3

I am just starting to learn Algebraic Topology and it would be very helpful to know whether the following two definitions are equivalent...


Let $X$ and $Y$ be topological spaces and $p:Y \to X$ be a surjective continuous map.

(1) An open set $U \subseteq X$ is evenly covered by $p$ if there exists disjoint, open sets $\{V_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in A}$ in $Y$ s.t.

$\hspace{10mm}$ a) $p^{-1}(U)=\bigcup_{\alpha \in A} V_\alpha$;

$\hspace{10mm}$ b) for each $\alpha \in A, \;$ $p|_{V_\alpha}:V_\alpha \to U$ is a homeomorphism.

(2) An open set $U \subseteq X$ is evenly covered by $p$ there exists

$\hspace{10mm}$ a) a discrete space $F$;

$\hspace{10mm}$ b) a homeomorphism $h:p^{-1}(U)\to U\times F$

$\hspace{6mm}$ such that $p|_{p^{-1}(U)} = \pi_1\circ h$.


Thank you in advance.

P.S. I don't ask for a proof - I just want to know whether it is true before I waste a lot of time trying to prove it (something that seems to happen often to me).

  • Yes, they are equivalent. To go from the first to the second, take $A$ as the discrete space $F$. – Daniel Fischer Sep 25 '13 at 23:26
  • Anotehr way to think about this is that you have a covering with discrete fibers--note that the fibers are discrete since the map is a local homeomorphism. – Alex Youcis Sep 26 '13 at 00:00
  • Also take a look at http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/457469/alternative-definition-of-covering-spaces – Stefan Hamcke Sep 26 '13 at 00:39

2 Answers2

5

Thank you for helping me. I have written down my proof and would be very grateful to anyone who could read it through for me.

Best wishes and thank you!


$\underline{(1) \Rightarrow (2):}$

Put $F=A$ and give it the discrete topology. For each $\alpha \in A$ define

$$h_\alpha:V_\alpha \to U \times A; \; h_\alpha:y \mapsto (p(y),\alpha).$$

For each $\alpha \in A$, the map $h_\alpha$ is continuous.

Indeed, given $\alpha \in A$, the first component map is just $p|_{V_\alpha}$ which is continuous by hypothesis and the second component map is the constant map $y\mapsto \alpha$ which is continuous. Thus $h_\alpha$ continuous.

Now define a map $h:p^{-1}(U) \to U\times A$ by

$$h|_{V_\alpha} := h_\alpha \text{ for each } \alpha \in A.$$

Note that is indeed a map as the $V_\alpha$ are disjoint and $p^{-1}(U)=\bigcup_{\alpha \in A}V_\alpha$.

It is immediate from the definition of $h$ that $p|_{p^{-1}(U)}=\pi_1\circ h$.

It remains to prove that $h$ is a homeomorphism.

$\bullet \; h$ is continuous:

As each $h_\alpha$ is continuous, $h$ is continuous by the "pasting lemma".

$\bullet \; h$ is injective:

Suppose $h(y_1)=h(y_2)$ where $y_1 \in V_{\alpha}$ and $y_2 \in V_{\alpha'}$ for some $\alpha, \alpha' \in A$.

Then $p(y_1)=p(y_2)$ and $\alpha=\alpha'$.

Thus $p|_{V_\alpha}(y_1)=p|_{V_\alpha}(y_2)$ and so $y_1=y_2$ as $p|_{V_\alpha}$ is injective by hypothesis.

$\bullet \; h$ is surjective:

Let $(x,\alpha) \in U \times A$ be given. By hypothesis, $p|_{V_\alpha}$ is surjective so there exists $y \in V_\alpha$ such that

$$h(y)=(p(y),\alpha)=(x,\alpha).$$

$\bullet \; g:=h^{-1}:U \times A \to p^{-1}(U)$ is continuous:

$U \times A$ is the union of disjoint, open sets $\{U \times \{\alpha\} : \alpha \in A\}$.

As such, by the "pasting lemma", it suffices to prove that, given $\alpha \in A$, $ \;g|_{U\times\{\alpha\}}$ is continuous.

Indeed, $g|_{U\times\{\alpha\}} = p|_{V_\alpha}^{-1} \circ \pi_1$ which is continuous by hypothesis.

$\\$

$\underline{(2) \Rightarrow (1):}$

For each $\alpha \in F$ put $V_\alpha=h^{-1}(U\times \{\alpha\})$.

Clearly the $V_\alpha$ are disjoint and $p^{-1}(U)=\bigcup_{\alpha \in F} V_\alpha$ (preimage of a partition).

Moreover, given $\alpha \in A$, $\, V_\alpha$ is open.

Indeed, as $F$ discrete, $U\times \{\alpha\}$ is open in $U \times F$ whence, by continuity of $h$, $V_\alpha$ is open in $p^{-1}(U)$.

It remains to prove that, for each $\alpha \in A$, $\; p|_{V_\alpha}$ is a homeomorphism.

Let $\alpha \in F$ be given. Then, by hypothesis, $p|_{V_\alpha}=\pi_1\circ h \circ \iota, \,$ where $\iota:V_\alpha \hookrightarrow p^{-1}(U)$.

Therefore, since $V_\alpha:=h^{-1}(U\times \{\alpha\})$, we have $p|_{V_\alpha}=\pi_1|_{U\times \{\alpha\}}, \,$ clearly a homeomorphism.

0

Yes these are equivalent definitions.

Dan Rust
  • 30,108