3

This is example 16 in Chapter 2, Section 5 of Spanier's Algebraic Topology. It states that: Any infinite product of $1$-sphere has no universal covering space. A universal covering space, as far as I know, need not to be simply connected. One counter example is offered in the same section of the book as Example 18. Any help would be appreciated.

The definition in Spanier for a universal cover is: If $p \colon \tilde{X} \to X$ is a universal cover. Then for any covering projection $q \colon \tilde{X}^\prime \to X$, there is $f \colon \tilde{X} \to \tilde{X}^\prime$ such that $q \circ f = p$. I do agree that a simply connected covering space of $X$ is an universal covering space of $X$, but I don't think the converse hold.

du.Du.DU
  • 122
  • 9
  • 3
    Aren't universal covering spaces defined as simply connected covering spaces? (This contradicts your suggestion that they need not be simply connected.) – Benedict Randall Shaw Aug 20 '18 at 14:56

2 Answers2

4

Another argument using the free action of $\pi_1$ on the fibers of a universal cover can be given as follows:

Suppose $Y:=\prod_{i=1}^\infty S^1$ has a universal covering space $p:X\rightarrow Y$. Fix $x_0\in S^1$. Consider the element $\overline x=(x_0,\ldots,x_0,\ldots)$ of $Y$. There is an open nhood $U$ of $\overline x$ and some open $\tilde U$ of $X$, such that $p\upharpoonright\tilde U$ is a homeomorphism onto $U$. We may assume $U$ has the form $$\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}U_i\times\prod_{i=n}^\infty S^1,$$ where each $U_i$ is an open nhood of $x_0$. Now consider the loop $\alpha:S^1\rightarrow \prod_{i=0}^\infty S^1$ given by $x\mapsto (x_0,\ldots,x_0,x,x_0,\ldots)$, where the $``x"$ appears in the $n$th position. Then $\alpha$ is a loop of $U$. As $p\upharpoonright\tilde U$ is a homeomorphism we get that $\alpha$ lifts via $p$ to a loop $\gamma$ of $X$ contained in $\tilde U$.

However, $\alpha$ is a non-trivial loop of $Y$, and thus as $p:X\rightarrow Y$ is the universal cover of $Y$, we must have that the lift of $\alpha$ is not a loop.

This contradiction shows $Y$ cannot have a universal covering.

3

The problem is that if $\mathcal{A}$ is infinite, then the infinite product $\prod_{\mathcal{A}} S^1$ is not semi-locally simply connected. Compare this to:

Spanier, Corollary 14, pg. 83: A connected, locally path-connected space $X$ has a simply connected covering space if and only if it is semi-locally simply connected.

Clearly $\prod_{\mathcal{A}} S^1$ is connected and locally path-connected. Thus if it is not semi-locally simply connected, then it cannot admit a simply connected covering space. On the other hand, I will argue below that any universal covering space of $\prod_{\mathcal{A}} S^1$ must necessarily be simply connected. The contradiction establishes that this space admits no universal covering.

$\prod_{\mathcal{A}} S^1$ is not semi-locally simply connected: The condition for a space $X$ to be semi-locally simply connected is for each point $x$ to have an open neighbourhood $U\subseteq X$ such that the homomorphism $\pi_1U\rightarrow \pi_1X$ induced by the inclusion is trivial. Now the infinite product $\prod_{\mathcal{A}} S^1$ has the coarsest topology such that all projections $pr_a:\prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}} S^1\rightarrow S^1$ are continuous. When $\mathcal{A}$ is finite this coincides with the box topology, namely the topology generated by the sets $\{\prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}U_a\mid U_a\subseteq S^1_a\; \text{open}\}$. However when $\mathcal{A}$ is not finite, then the box topology is strictly finer than the product topology, and the two do not coincide.

Unpacking the definitions, the product topology is generated by arbitrary unions and finite intersections of the form $pr_i^{-1}(U_i)=\{(x_a)_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\in\prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}S^1\mid x_i\in U_i\}$. Clearly any finite intersection $U$ of such subsets will have non-trivial first homotopy, and the inclusion $\pi_1U\rightarrow \pi_1(\prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}S^1)$ will not be trivial. Hence $\prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}S^1$ is not semi-locally simply connected.

$\prod_\mathcal{A} S^1$ has no non-simply connected universal cover: Suppose $p:X\rightarrow \prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}S^1$ is a connected covering. Then $p_*:\pi_1X\rightarrow \pi_1(\prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}S^1)\cong \prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\pi_1S^1\cong \prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\mathbb{Z}$ is monic. Note that the target group is abelian, so conjugacy is trivial. If $p_*(\pi_1X)=0$ then $X$ is simply connected and therefore cannot be universal by the above. Assume therefore that there a non-trivial element $\alpha\in p_*(\pi_1X)\subseteq \prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\pi_1S^1$. Then there exists a covering space $q:Y\rightarrow \prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}S^1$ such that $\alpha\not\in q_*(\pi_1Y))$. These are easily constructed, see example 8, pg. 69. Now $\prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}S^1$ is connected and locally path connected, so theorem 2, pg. 79 applies and states that there can be no morphism $X\rightarrow Y$ in the category of connected covering spaces. Hence $X$ cannot be univeral. Therefore the only covering of $\prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}S^1$ that could be universal would be simply connected. But such an object does not exist.

Tyrone
  • 16,116
  • By that corollary, the infinite product has no simply connected covering space. And can u explain how this leads to no universal cover in this case? – du.Du.DU Aug 20 '18 at 18:34
  • @user559675 I've edited my answer to explain why no non-simply connected cover can be universal. It's midnight here and I'm shattered, so I'm sorry if its badly expressed. If it's not clear I will try to clarify for you tomorrow. – Tyrone Aug 20 '18 at 22:00
  • 1
    It's not free abelian – Maxime Ramzi Aug 20 '18 at 22:30
  • @Tyrone Sorry, still a little confused about it. I put my understanding of the first part of your Edit as an update. If I understand it correctly, the goal is to find a cover space with a fundamental map strictly smaller than that of the universal cover. I don't think removing an element $q$ from the group would solve the issue, as it might be an infinite product of $\mathbb{Z}$. – du.Du.DU Aug 21 '18 at 00:11
  • @user559675, the goal is not to find a 'strictly smaller' fundamental group, just one whose image is not strictly contained in the other, since by theorem 2 this would forbid a morphism in the category of connected coverings. I don't ask for any size requirements at any stage. – Tyrone Aug 21 '18 at 09:34
  • @Tyrone Thanks for the explanation! – du.Du.DU Aug 21 '18 at 10:46