6
$\begingroup$

This is from Topology by Munkres:

Let $p:E \to B$ be a covering map. Suppose $U$ is a open set of $B$ that is evenly covered by $p$. Show that if $U$ is connected, then the partition of $p^{-1}(U)$ into slices is unique.

What I've tried so far

I proved that if $\{V_\alpha\}$ is a slice then each $V_\alpha$ is connected, but I don't know what to do next.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It's not good form to ask questions in the imperative; ordering us to "show that" something is true. Also, could you give some context? Is this homework? What have you tried so far? $\endgroup$ – Josh May 20 '11 at 0:19
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry for that, yes it is a homework.I proved that if $\{V_\alpha\}$ is a slice then each $V_\alpha$ is connected,but I don't know what to do next.thanks. $\endgroup$ – Jr. May 20 '11 at 0:45
  • $\begingroup$ do not use comments for that: instead of editing the question to observe that you've explained something in a comment, edit it to explain it in the question itself! :) $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez May 20 '11 at 1:38
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, the title of your question is quite unrelated to the question. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez May 20 '11 at 2:35
12
$\begingroup$

Let $\{V_\alpha\}$, $\{W_\beta\}$ be partitions of $p^{-1}(U)$.

Pick $\alpha$ and consider $V_\alpha$, choose $e \in V_\alpha$. Since $e \in p^{-1}(U) = \bigsqcup_\beta W_\beta$, there exists a unique $\beta$ such that $e \in W_\beta$.

We want to show that $V_\alpha = W_\beta$. Suppose by way of contradiction that $V_\alpha \neq W_\beta$. Then $V_\alpha \setminus W_\beta \neq \emptyset$. We know $V_\alpha \cap W_\beta \neq \emptyset$ since each contain $e$. Notice that $V_\alpha \cap W_\beta$ is open since it is the intersection of two open sets. Moreover $V_\alpha = \big( V_\alpha \cap W_\beta \big) \cup \big( V_\alpha \setminus W_\beta \big)$. And of course $\big( V_\alpha \cap W_\beta \big) \cap \big( V_\alpha \setminus W_\beta \big) = \emptyset$. If we can show that $V_\alpha \setminus W_\beta$ is open, then we have a separation of $V_\alpha$. This is a contradiction to our hypothesis that $U$ is connected since $V_\alpha$ is homeomorphic to $U$ and is this connected as well. Hence, we can conclude that $V_\alpha = W_\beta$ and thus the partition is unique.

Now why is $V_\alpha \setminus W_\beta$ open? If $e' \in V_\alpha \setminus W_\beta$, there exists $\beta_{e'} \neq \beta$ such that $e' \in W_{\beta_{e'}}$. Notice that $V_\alpha \setminus W_\beta = V_\alpha \cap \bigcup_{e' \in V_\alpha \setminus W_\beta} W_{\beta_{e'}}$ which is open because $\bigcup_{e' \in V_\alpha \setminus W_\beta} W_{\beta_{e'}}$ is open since it is the union of open sets, and the intersection of two open sets is open.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Show that the slices are the connected components of $p^{-1}(U)$. It follows immediately from this that the partition of $p^{-1}(U)$ into slices is unique.

(You should consider an example where $U$ is not connected, to see why the partition is not unique in that case, by the way...)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ How to show that the slices are connected components? Didn't want to start a new question just asking about a part of the proof. $\endgroup$ – grayQuant Nov 27 '15 at 21:10
3
$\begingroup$

I think we could make a simpler argument:

Let $\{U_{\alpha}\}$,$\{V_{\beta}\}$ be partitions of $p^{-1}(U)$.

We know that, if we fix $\alpha_0$, $\forall x\in U_{\alpha_0}$ $\exists! \beta$ s.t $ x \in V_{\beta}$. It follows that if $U_{\alpha_0}$ intersects more than two $V_{\beta}$'s we can write $U_{\alpha_0} = \cup_{\beta} [U_{\alpha_0} \cap V_{\beta}]$ a disjoint open partition; a contradiction to $U_{\alpha_0}$ being connected.

$\endgroup$

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.