\begin{prop}
$ (I_n \vartriangle P_n)\cap E(x,n)=I_{n+1}\cap E(x,n) $.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
If $y\in E(x,n)\setminus I_n $, then its out-neighbours in $ D(I_n) $ are in $ E(x,n)\cap I_n $ and span $ y $ in $ M $.
Thus $I_{n+1}\setminus (I_n \vartriangle P_n)$ cannot contain any edge from $ E(x,n) $.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{circ subset}
$ I_n\cap E(x,n)=I_{n+1}\cap E(x,n) $ and for every $y\in E(x,n)\setminus I_n $ we have
$ C_M(y,I_n)=C_M(y,I_{n+1})\subseteq E(x,n)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{cor}\label{cor: cocircuit stabil}
For $y\in E(x,n)\setminus I_n $, $ y $ has the same out-neighbours in $ D(I_n) $ and in $ D(I_{n+1}) $ and they span $ y $ in
$ N^{*} $. More concretely:
\[ C_{N^{*}}(y,\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I_{n+1})^{1})=
C_{N^{*}}(y,\overset{\circ}{\mathsf{span}}_{M}(I_{n})^{1}). \]
\end{cor}
Finally, for $ y\in E(x,n)$, $ P_n $ does not contain $ y $ or any of its out-neighbours with respect
to $ D(I_n) $ because $ P_n\cap E(x,n)=\varnothing $. Hence by applying Lemma \ref{l: arc remain lemma} with $P_n, y$ and
$I_n $ (and then Observation \ref{arc remain fact}) we may conclude that $ yz\in D(I_{n+1}) $ whenever $yz\in D(I_n) $.
This implies $ E(x,n)\subseteq E(x,n+1) $ since reachability from $ x $ is witnessed by the same directed paths.
\end{proof}
Let \[ B:=\bigcup_{m\in \mathbb{N}} \bigcap_{n>m}W\cap I_n. \] We are going to show that $ B $ witnesses that $ W $ is a
wave. Since $ M $ is
finitary the $ M $-independence of the sets $ I_n\cap W $ implies the $ M $-independence of $ B $. Similarly $ B^{0} $ is
independent in $ N $ because $ N \upharpoonright E_0 $ is finitary. Statements (\ref{item stabilize}) and
(\ref{item same circuit}) of Claim \ref{l: stabilazing stuff} ensure $W\subseteq
\mathsf{span}_{M}(B) $, while (\ref{item stabilize}) and (\ref{item same cocircuit}) guarantee $ B^{1} \subseteq
\mathsf{span}_{N^{*}}(W\setminus B) $. The latter means that $ B^{1} $ is independent in $ N.(W^{1}\setminus B^{1}) $.
Suppose for
a contradiction that $ B^{0} $ is not independent in $ N.W^{0} $. Then there exists an $ N $-circuit $ C\subseteq E_0 $ that
meets $ B $
but avoids $ W\setminus B $. We already know that $ B^{0} $ is $ N $-independent thus $ C $ is not contained in $ B $. Hence
$C\setminus B= C\setminus W\neq\varnothing $. Let us pick some $ e\in C\cap B$.
Since $ C $ is finite, for every large enough $ n $ we have $ C\cap B\subseteq C\cap I_n $ and $ I_n $ spans $ C $ in $ N $ (for
the latter we use
$ X\subseteq W\setminus B $). Applying Corollary \ref{cor: Noutgoing arc}
with $I_n, N, C $ and $ e $ tells that $e\in C_N(f,I_n) $
for
some $ f\in C\setminus W $ whenever $ n $ is large enough.
Then by (\ref{item increasing}) of Claim \ref{l: stabilazing stuff} we can take an $ x\in X $ and an $ n\geq n_x $ such that $ e\in
E(x,n) \cap C_N(f,I_n) $
for some $ f\in C\setminus W $. Then by definition $ f \in E(x,n) \subseteq W $ which contradicts $ f\in C\setminus W $. Thus
$ B^{0} $ is indeed
independent in $ N.W^{0} $ and hence $ B $ in $ N.W $ as well therefore $ W $ is a wave.
By $ \mathsf{cond}^{+}(M,N) $ we know that $ W $ consists of $ M $-loops and $ r(N.W)=0 $. It implies $ r(N.X)=0 $
because $ X\subseteq W $ by definition. This means $ X\subseteq \mathsf{span}_N(E\setminus X) $. Since $X\subseteq E_0 $
and $ E_0 $ is the union of the finitary $ N $-components, $ X\subseteq \mathsf{span}_N(E_0\setminus X) $ follows. Thus for
every $ x\in X $
there is a finite $ N $-circuit $ C\subseteq E_0 $ with $ C\cap X=\{ x \} $. The sequence $ (\mathsf{span}_N(I_n)\cap E_0 )$ is
ascending by construction and exhausts $ E_0\setminus X $ by the definition of $ X $. As $ C-x\subseteq E_0\setminus X $ is
finite, this implies that for every large enough $ n $, $ I_n $
spans $ C-x $ in $ N $ and hence spans $ x $ itself as well. But then by the definition of $ X $, we must have
$ X=\varnothing $. Therefore $ (\mathsf{span}_N(I_n)\cap E_0) $ exhausts $ E_0 $ and the proof of
Lemma \ref{l: key-lemma} is complete.
\end{proof}
\section{An application: Degree-constrained orientations of infinite graphs}\label{s: application}
Matroid intersection is a powerful tool in graph theory and in combinatorial optimization. Our generalization
Theorem \ref{t: main result} extends the scope of its applicability to infinite
graphs. To illustrate this, let us consider a classical problem in combinatorial optimization. A graph is given with
degree-constrains and we are looking for either an orientation
that satisfies it or a certain substructure witnessing the non-existence of such an orientation (see \cite{hakimi1965degrees}).
Let a (possibly infinite) graph $ G=(V,E) $ be fixed through this section. We denote the set of edges incident with $ v $ by $
\boldsymbol{\delta(v)} $.
Let $ o: V\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ with $ \left|o(n)\right|\leq
d(v) $ for $
v\in V $ which we will threat as `lower bounds' for in-degrees in orientations in the following sense. We say that the orientation $
D $ of $ G $ is
\emph{above} $
o $ at $ v $ if either $
o(v)\geq 0 $ and $ v $ has at least $ o(v) $ ingoing edges in $ D $ or $ o(v)< 0 $ and all but at most $ -o(v) $ edges in $ \delta(v)
$
are oriented towards $ v $ by $ D $. We say \emph{strictly above} if we forbid equality in the definition. Orientation $ D $ is
above $ o $ if it is above $ o $ at every $ v\in V $. We say that $ D $ is (strictly) bellow $ o $ at $ v $ if the reverse of $ D $ is
(strictly) above $ -o(v) $. Finally, $ D $ is (strictly) bellow $ o $ if the reverse of $ D $ is strictly above $ -o $.
\begin{thm}\label{t: indegree demand}
Let $ G=(V,E) $ be a countable graph and let $ o: V\rightarrow \mathbb{Z} $. If there is no
orientation of $ G $ above $ o $, then there is a $ V'\subseteq V $ and an orientation $ D $ of $ G $ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $ D $ is bellow $ o $ at every $ v\in V' $;
\item There exists a $ v\in V' $ such that $ D $ is strictly bellow $ o $ at $ v $;
\item Every edge between $ V' $ and $ V\setminus V' $ is oriented by $ D $ towards $ V' $.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality we may assume that $ G $ is loopless. We define the digraph $
\overset{\leftrightarrow}{G}=(V, A) $ by
replacing each $ e\in E
$ by back and forth arcs $ a_{e}, a'_e $ between the
end-vertices of $ e $. Let $ \delta^{+}(v) $ be the set of the ingoing edges of $ v $ in $ \overset{\leftrightarrow}{G} $. For
$ v\in V $, let $ M_v $ be $
U_{\delta^{+}(v), o(v)} $ if $
o(v)\geq 0 $ and $
U_{\delta^{+}(v),-o(v)}^{*} $ if $ o(v)<0 $. We define $ N_e $ to be $ U_{\{a_e, a'_e \}, 1} $ for $ e\in E $. Let \[
M:=\bigoplus_{v\in V}M_v\text{ and }N:=\bigoplus_{e\in E} N_e. \] Since $ M, N\in
(\mathfrak{F}\oplus \mathfrak{F}^{*})(A) $, Theorem \ref{t: main result} guarantees that there exists an $ I\in
\mathcal{I}_M\cap
\mathcal{I}_N $ and a partition $ A=A_M\sqcup A_N $ such that $I_M:=I\cap A_M $ spans $ A_M $ in $ M $ and $
I_N:=I\cap A_N $ spans $ A_N $ in $ N $. Note that $ \left|I\cap \{ a_e, a'_e \} \right|\leq 1$ by the $ N $-independence of $ I
$. We define $ D $ by taking the orientation $ a_e $ of $ e $ if $ a_e\in I $ and $ a'_e $ otherwise. Let $ V'' $ consists of those
vertices $ v $ for which $ I_M $ contains a base of $ M_v $ and let $ V':=V\setminus V'' $.
We claim that whenever an edge $ e\in E $ is incident with some $ v\in V' $, then $ I $ contains one of $ a_e $ and $ a'_e $.
Indeed, if $ I $ contains none of them then they cannot be $ N $-spanned by $ I_N $ thus they are $ M $-spanned by $ M $ which
implies that both end-vertices of $ e $ belong to $ V'' $, contradiction. Thus if $ e $ is incident some $ v\in V' $, then all ingoing
arcs of $ v $ in $ D $ must be in $ I $. Then the $ M $-independence of $ I $ ensures that $ D $ is bellow $ o $ at $ v $.
Suppose for a contradiction that $ a_e $ is an arc in $ D $ from a $ v\in V' $ to a $ w\in V'' $. As we have already shown, we must
have $ a_e\in I $ . By $ w\in V''
$ we know that $ I_M $ contains a base of
$ M_w $ thus $ a_e\notin I_N $ by the $ M $-independence of $ I $ and therefore $ a_e\in I_M $. But then $ a'_e $ cannot be
spanned by $ I_N $ in $ N $ hence $ a'_e\in \mathsf{span}_M(I_M) $, which means that $ I_M $ contains a base of $ M_v $
contradicting $ v\in V' $. We conclude that all the edges between $ V'' $ and $ V' $ are oriented towards $ V' $ in $ D $. By the
definition of $ V'' $, $ D $ is above $ o $ at every $ w\in V'' $. If $ D $ is also above $ o $ for every $ v\in V' $, then $ D $
is above $ o $. Otherwise there exists a $v\in V' $ such that $ D $ is strictly bellow $ o $ at $ v $, but then $ V' $ is as desired.
\end{proof}
Easy calculation shows that if $ G $ is finite, then the existence of a $ V' $ described in Theorem \ref{t: indegree demand}
implies the non-existence of an orientation above $ o $. Indeed, the total demand by $ o $ on $ V' $ is more than the number of all
the edges that are incident with a vertex in $ V' $. That is why for finite $ G $, ``if'' can be replaced by ``if and only if'' in
Theorem \ref{t: indegree demand}. For an infinite $ G $ it is not always the case. Indeed, let $ G $ be the one-way infinite path $
v_0, v_1,\dots $ and let $ o(v_n)=1 $ for $ n\in \mathbb{N} $. Then orienting edge $ \{ v_{n}, v_{n+1} \} $ towards $ v_{n+1}
$ for each $ n\in \mathbb{N} $ and taking $ V':=V $ satisfies the three points in Theorem \ref{t: indegree demand}. However,
taking the opposite orientation is above $ o $.
A natural next step is to introduce upper bounds $ p:V\rightarrow \mathbb{Z} $ beside the lower bounds
$ o:V\rightarrow \mathbb{Z} $. To avoid trivial obstructions we assume that $ o $ and $ p $ are \emph{consistent} which means
that for every $ v\in V $ there is an orientation $ D_v $
which is above $ o $ at bellow $ p $ at $ v $.
\begin{quest}
Let $ G $ be a countable graph and let $ o, p: V\rightarrow \mathbb{Z} $ be a consistent pair of bounding functions.
Suppose that there are orientations $ D_o $ and $ D_p $ that are above $ o $ and bellow $ p $ respectively. Is there always a
single
orientation $ D $ which is above $ o $ and bellow $ p $?
\end{quest}
The positive answer for finite graphs is not too hard to prove, as far we know its first appearance in the literature is
\cite{frank1978orient}.
% \bib, bibdiv, biblist are defined by the amsrefs package.
\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}
\bib{aharoni1984konig}{article}{
author={Aharoni, Ron},
title={K{\"o}nig's duality theorem for infinite bipartite graphs},
date={1984},
journal={Journal of the London Mathematical Society},
volume={2},
number={1},
pages={1\ndash 12},
}
\bib{aharoni2009menger}{article}{
author={Aharoni, Ron},
author={Berger, Eli},
title={Menger’s theorem for infinite graphs},
date={2009},
journal={Inventiones mathematicae},
volume={176},
number={1},
pages={1\ndash 62},
}
\bib{aharoni1983general}{article}{
author={Aharoni, Ron},
author={Nash-Williams, Crispin},
author={Shelah, Saharon},
title={A general criterion for the existence of transversals},
date={1983},
journal={Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society},
volume={3},
number={1},
pages={43\ndash 68},
}
\bib{aharoni1984another}{article}{
author={Aharoni, Ron},
author={Nash-Williams, Crispin},
author={Shelah, Saharon},
title={Another form of a criterion for the existence of transversals},
date={1984},
journal={Journal of the London Mathematical Society},
volume={2},
number={2},
pages={193\ndash 203},
}
\bib{aharoni1998intersection}{article}{
author={Aharoni, Ron},
author={Ziv, Ran},
title={The intersection of two infinite matroids},
date={1998},
journal={Journal of the London Mathematical Society},
volume={58},
number={03},
pages={513\ndash 525},
}
\bib{aigner2018intersection}{article}{
author={Aigner-Horev, Elad},
author={Carmesin, Johannes},
author={Fr{\"o}hlich, Jan-Oliver},
title={On the intersection of infinite matroids},
date={2018},
journal={Discrete Mathematics},
volume={341},
number={6},
pages={1582\ndash 1596},
}
\bib{nathanhabil}{thesis}{
author={Bowler, Nathan},
title={Infinite matroids},
type={Habilitation Thesis},
date={2014},
note={\url{https://www.math.uni-hamburg.de/spag/dm/papers/Bowler\_Habil.pdf}},
}
\bib{bowler2015matroid}{article}{
author={Bowler, Nathan},
author={Carmesin, Johannes},
title={Matroid intersection, base packing and base covering for infinite
matroids},
date={2015},
journal={Combinatorica},
volume={35},
number={2},
pages={153\ndash 180},
}
\bib{bowler2016self}{article}{
author={Bowler, Nathan},
author={Geschke, Stefan},
title={Self-dual uniform matroids on infinite sets},
date={2016},
journal={Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society},
volume={144},
number={2},
pages={459\ndash 471},
}
\bib{bruhn2013axioms}{article}{
author={Bruhn, Henning},
author={Diestel, Reinhard},
author={Kriesell, Matthias},
author={Pendavingh, Rudi},
author={Wollan, Paul},
title={Axioms for infinite matroids},
date={2013},
journal={Advances in Mathematics},
volume={239},
pages={18\ndash 46},
}
\bib{edmonds1968matroid}{article}{
author={Edmonds, Jack},
title={Matroid partition},
date={1968},
journal={Mathematics of the Decision Sciences},
volume={11},
pages={335\ndash 345},
}
\bib{edmonds2003submodular}{incollection}{
author={Edmonds, Jack},
title={Submodular functions, matroids, and certain polyhedra},
date={2003},
booktitle={Combinatorial optimization—eureka, you shrink!},
publisher={Springer},
pages={11\ndash 26},
}
\bib{erde2019base}{article}{
author={Erde, Joshua},
author={Gollin, J.~Pascal},
author={Jo{\'o}, Attila},
author={Knappe, Paul},
author={Pitz, Max},
title={Base partition for mixed families of finitary and cofinitary
matroids},
date={2021},
ISSN={1439-6912},
journal={Combinatorica},
volume={41},
number={1},
pages={31\ndash 52},
url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s00493-020-4422-4},
}
\bib{frank1978orient}{article}{
author={Frank, Andr{\'a}s},
title={How to orient the edges of a graph?},
date={1978},
journal={Combinatorics},
pages={353\ndash 364},
}
\bib{frank2011connections}{book}{
author={Frank, Andr{\'a}s},
title={Connections in combinatorial optimization},
publisher={OUP Oxford},
date={2011},
volume={38},
}
\bib{ghaderi2017}{thesis}{
author={Ghaderi, Shadisadat},
title={On the matroid intersection conjecture},
type={PhD. Thesis},
date={2017},
}
\bib{hakimi1965degrees}{article}{
author={Hakimi, S~Louis},
title={On the degrees of the vertices of a directed graph},
date={1965},
journal={Journal of the Franklin Institute},
volume={279},
number={4},
pages={290\ndash 308},
}
\bib{higgs1969equicardinality}{article}{
author={Higgs, DA},
title={Equicardinality of bases in {B}-matroids},
date={1969},
journal={Can. Math. Bull},
volume={12},
pages={861\ndash 862},
}
\bib{higgs1969matroids}{inproceedings}{
author={Higgs, Denis~Arthur},
title={Matroids and duality},
date={1969},
booktitle={Colloquium mathematicum},
volume={2},
pages={215\ndash 220},
}
\bib{joó2020intersection}{misc}{
author={Joó, Attila},
title={Intersection of a partitional and a general infinite matroid},
how={arXiv},
date={2020},
note={\url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.07205}},
}
\bib{joo2020MIC}{article}{
author={Jo{\'o}, Attila},
title={Proof of {N}ash-{W}illiams' intersection conjecture for countable
matroids},
date={2021},
ISSN={0001-8708},
journal={Advances in Mathematics},
volume={380},
pages={107608},
}
\bib{oxley1978infinite}{article}{
author={Oxley, James},
title={Infinite matroids},
date={1978},
journal={Proc. London Math. Soc},
volume={37},
number={3},
pages={259\ndash 272},
}
\bib{oxley1992infinite}{article}{
author={Oxley, James},
title={Infinite matroids},
date={1992},
journal={Matroid applications},
volume={40},
pages={73\ndash 90},
}
\bib{rado1966abstract}{inproceedings}{
author={Rado, Richard},
title={Abstract linear dependence},
organization={Institute of Mathematics Polish Academy of Sciences},
date={1966},
booktitle={Colloquium mathematicum},
volume={14},
pages={257\ndash 264},
}
\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}
%\bibliographystyle{acm}
%\bibliography{C:/Users/Attila/Desktop/Dropbox/tex/bibfile.bib}
\end{document}
\section{Outlook: Multi-Matroid Intersection by Aharoni}
For $ k\geq 2 $, a $k $\emph{-partite hypergraph} is a $ H=(V_1,\dots, V_k; E) $ where the sets $ V_i $ are pairwise disjoint
and each
edge
$ e\in E $ is a set of size $ k $ containing one element from each $ V_i $. A set of pairwise disjoint edges is called a
\emph{matching} and
a set of vertices meeting every edge is a \emph{vertex cover}. The size of a largest matching and a smallest vertex cover denoted
by $ \boldsymbol{\nu(H)} $ and $ \boldsymbol{\tau(H)} $ respectively.
\begin{conj}[Ryser’s Conjecture]\label{conj: Rys}
For every finite $ k $-partite hypergraph $ H $, $ \tau(H)\leq (k-1)\nu(H) $.
\end{conj}
Aharoni settled the question affirmatively for $ k=3 $ in \cite{aharoni2001ryser} and conjectured the following structural
generalization which are equally
meaningful for infinite $ k $-partite hypergraphs:
\begin{conj}\label{conj: str Rys}
For every hypergraph $ H=(V_1,\dots, V_k; E) $ there are matchings $ I_1, \dots, I_{k-1} $ such that one can choose
for every $ 1\leq i\leq k $ and $ e\in I_i $ a vertex $ v_{i,e}\in e $ such that the (multi)set
$ \{v_{i,e}: 1\leq i\leq k-1 \wedge e\in I_i \} $ is a vertex cover.
\end{conj}
\noindent For a finite $ H $ the Pigeonhole principle ensues that one of the matchings $ I_i $ must have at least $
\frac{\tau(H)}{k-1} $ elements,
hence this is indeed a generalization of Ryser's Conjecture \ref{conj: Rys}.
The matchings of a $ k $-partite hypergraph can be considered as common
independent sets of the partition matroids $ M_1,\dots, M_k $ on $ E $ where $I\in \mathcal{I}_{M_i} $ iff no distinct $ e,f\in I
$ have a common vertex in $ V_i $. This motivated the following matroidal generalization:
\begin{conj}[Aharoni and Berger]
Assume that $ M_1,\dots, M_k $ are matroids on the finite edge
set $ E $ where $ 2\leq k\in \mathbb{N} $. Then they
admit common independent set of size at least
\[ \frac{1}{k-1} \min \left\lbrace \sum_{i=1}^{k}r_i(X_i): E= \bigsqcup_{i=1}^{k} X_i. \right\rbrace \]
\end{conj}
The case $ k=3 $ was solved by Aharoni and Berger in \cite{aharoni2006intersection}.
\begin{conj}[Multi-Matroid Intersection Conjecture by Aharoni]
Assume that $ M_1,\dots, M_k $ are arbitrary/finitary/finite matroids on $ E $ where $ 2\leq k\in \mathbb{N} $. Then they
admit common independent sets $ I_1,\dots, I_{k-1} $ such that for
each $ 1\leq i\leq k-1 $ there is a $ k $-partition $ I_i=\bigsqcup_{j=1}^{k}I_i^{j} $ for which
\[ \bigcup_{j=1}^{k}\mathsf{span}_{M_j}\left( \bigcup_{i=1}^{k-1}I_{i}^{j}\right) =E. \]
\end{conj}
For $ k=2 $, we get the structural formulation of the Matroid Intersection Theorem by Edmonds if we consider finite matroids,
the Matroid Intersection Conjecture by Nash-Williams if the matroids are assumed to be finitary and the Generalized Matroid
Intersection Conjecture if the matroids are arbitrary.