1
$\begingroup$

I know that $\pi_1(\Sigma_g) = \langle a_1,b_1,\cdots,a_g,b_g | [a_1,b_1]\cdots[a_g,b_g]\rangle$, where $\Sigma_g$ is the orientable surface of genus $g$, and $[a_i,b_i]$ is their commutator. The idea of my argument for why no surface with $g \geq1$ could work is as follows (let me know if this seems fishy):

We know that the induced homomorphism from the fundamental group of a covering space, $p_*: \pi_1(\tilde X) \to \pi_1(X)$ must be injective. $\pi_1(\Sigma_g)$ has $2g$ generators of infinite order. In an injective homomorphism, they must be sent to distinct generators of infinite order in $\pi_1(X)$. However, $\pi_1(X) = \langle a,b |a^2\rangle \cong \mathbb{Z} * \mathbb{Z}_2$ only has one generator of infinite order. Therefore $g =0$ is the only case which might work.

However, this is just $S^2$, which is the universal cover for $\mathbb{R}P^2$. It seems "obvious" that this (nor a space homeomorphic to it) couldn't also be the universal cover for $\mathbb{R}P^2 \vee S^1$, but I'm having a hard time formalizing that.

I know that a covering space of a wedge sum should restrict to a covering space of each of the summands, but I could imagine a CW-construction of $S^2$ that includes a copy of $S^1$ (with a 2-cell on each side, for example), so it isn't totally clear to me why this fact makes it clear $S^2$ doesn't work.

Thanks in advance!

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

Hint: a covering projection is a local homeomorphism. Every point of a surface (oriented or not) has a neighbourhood homeomorphic to $\Bbb{R}^2$. No point of the copy of $S^1$ in $\Bbb{R}P^2 \vee S^1$ has a neighbourhood homeomorphic to $\Bbb{R}^2$. (Since the connected component of a neighbourhood of any such point $x$ that contains $x$ becomes disconnected if you remove $x$.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ isn't a cover a manifold if and only if the base space is? $\endgroup$ – qbert Apr 22 '18 at 20:38
  • $\begingroup$ I suppose by this answer, yes (modulo some second countability concerns maybe). $\endgroup$ – qbert Apr 22 '18 at 20:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @qbert: there may be some concerns about paracompactness too, However, all that matters here is that given a covering projection, if the total space is a manifold, then so is the base space. $\endgroup$ – Rob Arthan Apr 22 '18 at 20:44

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.