I'm trying to write down a clean definition of the fundamental $2$-groupoid $\pi_{\leq 2}(X)$ of a topological space $X$. Specifically, I'm concerned with how to properly define $2$-morphisms. Here is what I have:

The fundamental $2$-groupoid $\pi_{\leq 2}(X)$ is the strict $2$-category where

  • The objects of $\pi_{\leq 2}(X)$ are the points of $X$.
  • The $1$-morphisms $x\rightarrow y$ of $\pi_{\leq 2}(X)$ are the continuous maps $f:[0,|f|]\rightarrow X$ with $f(0)=x$ and $f(|f|)=y$. Here $|f|\geq 0$.
  • For $x\xrightarrow{f}y\xrightarrow{g}z$ define $g\circ f$ as the continuous map $[0,|f|+|g|]\rightarrow X$ given by $$ (g\circ f)(t) = \begin{cases} f(t) & 0\leq t\leq|f| \\ g(t-|f|) & |f|\leq t\leq|f|+|g| \end{cases} $$

Of course, we are deviating from the usual definition of a path as a map $[0,1]\rightarrow X$ to make the composition of $1$-morphisms associative on the nose. However, this seems to create a new problem. The $2$-morphisms should be homotopies of paths, but a homotopy between two maps is only defined if the maps have common domain and codomain. To remedy the situation, I've tried the following:

  • For $x\xrightarrow{f}y$, let $\overline{f}:x\rightarrow y$ be the continuous map $[0,1]\rightarrow X$ given by $\overline{f}(t)=f(|f|\cdot t)$. Then the $2$-morphisms $\alpha:f\Rightarrow g$ in $\pi_{\leq 2}(X)$ are the continuous maps $\alpha:[0,1]\times[0,1]\rightarrow X$ with $\alpha(t,0)=\overline{f}(t)$, $\alpha(t,1)=\overline{g}(t)$, $\alpha(0,t)=x$, and $\alpha(1,t)=y$.

Is this the standard construction? I'm having trouble finding literature on this.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Don't forget that, because you are truncating at $2$, your $2$-morphisms shouldn't be maps, but instead be homotopy equivalence classes of maps. $\endgroup$ – user14972 Jan 29 '14 at 5:23
  • $\begingroup$ Oh right. So is my definition correct, up to homotopy? $\endgroup$ – Brian Fitzpatrick Jan 29 '14 at 5:25
  • $\begingroup$ Probably, but I have little experience so I'll leave it for someone else to answer. Incidentally, if I was taking your approach for the $1$-morphisms, I probably would have defined homotopies to be maps from the relevant trapezoids rather than from squares. Of course, that makes composition annoying. :( $\endgroup$ – user14972 Jan 29 '14 at 5:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ ... and then I'd probably decide that the domains should be a homotopy type, then get annoyed the construction is getting complicated, then go back to squares rather than deal with it. :( $\endgroup$ – user14972 Jan 29 '14 at 5:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You meet try working with Moore rectangles: see arXiv:0909.2212 Moore hyperrectangles on a space form a strict cubical omega-category. But in the context of spaces, and no extra structure, there will always be problems with getting a strict 2-groupoid or double groupoid, in my view. $\endgroup$ – Ronnie Brown Feb 2 '14 at 23:10

This is a question which raises all sorts of interesting issues!

I think it is easier to look for double groupoids rather than $2$-groupoids, because it is more symmetric with regard to directions and before taking homotopy classes of some kind, the notion of partial composition in a given direction is very clear, and extends to all dimensions. See also this question on mathoverflow.

I though about this for 9 years starting in 1965 with the aim, as it seemed likely that the proof I had written out many times for my topology book extended to get a $2$-dimensional van Kampen type theorem, and got myself quite confused. So it was "an idea for a proof in search of a theorem".

The breakthrough came with Philip Higgins in 1974 when, as suggested by work of J H C Whitehead on second relative homotopy groups, we started looking not at spaces but at pairs of spaces, $(X,A)$. So the natural idea was to look at maps of square $I^2$ into $X$ which took the vertices to the base point and edges into $A$. Then all became easy, not trivial, but easy. The details are in this book, which has a free pdf. A key picture for the definition of compositions being well defined is


The point is that that if $\alpha, \beta$ are two squares as above then their classes $[\alpha], [\beta]$ are homotopy classes rel vertices of maps $I^2 \to X$ where during the homotopies the boundary of $I^2$ stays in $A$. So $ \partial^+_2[\alpha] =\partial^2_-[\beta] $ means there is a homotopy $h$ of two loops in $A$, and such a homotopy is arbitrary. So when you try to prove independence of choices, you get the above figure, which has a big hole in the middle! But the bottom edges of the hole are all constant, so you can fill in the bottom square. Now fill in the hole by a retraction. All the faces of the "hole" are in $A$ so in the retraction the top face is also in $A$. So the whole block gives a homotopy $$\alpha +_2 h +_2 \beta \simeq \alpha' +_2 h'+_2 \beta'$$ of the type required.

This construction we called $\rho_2(X,A,a)$. It contains $\pi_2(X,A,a)$ . From this you can get as a substructure a $2$-groupoid, if you really want it.

There are papers dealing with the absolute case for Hausdorff spaces, see K.A. Hardie, K.H. Kamps and R.W. Kieboom, ‘A homotopy 2–groupoid of a Hausdorff space’, Applied Cat. Structures 8 (2000), 209–234, and subsequent papers dealing with double groupoids in a related fashion. But these papers have not it seems led to new calculations of homotopical invariants, as has the above relative construction.

Edit Feb 9, 2014: The above construction of a homotopy double groupoid of a pair is used to prove a $2$-dimensional van Kampen type theorem, one of whose consequences, an excision type theorem for second relative homotopy groups, is explained in my answer to this stackexchange question.


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.