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 have been told that the covering space of a manifold is again a manifold. Let $f :X\rightarrow Y$ be a covering map and $Y$ is a $n$-manifold. It is easy to show that $X$ is a locally euclidean and Hausdorff.

Now I am trying to show it is second countable, given the additional condition that for any subset $U \subset Y$, $f^{-1}(U)$ has finite or countably many components.

Now I guess that basis on $X$ consists of the precompact set of $x$ which seperates $x$ from other components of $f^{-1}(f(x))$ for every $x\in X $. I can verify this is a basis since $X$ is Hausdorff. The only problem is to show that this basis is countable. Question: Is it countable or not?

Any way to do it without alg top , i.e by general topology and manifold ?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

It is indeed second countable. To see this take a countable basis for $Y$.

  1. If we discard any open set that's not evenly covered what remains is still a basis for $Y$ and is still countable.
  2. The fundamental group of a manifold is countable and acts transitively on the fiber over any point $y \in Y$, so there are at most countably many sheets over any evenly covered subsets of $Y$.
  3. Now for each basic open set in $Y$ we take the at most countably many open sets obtained by intersecting $f^{-1}(Y)$ with the sheets over $Y$. This gives us a (countable) $\times$ (at most countable) $=$ at most countable basis for $X$.
share|improve this answer
    
Is there any way to do it without using algebraic top? –  student user Feb 28 '13 at 7:26
2  
I can't say for certain that there isn't, but I have no idea how you would get a handle on the cardinality of the fiber of a covering map without some sort of high powered machinery. –  Jim Feb 28 '13 at 7:31
    
@Jim The argument with transitive action if deeply false. The covering space doesn't have to be path-connected. Moreover, it is clearly said in the question that every inverse image is at most countable, so the fiber is of course at most countable. –  savick01 Aug 10 '13 at 12:48
1  
@savick01: It is quite natural to assume $X$ to be connected... Otherwise there are obvious counterexamples. So caring about the non-connected cases would be deeply pointless! ;-) –  Sam Aug 10 '13 at 13:02
1  
@savick01: I take covering spaces to be connected by definition. –  Jim Aug 11 '13 at 1:55

You don't need any algebraic topology for that!

Of course it is not true in general, since you can always cover $Y$ by $Y\times F$, where $F$ is an uncountable discrete space. But you have strong assumptions that exclude such pathology.

I'm also posting this answer to provide some details (in the last paragraph) that I find important and that were skipped in the brief explanation provided by Jim.

For each $p\in Y$ take an evenly covered neighbourhood. Since we work with a manifold, fix a smaller neighbourhood $B(p)$ diffeo with a unit ball in $\mathbb R^n$ and a family of its subneighbourhoods diffeo with balls forming a local basis at $p$. Now, take a basis $\mathcal B'$ of $X$ consisting of all those balls. By this question and the assumption that there is some countable basis $\mathcal V$ for $X$ you can choose a countable subbasis of $\mathcal B'$ - let's call it $\mathcal B$.

Now - for each $B\in \mathcal B$ we have $f^{-1}(B)\simeq B\times F_{B}$ for some discrete space $F_{B}$. Note that $F_{B}$ is at most countable because components of $B\times F_{B}$ are exactly of the form $B\times \{g\}$, where $g\in F_{B}$.

Our basis of $Y$ will be $$\tau=\bigcup_{B\in \mathcal B} \left\{B\times \{g\}\ | \ g\in F_{B} \right\}.$$ It is clearly countable as a countable union of at most countable sets.

Why is it a basis? We know that $f$ is a local homeomorphism, so it preserves local bases. Did we utilise it well?

That's where our balls (coming from the assumption that we deal with a manifold, not a random second countable space!) are used. Having $p\in B_0\in \mathcal B$ and a sheet $B_0 \times \{g\}$ of its inverse image, we know that the local basis $\mathcal B_p^{B_0}$ at $p$ (restricted to subsets of $B_0$) is "transported" to $B_0 \times \{g\}$ (by that I mean that one of the sheets [that form $\tau$] over any set from $\mathcal B_p^{B_0}$ must lie inside $B_0 \times \{g\}$, because the representation as a product with a discrete space is the same for the subset). It doesn't have to be true in the case of not connected neighbourhoods!

share|improve this answer

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.