0
$\begingroup$

On page 63 of Hatcher's book on Algebraic Topology, he says the following:

...one says $X$ is semilocally simply-connected if this holds. To see the necessity of this condition, suppose $p : \widetilde{X} \to X$ is a covering space with $\widetilde{X}$ simply-connected. Every point $x \in X$ has a neighborhood $U$ having a lift $\widetilde{U} \subseteq \widetilde{X}$ projecting homeomorphically to $U$ by $p$.

Is the lift $\widetilde{U}$ just one of the slices of $U$? That is, given $x \in X$, we can find an open neighborhood $U$ of $x$ evenly covered by $p$. I.e., $p^{-1}(U) = \bigcup_{i \in I} U_i$, where $\{U_i\}$ is a disjoint collection of open sets such that $U_i$ is mapped homeomorphically to $U$ by $p$. So $\widetilde{U}$ can be taken to be anyone of the of the sets in $\{U_i\}$? Is this what Hatcher is saying?

EDIT

I thought I was able to prove his claim that $X$ having a simply connected cover entails that $X$ is semilocally simply-connected, but I was mistaken. Here is what I came up with

Let $\iota_1 : U \to X$ and $\iota_2 : \widetilde{U} \to \widetilde{X}$ denote the canonical embeddings. Let $x \in U$ be an open set in $X$ with lift $\widetilde{U}$. Then $q : \widetilde{U} \to U$ defined as $q := p \big|_{\widetilde{U}} : \widetilde{U} \to U$ is a homeomorphism and hence a covering map. Let $\gamma$ be some loop in $U$ at . Then, because $q$ is a homeomorphism, $\gamma$ tilde lifts to the unique loop $\widetilde{\gamma}^q$ at $\widetilde{x} \in q^{-1}(\{x\})$ (the inverse image is actually just a singleton). Then $\iota_2 \circ \widetilde{\gamma}^q$ is a loop in $\widetilde{X}$ at $\widetilde{x}$. Since $\widetilde{X}$ is simply connected, $\iota_2 \circ \widetilde{\gamma}^q$ must be homotopic to the constant path at $\widetilde{x}$; let $f_t : I \to \widetilde{X}$ denote a homotopy between them. Then $q \circ f_t$ is a homotopy between $q \circ (\iota_2 \circ \widetilde{\gamma}^q)$ and the constant path at $1_x$...

I'm probably just being a knucklehead at the moment, but why does $q \circ (\iota_2 \circ \widetilde{\gamma}^q) = \iota_1 \circ \gamma$? That's what we need in order to conclude that the induced map from $\pi_1(U,x) \to \pi_1(X,x)$ is trivial.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. Do you know how to proceed from here to show that $X$ must be semilocally simply-connected ? $\endgroup$ – Berni Waterman Mar 6 at 15:38
  • $\begingroup$ @BerniWaterman I thought I was able to figure it out, but I ran into a complication when trying to flesh out the details of Hatcher's "proof". Please see my edit. $\endgroup$ – user193319 Mar 13 at 13:05
  • $\begingroup$ One problem is you need to apply the global projection map $p$ rather than the local one $q$ because the null-homotopy $f_t$ might leave $\tilde{U}$ (so in fact the composition $q\circ f_t$ might not be defined). Another thing that I think adds notational confusion is the $\iota$ maps, because they are just inclusions of subspaces, so let's ignore them. Then $p\circ f_t$ is defined and is a null-homotopy of $p\circ \tilde{\gamma}^q$ (which might leave $U$), and by definition $p\circ \tilde{\gamma}^q = \gamma$. $\endgroup$ – William Mar 13 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ I put these details into my answer so hopefully it looks more complete to you now. $\endgroup$ – William Mar 13 at 13:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, the inclusions might be the cause of your confusion. But of course, you can choose them in such a way so that the resulting diagram is commutative, which should resolve all your problems. $\endgroup$ – Berni Waterman Mar 13 at 15:06
1
$\begingroup$

Yes, this is what Hatcher is saying. If you consider such an open set $U$ covered by $\tilde{U}$, and an arbitrary loop $\gamma$ in $U$, you should be able to use simple-connectivity of $\tilde{X}$ to deduce semi-local simple-connectivity of $X$.


Details: Let $X$ be a space with basepoint $x_0$. Suppose $p\colon \tilde{X}\to X$ is a simply-connected covering space, and choose a basepoint $y_0\in p^{-1}(x_0)$. Let $U\subset X$ be a neighbourhood of $x$ so that $\tilde{X}$ is trivial over $U$ (like you've suggested), and choose $\tilde{U}$ to be the component of $p^{-1}(U)$ containing $y_0$.

If we choose a loop $\gamma\colon [0,1]\to U\subset X$ based at $x_0$, by local triviality we can lift it for free to a loop $\tilde{\gamma}\colon [0,1] \to \tilde{U}\subset \tilde{X}$ based at $y_0$, i.e. $p\circ \tilde{\gamma} = \gamma$. Since $\tilde{X}$ is simply-connected, there is a null-homotopy $H\colon I\times I \to \tilde{X}$ of $\tilde{\gamma}$ which fixes $y_0$ (and which might leave $\tilde{U}$), and so the projection $p\circ H$ gives a null-homotopy of $p\circ \tilde{\gamma} = \gamma$ through $X$ (which might leave $U$). Since this argument works for all basepoints and all $U$ such that the covering is locally trivial, it follows that $X$ is semi-locally simply-connected.


Aside about the definition: The definition of "semi-local simple-connectivity" has a subtle quirk that might not be immediately apparent. The definition is

$X$ is semi-locally simply-connected if for every $x_0\in X$ there is a neighbourhood $U$ of $x_0$ such that every loop $\gamma$ in $U$ based at $x_0$ is null-homotopic in $X$.

In particular the null-homotopy of $\gamma$ is allowed to leave $U$! Hence you can rephrase by saying that $\pi_1(U,x_0) \to \pi_1(X, x_0)$ needs to be trivial.

There is a stricter condition called "local simple connectivity":

$X$ is locally simply connected if for every $x_0\in X$ and every neighbourhood $U$ of $x_0$ there is a (possibly different) neighbourhood $V\subset U$ such that $\pi_1(V, x_0) = 0$.

For this condition, the null-homotopies DO have to take place in $V$.

Locally simply connected implies semi-locally simply connected, but not the other way around. Spaces which are semi-locally simply connected but not locally simply connected are weird, but they are out there. The standard example seems to be the cone on the Hawaiian Rings: small neighbourhoods of "the bad point" have uncountably many distinct loops which are not null-homotopic in that or any smaller neighbourhood, but since the space is a cone (and hence contractible) every loop is null-homotopic if you're allowed to leave the local area.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The proof you give of necessity is essentially the one Hatcher gives. However, you (just like Hatcher) leave out some details/subtleties (at least I think so); I tried to flesh them out, but I ran into some complications. Would you mind taking a look at my edit? $\endgroup$ – user193319 Mar 13 at 13:07

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.