Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm trying to prove the classification theorem for covering spaces. I've got to the stage where I need to show the following:

If $H$ a subgroup of $\Pi_1(X,x_0)$ then $\exists Y$ covering space of $X$ such that $\Pi_1(Y,y_0) = H$.

Now I've shown that if $\tilde{X}$ the universal cover of X, then we may take $Y$ to be the group of $H$-orbits of $\tilde{X}$, where I'm identifying $H$ with the group of covering transformations relative to the covering map $r:\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$. Indeed let $q:\tilde{X}\rightarrow Y$ be the quotient map, then the natural map $p:Y\rightarrow X$ is a covering map (hard to prove, but shown here).

I then know that $\Pi_1(Y,y_0) = \Gamma(q)$, the group of covering transformations relative to $q$ on $\tilde{X}$. Clearly $H \leq \Gamma(q)$, but how do I prove the other inclusion?

In particular how do I know that $\nexists g \in \Pi_1(X,x_0)$ s.t. $g \notin H$ and $q\circ g = q$?

Many thanks in advance, and do tell me if I'm not being clear!

Edit - maybe this argument works...

Suppose $g$ satisfies the 'bad' properties I gave above. Let $x \in \tilde{X}$. Then in particular $q \circ g = q$ means that $g(x) = h(x)$ for some $h \in H$. But then $g$ is the unique covering transformation sending $x$ to $h(x)$. But indeed $h$ is also a covering transformation sending $x$ to $h(x)$. So $g = h \in H$. But this is a contradiction! Hence $\nexists$ such a $g$, as required.

Could someone possibly verify that this is correct?

share|improve this question
    
aren't you trying to prove the same thing as theorem 3.1 ? when you say $\Pi_1(Y,y_0) = H$, are you suggesting that loops in $Y$ are also loops in $X$ ? or do you want to prove that $p'_\star$ (as in thereom 3.1) is injective so that it is not a set equality but rather an isomorphism of groups ? –  mercio Apr 4 '12 at 20:49
    
Indeed I am trying to prove the same thing as in Step 3 of theorem 3.1. However I reckon that the method above is more slick that his method. Do you reckon that the reasoning I put in my 'edit' is valid? –  Edward Hughes Apr 4 '12 at 20:53
    
ok so I missed the "I'm trying to prove the theorem" part in your first line. And you're viewing all the groups as groups of covering transformations of $\tilde{X}$. –  mercio Apr 4 '12 at 21:10
    
Yup that's right. Could have used a different notation to make that clear, but that just makes it messier! –  Edward Hughes Apr 4 '12 at 21:29
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

By the end of step 2, you know that $(\tilde{X},q)$ is the universal covering of $Y$, so there is a map $\Psi : \Pi_1(Y,y_0) \to CoveringMaps(\tilde{X},q)$ defined just like $\Phi$ :
For any loop $\gamma : [0;1] \to Y$, $\Psi(\tilde{\gamma})(x_0)$ is the endpoint of the lift of $\gamma$ starting from $x_0$.
Furthermore, $\Psi$ is a group isomorphism between $\Pi_1(Y,y_0)$ and the set of covering transformations of $\tilde{X}$ relative to (Y,q).
Then, your argument shows that the set of covering transformations of $\tilde{X}$ relative to $(Y,q)$ is exactly $H'$, the subgroup of the covering transformations of $\tilde{X}$ relative to $(X,p)$ corresponding to $H$.
So $\Psi(\Pi_1(Y,y_0)) = \Phi(H)$ (which is proved by the end of step 2).

But what the theorem wants to show is not that $\Pi_1(Y,y_0)$ is isomorphic to $H$ in some abstract way, but that $p'_*$ itself is an isomorphism between those two groups, which leads to step 3, where it is showed that $p'_* = \Phi^{-1} \circ \Psi$

share|improve this answer
    
Ah I see. To be honest I'm happy just knowing that they are isomorphic in an abstract way, and appreciating (but not learning) the proof that $p'_*$ is the manifest isomorphism! Thanks for clearing that up for me. –  Edward Hughes Apr 4 '12 at 23:26
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.