I am told that for a surface with genus $g$, call it $F_g$, the abelianization of $\pi_1(F_g) = \langle a_1, b_1, \ldots , a_g, b_g \mid [a_1, b_1] \cdots [a_g,b_g] = e \rangle$ is $\pi_1(F_g)^{ab} = \Bbb Z \langle a_1, b_1, \ldots , a_g, b_g \rangle$.

The definition of abelianization of a group $G$ (from Wikipedia) is $G / [G, G]$. So the abelianization of $\pi_1(F_g)$ is $\pi_1(F_g) / [\pi_1(F_g), \pi_1(F_g)]$.

I don't see why $\pi_1(F_g) / [\pi_1(F_g), \pi_1(F_g)] = \Bbb Z \langle a_1, b_1, \ldots , a_g, b_g \rangle$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There are more direct ways of showing it, but since we're talking about algebraic topology anyway: $\pi_1(F_g)^{ab} = H_1(F_g)= H_1((T^2)^{\# g}) = H_1(T^2)^{\oplus g} = \mathbb{Z}^{2g}$, and unraveling the isomorphisms above gives the explicit presentation of $\pi_1(F_g)^{ab}$ in terms of the $a_i, b_i$. $\endgroup$ – anomaly Dec 17 '15 at 5:18

Note that $[G, G]$ consists of all products of commutators of elements of $G$. In particular, $[a_1, b_1]\dots[a_g, b_g] \in [\pi_1(F_g), \pi_1(F_g)]$, so the relation $[a_1, b_1]\dots[a_g, b_g] = e$ becomes $e = e$ in the quotient group. This may lead you to believe that $\pi_1(F_g)^{ab}$ has presentation $\langle a_1, b_1, \dots, a_g, b_g\rangle$ and hence must be the free group on $2g$ generators, but that is false. For each $i$ and $j$, all of the elements $[a_i, a_j], [b_i, b_j], [a_i, b_j]$ also belong to $[\pi_1(F_g), \pi_1(F_g)]$, and hence become trivial in the quotient. Therefore

$$\pi_1(F_g)^{ab} = \langle a_1, b_1, \dots, a_g, b_g \mid [a_i, a_j] = [b_i, b_j] = [a_i, b_j] = e\ \forall\ i, j\rangle = \mathbb{Z}\langle a_1, b_1, \dots, a_g, b_g\rangle.$$

That is, $\pi_1(F_g)^{ab}$ is the free abelian group on $2g$ generators, i.e. $\pi_1(F_g)^{ab} \cong \mathbb{Z}^{2g}$.

Said another way, given a group $G$ with presentation

$$\langle r_1, \dots, r_m \mid s_1 = \dots = s_n = e\rangle,$$ then its abelianisation, $G^{ab}$, has a corresponding presentation

$$\langle r_1, \dots, r_m \mid s_1 = \dots = s_n = e, [r_i, r_j] = e\ \forall\ i, j\rangle.$$

In your case, the original group presentation had only one relation, $[a_1, b_1]\dots[a_g, b_g] = e$. When the commutator relations between the generators are added to the presentation for the abelianisation, the original relation becomes redundant (i.e. $[a_i, b_j] = e$ for all $i, j$ implies $[a_1, b_1]\dots[a_g, b_g] = e$). Therefore, you obtain the presentation for $\pi_1(F_g)^{ab}$ I wrote above, and hence conclude that $\pi_1(F_g)^{ab} \cong \mathbb{Z}^{2g}$.

Added Later: Judging from your comments, you seem to be misunderstanding the notation; for the sake of simplicity, I will only consider a finite set of generators $R = \{r_1, \dots, r_m\}$.

One can form the free group on $R$ which can be denoted simply by $F_R$ or $\langle r_1, \dots, r_m\rangle$. The elements of this group are finite strings in the generators and their inverses which are reduced (i.e. they do not contain products of the form $r_ir_i^{-1}$ or $r_i^{-1}r_i$). The group operation on such strings is concatenation (write one string after the other, then reduce).

Alternatively, one can form the free abelian group on $R$ which can be written simply as $\mathbb{Z}^{(R)}$, $\langle r_1, \dots, r_m \mid\ [r_i, r_j] = e\ \forall\ i, j\rangle$, or $\mathbb{Z}\langle r_1, \dots, r_m\rangle$. As before, the elements are reduced strings, but now, two strings which are rearrangements of each other are considered the same, e.g. $r_4r_1r_2^{-1}r_4$ is the same string as $r_1r_2^{-1}r_4^2$. As we can always reorder our strings, we can write every element in a unique way as $r_1^{k_1}r_2^{k_2}\dots r_m^{k_m}$ where $k_1, \dots, k_m \in \mathbb{Z}$. Then $\mathbb{Z}\langle r_1, \dots, r_m\rangle \cong \mathbb{Z}^m$ where the isomorphism is given by $r_1^{k_1}r_2^{k_2}\dots r_m^{k_m} \mapsto (k_1, k_2, \dots k_m)$. When $m = 1$, this is the map that shows that any infinite cyclic group is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$.

In the comments you were unsure how I went from

$$\langle a_1, b_1, \dots, a_g, b_g \mid [a_i, a_j] = [b_i, b_j] = [a_i, b_j] = e\ \forall\ i, j\rangle$$


$$\mathbb{Z}\langle a_1, b_1, \dots, a_g, b_g\rangle.$$

As I've outlined above, they are merely two different ways of describing the same group: the free abelian group on the generators $\{a_1, b_1, \dots, a_g, b_g\}$.

  • $\begingroup$ Even with your explanation, I'm still having trouble seeing why $\pi_1(F_g)^{ab} = \langle a_1, b_1, \dots, a_g, b_g \mid [a_i, a_j] = [b_i, b_j] = [a_i, b_j] = e\ \forall\ i, j\rangle = \mathbb{Z}\langle a_1, b_1, \dots, a_g, b_g\rangle.$ I get that $\pi_1(F_g)^{ab} = \langle a_1, b_1, \dots, a_g, b_g \mid [a_i, a_j] = [b_i, b_j] = [a_i, b_j] = e\ \forall\ i, j\rangle$, but I don't see where the $\Bbb Z$ comes from or why you removed the relation $[a_i, a_j] = [b_i, b_j] = [a_i, b_j] = e\ \forall\ i, j$. $\endgroup$ – mr eyeglasses Dec 17 '15 at 5:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you know what $\mathbb{Z}\langle a_1, b_1, \dots, a_g, b_g\rangle$ means? $\endgroup$ – Michael Albanese Dec 17 '15 at 5:36
  • $\begingroup$ So if $\Bbb Z = \langle x \rangle$, then $\Bbb Z \langle a_1, b_1, \ldots , a_g, b_g \rangle = \langle xa_1, xa_2, \ldots , xa_g, xb_g \rangle$? $\endgroup$ – mr eyeglasses Dec 17 '15 at 5:38
  • $\begingroup$ No, that doesn't really make sense. I have added a few comments about the notation. Hopefully it makes it clear. $\endgroup$ – Michael Albanese Dec 17 '15 at 6:04

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.