I am having trouble understanding the exposition in the subsection titled Representing Covering Spaces by Permutations in Section 1.3 of the book Algebraic Topology by Hatcher.

Hatcher starts by showing that given a covering map $p:(\tilde X, \tilde x_0)\to (X, x_0)$, we can define an action of $\pi_1(X, x_0)$ on $p^{-1}(x_0)$ in the following way: A member $[\gamma]$ of $\pi_1(X, x_0)$ acts on a point $\tilde x\in p^{-1}(x_0)$ and gives a point $\tilde x'$ such that the lift of $\gamma$ starting at $\tilde x'$ ends in $\tilde x$. It is clear that this indeed defines an action of $\pi_1(X, x_0)$ on $p^{-1}(x_0)$.

Then Hatcher writes:

Let $X$ be a path-connected, locally path connected, and semi-locally simply-connected space, and let $p:\tilde X\to X$ be a covering map.

Then $p:\tilde X\to X$ can be reconstructed from the associated action of $\pi_1(X, x_0)$ on $p^{-1}(x_0)$.

This is how Hathcer proceeds to show that above. Write $F=p^{-1}(x_0)$ and let $p_0:\tilde X_0\to X$ be the universal covering space for $X$. We will use the explicit construction for $\tilde X_0$, where the points in $\tilde X_0$ are homotopy classes of paths starting at $x_0$. Define a map $h:\tilde X_0\times F\to \tilde X$ as $h([\gamma], \tilde x_0)=\tilde \gamma(1)$, where $\tilde \gamma$ is the lift of $\gamma$ in $\tilde X$ starting at the point $\tilde x_0$. Then we note that $h$ is a surjective local homeomorphism. Thus $\tilde X$ is homeomorphic to the quotient of $\tilde X_0\times F$ determined by the equivalence relation induced by $h$.

Then Hatcher shows that the $h$-fibre of a point $([\gamma], \tilde x_0)$ in $\tilde X_0\times F$ is all the points of the form $([\lambda\gamma], L_\gamma(\tilde x_0))$. Here $\lambda$ is any loop based at $x_0$ in $X$ and $L_\lambda(\tilde x_0)$ denotes the point $\tilde x_0'$ in $F$ such that the lift of starting at $\tilde x_0'$ ends at $\tilde x_0$.

Let us denote the quotient space by $\tilde X_\rho$, where $\rho$ is the homomorphism $\pi_1(X, x_0)\to \text{Perm}_F$.

I understand everything so far. But then Hacther writes the following which I do not understand:

Note that the definition of $\tilde X_\rho$ makes sense whenever we are given an action $\rho$ of $\pi_1(X,x_0)$ on a set $F$. There is a natural projection $\tilde X_\rho\to X$ sending $([\gamma], \tilde x_0)$ to $\gamma(1)$, and this is a covering space since if $U\subseteq X$ is an open set over which the universal cover $\tilde X_0$ is a product $U\times \pi_1(X, x_0)$, then the identifications defining $\tilde X_\rho$ simply collapse $U\times \pi_1(X, x_0)\times F$ to $U\times F$.

Here are the things not clear to me:

1) How is $\tilde X_\rho$ defined given an action of $\pi_1(X, x_0)$ on a given set $F$. Here we do not have the covering map $p:\tilde X\to X$. My guess is that it is defined as follows: $\tilde X_\rho$ is the quotient of $\tilde X_0\times F$ by the equivalence relation defined as $([\gamma], \tilde x_0)\sim ([\lambda\gamma], [\lambda]\cdot\tilde x_0)$, where $[\lambda]\in \pi_1(X, x_0)$.

2) If my guess is correct, then the map $\tilde X_\rho\to X$ sending $([\gamma], \tilde x_0)$ to $\gamma(1)$ makes no sense to me. For $([\gamma], \tilde x_0)$ is not even a member of $\tilde X_\rho$.

3) I see that $p_0^{-1}(U)$ can be thought of as $U\times \pi_1(X, x_0)$ where $U$ is evenly covered by $p_0$. This is because the number of sheets of $\tilde X_0$ is in bijective correspondence with $\pi_1(X, x_0)$. But I do not understand what Hatcher means by "the identifications defining $\tilde X_\rho$ simply collapse $U\times \pi_1(X, x_0)\times F$ to $U\times F$."

4) My main concern is to get a a covering map $\tilde X_\rho\to X$ such that $\bar h:\tilde X_\rho\to \tilde X$ becomes an isomorphism of covering spaces, and I do not see how to do this.

Thank you.


1 Answer 1


1) You are correct. In the case that there is a covering map $p:\widetilde{X} \to X$, $\widetilde{X}_\rho$ is defined to be the quotient of $\widetilde{X}_0\times F$ by identifying all pairs $([\gamma],\widetilde{x}_0)$ and $([\lambda \cdot \gamma],L_\lambda(\widetilde{x}_0))$ for all $[\lambda] \in \pi_1(X,x_0)$. The only property of the covering space used in this definition is the action of $\pi_1(X,x_0)$ on $p^{-1}(x_0)$ determined by the covering space. In this case the action of $\pi_1(X,x_0)$ is given by the homomorphism $[\gamma] \mapsto L_\gamma$. If instead you are just given an action $\rho$ of $\pi_1(X,x_0)$ on some set $F$, then $\rho$ takes the place of $L_\gamma$.

2) The element $([\gamma],\widetilde{x}_0)$ is a representative of an element in the quotient space $\widetilde{X}_\rho$. Certainly $[\gamma]$ is an element of $\widetilde{X}_0$, and $\widetilde{x}_0$ is just some element of $F$.

3) The claim is that $U\times [\lambda] \times F$ gets identified with $U \times [\lambda']\times F$ in the quotient space $\widetilde{X}_\rho$. What do $U\times [\lambda]$ and $U \times [\lambda']$ really mean? Well a point in $U \times[\lambda]$ is just a point $[\gamma] \in \widetilde{X}_0$. Moving from $U \times [\lambda]$ to $U \times [\lambda']$ corresponds to moving $\rho([\lambda])\cdot\widetilde{x}_0$ to $\rho([\lambda'])\cdot\widetilde{x}_0$, which is accomplished by applying $\rho([\lambda'\cdot \bar{\lambda}])$, as $\rho([\lambda' \cdot \bar{\lambda}])\cdot \rho([\lambda])\cdot\widetilde{x}_0=\rho([\lambda'\cdot \bar{\lambda}\cdot \lambda])\cdot\widetilde{x}_0=\rho([\lambda'])\cdot\widetilde{x}_0$. So the point $[\gamma] \in \widetilde{X}_0$ corresponds to the point $[\lambda'\cdot \lambda\cdot \gamma]$ in $U \times [\lambda']$. In the quotient $\widetilde{X}_\rho$ we identify $([\gamma],\rho([\lambda])\cdot \widetilde{x}_0)$ with $([\lambda'\cdot \bar{\lambda}\cdot \gamma],\rho([\lambda'\cdot \bar{\lambda}])\cdot \rho([\lambda])\cdot \widetilde{x}_0)$. So $U\times[\lambda]\times F$ is identified with $U \times [\lambda']\times F$ (as $\rho$ is a group action, so varying $\widetilde{x}_0$ to range over all points in $F$ means both $\rho([\lambda])\cdot \widetilde{x}_0$ and $\rho([\lambda'\cdot \bar{\lambda}])\cdot \rho([\lambda])\cdot \widetilde{x}_0$ will range over all points in $F$).

4) The map $h$ defined by Hatcher (the "surjective local homeomorphism") yields a well-defined map $\bar{h}$ on the quotient space because $([\gamma],\widetilde{x}_0)\sim([\gamma'],\widetilde{x}_0')$ implies $h([\gamma],\widetilde{x}_0)=h([\gamma'],\widetilde{x}_0)$. The converse holds as well, which implies that $\bar{h}$ is injective on the quotient space. So $\bar{h}$ is the isomorphism of covering spaces you seek. It doesn't make sense to look for such a map in the case where you're only given the action $\rho$ and not a covering space $\widetilde{X}\to X$, because after all you are trying to define a map to the covering space $\widetilde{X}$.

  • $\begingroup$ but what is exactly $U\times [\lambda]$? $\endgroup$
    – Maciej
    Jul 1, 2018 at 21:51

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.