2

Definitions and background result

enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here

enter image description here

Theorem

enter image description here

Question

What exactly is the isomorphism ("via" $p_*$) with $G \cong \pi_1 (\tilde{X}_G, \tilde{x}_0)$?

It cannot be $p_*$ restricted to its image, i.e. $\tilde{p}_* : \pi_1 (\tilde{X}_G, \tilde{x}_0) \rightarrow G$. This map is not injective in general.

And does this isomorphism always hold for any subgroup G of a fundamental group?

IsaacR24
  • 635
  • In fact for a covering map $p$, the induced homomorphism between fundamental groups $p_$ is* injective if the base space $X$ is nice enough, see this post. – Zerox Mar 07 '23 at 14:27

1 Answers1

3

The isomorphism is indeed $p_*$, because in the context of Theorems 10.34 and 10.46 the homomorphism $p_*$ is injective.

Presumably the textbook has already proved that for any covering map $p : \tilde X \to X$ and any $\tilde x \in \tilde X$ and $x=p(\tilde x) \in X$, the induced homomorphism $p_* : \pi_1(\tilde X,\tilde x) \to \pi_1(X,x)$ is injective. The proof usually comes rather early in the theory of covering maps, because it is a straightforward application of the homotopy lifting lemma. Here's a brief sketch. For any closed path $\gamma : [0,1] \to \tilde X$ based at $\tilde x$, the composition $p \circ \gamma : [0,1] \to X$ is a closed path based at $x$. If there exists a path homotopy from $p \circ \gamma$ to the constant path at $x$ then, by applying the homotopy lifting lemma, one obtains a path homotopy from $\gamma$ to the constant path at $\tilde x$. In other words, if $p_*[\gamma]$ is the identity then $[\gamma]$ is the identity. This implies that $p_*$ is injective.

Combined with the conclusion of Theorem 10.34, it follows that $p_* : \pi_1(\tilde X_G,\tilde x_0) \to G$ is an isomorphism.

Lee Mosher
  • 120,280
  • Thanks @Lee Mosher, this completely answers my question! Oddly enough, I don't see the proof that $p_*$ is injective in the Covering Maps chapter of Rotman. But I do see that it follows immediately from the Homotoply Lifting Lemma, thanks to your help. – IsaacR24 Mar 07 '23 at 15:32