The Section on Covering Maps in John Lee's book "Introduction to Smooth Manifolds" starts like this:

Suppose $\tilde{X}$ and $X$ are topological spaces. A map $\pi : \tilde{X} \to X$ is called a covering map if $\tilde{X}$ is path-connected and locally path connected, ... (etc).

I hope this question is not too dumb, but how can a space be path connected, but not locally path connected ?

EDIT: I am aware of spaces that are locally path-connected yet not path-connected, but I cannot come up with a space that is path - connected yet not locally path connected.

  • 23
    $\begingroup$ See here $\endgroup$ Apr 22, 2012 at 19:51
  • $\begingroup$ This is a great comment. $\endgroup$
    – Kerry
    Apr 22, 2012 at 19:53
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidMitra: WOW .. Topology always amazes me, there are so many things that I learn from these counterexamples .. many thanks for pointing me to the link!! $\endgroup$
    – harlekin
    Apr 22, 2012 at 19:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I am to unsure to answer: "because the path witnessing path connectedness might have to pass though a specific point (or be otherwise constrained)". There are other examples. From Steen and Seebach's Counterexamples in Topology: The Alexandroff Square (ex 101), The Extended Topologist's Sine Curve (ex 118), The Closed Infinite Broom (ex. 120), and the Integer Broom (ex 121). $\endgroup$ Apr 22, 2012 at 20:01
  • $\begingroup$ For another example (a subspace of $\mathbb R^2$ which is path-connected and locally connected but not locally path-connected, due to M. Shimrat) see math.stackexchange.com/questions/1492772/… $\endgroup$
    – bof
    Apr 1, 2023 at 2:05

3 Answers 3


One counterexample is a variant on the famous topologist's sine curve.

Consider the graph of $y = \sin(\pi/x)$ for $0<x<1$, together with a closed arc from the point $(1,0)$ to $(0,0)$:

enter image description here

This space is obviously path-connected, but it is not locally path-connected (or even locally connected) at the point $(0,0)$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ what is the fundamental group of the picture above? $\endgroup$
    – Ronald
    Jul 31, 2013 at 15:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Ronald The picture above is simply connected, so its fundamental group is trivial. $\endgroup$
    – Jim Belk
    Nov 14, 2013 at 14:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Question to Jim: why is your space simply connected? it looks like the circle, which is not simply connected... $\endgroup$
    – Hila
    May 27, 2014 at 15:56
  • 27
    $\begingroup$ @Hila It's simply connected because it isn't possible for a path to make it around the "circle". (The sine wave portion is an impassible road block.) $\endgroup$
    – Jim Belk
    May 27, 2014 at 19:10
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Some people call this space Warsaw circle. Google Images, Google, StackExchange. $\endgroup$ May 8, 2015 at 9:33

You should consider the opposite question, that how a space could be locally path connected, but not path connected. And this should be simple: consider the union of two open disks.

  • $\begingroup$ I think harlekin's point, then, is why both hypotheses are being made. Why not just say $\widetilde{X}$ is locally path-connected? $\endgroup$
    – KCd
    Apr 22, 2012 at 19:48
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your comment! I have added my post to clarify what confuses me - in my topology course I have seen spaces that are locally path-connected yet not path-connected, but what I have trouble with is coming up with a path-connected space that is not locally path-connected. Yet this is what Lee's opening part of the definition of a covering map suggests exists - I suppose .. $\endgroup$
    – harlekin
    Apr 22, 2012 at 19:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $KCd: I understand. If I am not being mistaken I think Hatcher's book has some discussion relevant to this. $\endgroup$
    – Kerry
    Apr 22, 2012 at 19:51
  • $\begingroup$ Ok I shall have a look at Hatcher's book as well, I am currently reading about the Comb space, as suggested by David, but thanks a lot for your suggestion ! $\endgroup$
    – harlekin
    Apr 22, 2012 at 19:55
  • $\begingroup$ On page 63 he commented that if the space is both path-connected and locally path-connected, then components are the same as path components, which simplifies his discussion on the Galois correspondence on the covering space. $\endgroup$
    – Kerry
    Apr 22, 2012 at 19:59

$\pi$-Base, an online version of Steen and Seebach's Counterexamples in Topology, lists the following spaces as path-connected but not locally path-connected. You can view the search result for more information about these spaces.

Alexandroff Square

Extended Topologist’s Sine Curve

The Closed Infinite Broom

The Integer Broom


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .