1
$\begingroup$

My question is related to this one which tells us that fundamental group $\pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ is abelian $\textit{iff}$ for every pair $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of paths from $x_0$ to $x_1$, we have the same group isomorphism.

let $[I,X]$ denote the set of homotopy classes of maps of $I$ into $X$, where $I=[0,1]$. If $X$ is path connected, we can easily prove that $[I,X]$ has only one element, which mean that every path in $X$ is homotopic to each other (even a loop at $x_0 \in X$ is homotopic to path $p:x_0 \rightarrow x_1$).

using this fact, $\hat{\alpha}([f]) = [\bar{\alpha}]*[f]*[\alpha] = [\bar{\beta}]*[f]*[\beta]=\hat{\beta}([f]) $, wehre $\alpha$ and $\beta$ denote paths in path connected space $X$ ($\alpha \simeq \beta \Rightarrow [\alpha]= [\beta] $ ). So, it seems that there is no need for the fundamental group $\pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ to be abelian.

Also, for the proof that $\pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ is abelian, if you take 2 loops at $x_0$, then $[f]*[g]=[g]*[f]$ by virtue of being two paths in path-connected space $X$.

Am I wrong here? Where am I wrong?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You are confusing free homotopies with base-point preserving homotopies. $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown Dec 1 '18 at 6:48
  • $\begingroup$ I read this, but I am not sure how this concept of free homotopies and base-point preserving homotopies answer my question. One of the points that I still can't find any fault is that if $\alpha, \beta : x_0 \rightarrow x_1$, then $\alpha \simeq \beta $(since $X$ is path connected) which imply that $ [\alpha] = [\beta]$ and hence, $\hat{\alpha}= \hat{\beta}$ $\endgroup$ – MUH Dec 1 '18 at 8:29
  • $\begingroup$ @LordSharktheUnknown Also, if the free homotopies hold true, and given the base-point maps, (for e.g. here $\hat{\alpha},\hat{\beta}$, which are base-point maps at $x_1$ or $\textit{loops}$ at $x_1$), doesn't it imply $\hat{\alpha}=\hat{\beta}$ $\endgroup$ – MUH Dec 1 '18 at 8:40
1
$\begingroup$

Your conclusion that if $\alpha, \beta : x_0 \rightarrow x_1$, then $\alpha \simeq_p \beta$(since $X$ is path-connected) is wrong. (I think you mean path homotopy). It is true that any two paths in path connected space is homotpic to each other but not path-homotopy.

$p:x_0 \rightarrow x_1$ and $q:y_0 \rightarrow y_1$ are any two paths in path-connected space $X$. Then $p \simeq e_{x_0}$ and $q \simeq e_{y_0} $ and since, $e_{x_0} \simeq e_{y_{0}} \Rightarrow p \simeq q $. But this doesn't mean that $p \simeq_p q$. There is a difference between path-homotopy and homotopy that path-homotopy has to satisfy additional criteria of initial point and final point for each $t \in I$, which clearly doesn't get satisfied in the proof of homotopy ($\textit{free homotopy}$).

$\endgroup$

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.