7
$\begingroup$

So, if I take one torus and take off one single point, what will be its fundamental group? I think that one single point will not change the topology in this sense. Or will it? If so, how?

|cite|improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In fact, if I think well it will be like an eight, right? Then, the correct value of the fundamental group for this figure is $\mathbb{Z}*\mathbb{Z}$, is this? $\endgroup$ – L.F. Cavenaghi Jun 30 '15 at 1:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ removing a point will often change the topology drastically. For example, $\Bbb R^2$ minus a point gives you $\Bbb Z$ $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Jun 30 '15 at 1:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's easiest to think about the fundamental domain of a square, remove the center of the square, and then retract the remainder onto the boundary. Then, perform the typical identifications of the boundary and you should get a figure 8. $\endgroup$ – Michael Burr Jun 30 '15 at 1:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The reason that the fundamental group changes is that the fundamental group measures how to "go around" holes in the object. When you remove a point, you have a new hole to "go around" $\endgroup$ – Michael Burr Jun 30 '15 at 1:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Leonardo Just for extra information: If the dimension of the manifold is greater or equal to $3$, then removing a point does not change the fundamental group. You can use Seifert-Van Kampen to prove that, but I guess this is done somewhere in Lee's Topological Manifolds book. $\endgroup$ – Ivo Terek Mar 16 '16 at 4:54
3
$\begingroup$

If we remove a point the topology will change and the fundamental group will change drastically! The fundamental group of the torus is $$ \pi_1(T)=Z\oplus Z $$ but if you remove a point the fundamental will be even a non abelian group: $$ \pi_1(T-\{p\})= F(\alpha, \beta) $$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the two cycles of the figure 8, and $F(\alpha, \beta)$ is the free group generated by $\alpha$ and $\beta$.

All theses problems appear because of the existence of the so called "Peano curves" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-filling_curve (which are really complicated curves that are surjective). For example following this naive idea that removing a point does not change the topology we could end up with the following WRONG proof for the sphere:

1-"We remove a point to $S^2$ and does not change anything", then $S^2-{p} \simeq R^2$, but $R^2$ is contractible and we get $\pi_1(S^2) = \pi_1(S^2-{p}) = \pi_1(R^2)=0$.

Although the achieved result is true, we have to be careful because this proof is COMPLETELY WRONG! And the reason is the subtle idea that there exist paths filling $S^2$ which clearly will not have a homotopy equivalence class in $\pi_1(S^2-{p})$.

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It's not clear at all why you think the existence of space filling curves is what's leads to a change in the fundamental group... $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Feb 26 '16 at 9:17
  • $\begingroup$ You are right. Certainly is not a proof, but gives you a pretty simple idea why it should not work. I am not saying is the REASON that changes the fundamental group, it is just a counter example curve that does not fit in the fundamental curve of the space minus a point. $\endgroup$ – ycidruiz Feb 26 '16 at 9:30
  • $\begingroup$ I don't believe your comment about space filling curves is correct: a consequence of the simplicial approximation theorem is that every path is homotopic to a non-space fillling path, so you can fix the wrong proof that $S^2$ is simply connected this way. The reason this doesn't work for $T$ isn't due to the existence of space filling curves, but rather you can't make the same conclusion since $\pi_1(T-\{p\})$ is non-trivial. $\endgroup$ – ktoi Mar 16 '17 at 17:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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