4

I want to show that $\pi_1(X,x_0)$ is a group.

I am told that $e(t) := x_0$ is the identity element.

Now, I am struggling to show that it is an identity element, and also that the inverse of an element gives $e$.

I feel like the obvious choice in defining a homotopy between $f\cdot e$ and $f$ (for some path $f : [0,1] \mapsto X$) would be,

$F(s,t) := \begin{cases} f(\frac{2}{1+s}t) , \space 0\leq t \leq \frac{1+s}{2}\\ x_0 ,\space \frac{1+s}{2} \leq t \leq 1\\ \end{cases} $

And likewise the obvious choice for defining a homotopy between $e$ and $f\cdot f^{-1}$ would be,

$G(s,t) := \begin{cases} f(2ts) , \space 0\leq t \leq \frac{1}{2}\\ g((2-2t)s) ,\space \frac{1}{2} \leq t \leq 1\\ \end{cases} $.

But I can't prove that $F$ and $G$ are continuous. So firstly am I on the right line? I.e are these the right maps to be looking at. Secondly: If so, why is it that they are continuous?

I hope you can shed some light! Thanks!

Edit :

If I can prove the following then I would be done.

I want to show that any function $H : X\times Y \mapsto Z$ is continuous if $H_x(y) := H(x,y)$ is continuous for each $x \in X$ and $H_y(x) := H(x,y)$ is continuous for each $y \in Y$. But I can't prove this either. Neither do I even know whether it is true!

  • Why can't you prove that the maps are contiuous? What have you tried? – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Mar 10 '14 at 01:02
  • 2
    Say $F$: it is a map defined on $[0,1]\times[0,1]$ by «by pieces». What can you do to show that such a map is continuous? – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Mar 10 '14 at 01:03
  • So I know that you can glue finitely many continuous maps together (which join) to form a continuous map. But in this instance, since there are two variables, it is not obvious we can get continuity in both t and s anymore. – harry dunlop Mar 10 '14 at 01:04
  • So if I can prove that given a function $H : X\times Y \mapsto Z$ is continuous if $H_x(y) := H(x,y)$ is continuous for each $x \in X$ and $H_y(x) := H(x,y)$ is continuous for each $y \in Y$. But I can't prove this either. Neither do I even know whether it is true! – harry dunlop Mar 10 '14 at 01:22
  • I understand why G is continuous. Now it is just F that eludes me. This boils down to the intervals that we would normally glue, are now moving. – harry dunlop Mar 10 '14 at 01:42
  • Could someone please give me a hint on how to tackle showing that $F$ is continuous please? I'm struggling to find a method of how to glue the maps together on some closed subsets. – harry dunlop Mar 10 '14 at 02:08
  • http://at.yorku.ca/p/a/c/a/09.pdf has my proof of all the axioms. – Henno Brandsma Mar 10 '14 at 18:50
  • @harrydunlop, $G$ is also defined on finitely many closed parts of its domain (two triangles). – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Mar 11 '14 at 19:10
  • By the way, the general claim that you added in your edit is not true: a separately continuous function is not necessarily continuous; see, for example, this – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Mar 11 '14 at 19:12

2 Answers2

4

Let $$A=\left\{(s,t)\in [0,1]^2\mid s\in[0,1], 0 \leq t\leq \frac{1+s}{2} \right\}$$ and let $$B=\left\{(s,t)\in [0,1]^2\mid s\in[0,1], \frac{1+s}{2} \leq t\leq 1 \right\}.$$

Note that both are closed subsets of the unit square with non-trivial intersection (given by a diagonal interval from $(0,\frac{1}{2})$ to $(1,1)$), and union the entire unit square.

$F|_A$ (the restriction of $F$ to $A$) is continuous as $f$ is continuous. $F|_B$ is also continuous because it is a constant function. We also have that $F|_A$ agrees with $F|_B$ on the intersection of $A$ and $B$ and so we may use the gluing lemma to define the unique continuous map which restricts to $F|_A$ on $A$ and $F|_B$ on $B$. This map is by definition $F$, and so $F$ is continuous.

Dan Rust
  • 30,973
  • As a side note to anyone who wants to check out the gluing lemma on wikipedia (it's called the pasting lemma there by the way): imho the reasoning there does not seem fully satisfactory. So be careful in copying their reasoning. (And feel free to disagree with me :) ) Anyway, the result is true of course that's the most important part here. – Joachim Mar 16 '14 at 22:27
2

Another way of doing this is to use paths of arbitrary length. Moore's original definition of this was in terms of pairs $(r,f)$ where $r \geqslant 0$ and $f: [0, \infty) \to X$ is map which is constant on $[r, \infty)$. We define $\partial ^-(r,f)= f(0), \partial^+(r,f)=f(r)$. The composition $(r,f)\circ (s,g)$ is defined if and only if $f(r)=g(0)$ and is then $(r+s,h)$ where $h(t)= g(t)$ for $ 0 \leqslant t \leqslant s$ and is $f(t-s)$ for $t \geqslant s$. The composition is associative, so this gives a category structure with identities of the form $(0,f)$.

One also defines $-(r,f)= (r,f')$ where $f'(t) = ???$ (I leave this as an exercise!).

A homotopy $H: (r_0,f_0) \simeq (r_1,f_1)$ is a pair of continuous functions $$H_1: [0,1] \to [0,\infty), \quad H_2: [0,1] \times [0,\infty) \to X$$ such that for each $t \in [0,1]$, $H_2(t,s)$ is constant in $s$ for $s \geqslant H_1(t)$ and $H_1(0)=r_0, H_1(1)=r_1,$ $ H_2(0,s)=f_0(s),$ $H_2(1,s)= f_1(s)$. All this is to ensure that for all $ t \in [0,1]$, $(H_1(t),H_2(t,-))$ is a Moore path.

One needs essentially only one diagram and formula to show that $-(r,f) \circ (r,f)$ is homotopic to an identity.

(I'll think a bit as to any improvements in this!)

One thus obtains the fundamental groupoid $\pi_1 X$. If $X$ is not path connected, one might also want to consider $\pi_1(X,A)$, the full subgroupoid on the points of $A \cap X$, where for example $A$ consists of at least one point in each path component of $X$. This follows the general rule: don't throw away information until you have to. For example, if $X = U \cup V$ and $U \cap V$ is not path connected then you have no rule as to where to choose a single base point. So choose as many as you like!

Edit The book Topology and Groupoids takes a slightly different line, in defining a path of length $u$ in $X$ to be a map $a: [0,u] \to X$. One again gets a category of paths, with a reverse, but one needs a definition of homotopy different to the above. It is easy to define a homotopy rel end points of paths of the same length $u$, as a map from $[0,u] \times [0,1]$ to $X$. If $r,s \geqslant 0$ and $a, b$ are paths of length $u,v$ then one can define paths $r+a, s+b$ of length $r+u,s+v$ respectively where $r+a$ denotes the obvious path $[0,r+u] \to X$ which is constant on $[0,r]$ and then given by $a$. So one defines $a,b$ to be homotopic rel end points if there are $r,s \geqslant 0$ such that $r+a, s+b$ are of the same length and are homotopic rel end points.

I leave you to decide which method you like best. The advantage of Moore's definition as pairs is that it leads easily to a space $M(X)$ of Moore paths in $X$ which contains for each $x \in X$ a loop space $\Omega(X,x)$ which is a strict topological monoid.

I also wrote up in arXiv:0909.2212 a shot at Moore hyperrectangles.

Ronnie Brown
  • 15,909
  • wouldn't it be like the composition defined when $g(s)=f(0)$ instead of when $f(r)=g(0)$ – Jose Apr 01 '14 at 16:21
  • @Jose The question is whether to use $f+g$ for addition of paths to mean first $f$ and then $g$ or to use the usual category theory convention. This is a long standing issue as to whether to write functions on the left or right of their arguments. Philip Higgins liked the algebraist's convention, functions on the right! (see his book, "Categories and Groupoids"). This leads to the rule that for an equivalence relation regarded as groupoid you have $(x,y)(y,z)=(x,z)$, which makes a lot of sense. For higher groupoids, I have found this order rather necessary. – Ronnie Brown Apr 06 '14 at 21:38