Fundamental group via deck transformations considering rotation on sphere












2












$begingroup$


Let $Z_m$ act on $S^1$ by multiplication with $e^{2pi ki/m}$ for $k in Z_m$. Let $X = S^1 / Z_m$ be the orbit space of this action. Then we have a universal cover $q:S^1 rightarrow X$ given by the canonical projection. To determine the fundamental group of $X$ we can consider the group of deck transformations $Aut(q)$ of $q$, since we know that $Pi_1(X) = Aut(q)$.



$Aut(q)$ is by definition the group of all homeomorphisms $f: S^1 rightarrow S^1$ such that $qf=q$. We see that all rotations by degree $e^{2pi ki/m}$ for $k in Z_m$ are such homeos. But why are there no other ones?






algebraic-topology covering-spaces fundamental-groups







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Since $S^1$ is not simply connected, your map $q$ is not a universal cover of $X$, so we can't say $pi_1 (X) cong text{Aut}(q)$. In fact, it is correct that $text{Aut}(q) cong mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z}$, but $pi_1 (X) cong mathbb{Z}$, since $X$ is homeomorphic to $S^1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Sameer Kailasa
    Jan 2 at 19:43












  • $begingroup$
    yes you're right I have been actually thinking about lens spaces which come from a group action on $S^3$ but I thought I could make things easier for my question by considering only $S^1$
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:52










  • $begingroup$
    I want to kind of understand why we cannot find other homeos of $S^1$ which permute the orbits than the rotations
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:53
















2












$begingroup$


Let $Z_m$ act on $S^1$ by multiplication with $e^{2pi ki/m}$ for $k in Z_m$. Let $X = S^1 / Z_m$ be the orbit space of this action. Then we have a universal cover $q:S^1 rightarrow X$ given by the canonical projection. To determine the fundamental group of $X$ we can consider the group of deck transformations $Aut(q)$ of $q$, since we know that $Pi_1(X) = Aut(q)$.



$Aut(q)$ is by definition the group of all homeomorphisms $f: S^1 rightarrow S^1$ such that $qf=q$. We see that all rotations by degree $e^{2pi ki/m}$ for $k in Z_m$ are such homeos. But why are there no other ones?






algebraic-topology covering-spaces fundamental-groups







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Since $S^1$ is not simply connected, your map $q$ is not a universal cover of $X$, so we can't say $pi_1 (X) cong text{Aut}(q)$. In fact, it is correct that $text{Aut}(q) cong mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z}$, but $pi_1 (X) cong mathbb{Z}$, since $X$ is homeomorphic to $S^1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Sameer Kailasa
    Jan 2 at 19:43












  • $begingroup$
    yes you're right I have been actually thinking about lens spaces which come from a group action on $S^3$ but I thought I could make things easier for my question by considering only $S^1$
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:52










  • $begingroup$
    I want to kind of understand why we cannot find other homeos of $S^1$ which permute the orbits than the rotations
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:53














2












2








2





$begingroup$


Let $Z_m$ act on $S^1$ by multiplication with $e^{2pi ki/m}$ for $k in Z_m$. Let $X = S^1 / Z_m$ be the orbit space of this action. Then we have a universal cover $q:S^1 rightarrow X$ given by the canonical projection. To determine the fundamental group of $X$ we can consider the group of deck transformations $Aut(q)$ of $q$, since we know that $Pi_1(X) = Aut(q)$.



$Aut(q)$ is by definition the group of all homeomorphisms $f: S^1 rightarrow S^1$ such that $qf=q$. We see that all rotations by degree $e^{2pi ki/m}$ for $k in Z_m$ are such homeos. But why are there no other ones?






algebraic-topology covering-spaces fundamental-groups







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Let $Z_m$ act on $S^1$ by multiplication with $e^{2pi ki/m}$ for $k in Z_m$. Let $X = S^1 / Z_m$ be the orbit space of this action. Then we have a universal cover $q:S^1 rightarrow X$ given by the canonical projection. To determine the fundamental group of $X$ we can consider the group of deck transformations $Aut(q)$ of $q$, since we know that $Pi_1(X) = Aut(q)$.



$Aut(q)$ is by definition the group of all homeomorphisms $f: S^1 rightarrow S^1$ such that $qf=q$. We see that all rotations by degree $e^{2pi ki/m}$ for $k in Z_m$ are such homeos. But why are there no other ones?






algebraic-topology covering-spaces fundamental-groups




algebraic-topology covering-spaces fundamental-groups






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 2 at 19:26









CHwCCHwC

309111




309111








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Since $S^1$ is not simply connected, your map $q$ is not a universal cover of $X$, so we can't say $pi_1 (X) cong text{Aut}(q)$. In fact, it is correct that $text{Aut}(q) cong mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z}$, but $pi_1 (X) cong mathbb{Z}$, since $X$ is homeomorphic to $S^1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Sameer Kailasa
    Jan 2 at 19:43












  • $begingroup$
    yes you're right I have been actually thinking about lens spaces which come from a group action on $S^3$ but I thought I could make things easier for my question by considering only $S^1$
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:52










  • $begingroup$
    I want to kind of understand why we cannot find other homeos of $S^1$ which permute the orbits than the rotations
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:53














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Since $S^1$ is not simply connected, your map $q$ is not a universal cover of $X$, so we can't say $pi_1 (X) cong text{Aut}(q)$. In fact, it is correct that $text{Aut}(q) cong mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z}$, but $pi_1 (X) cong mathbb{Z}$, since $X$ is homeomorphic to $S^1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Sameer Kailasa
    Jan 2 at 19:43












  • $begingroup$
    yes you're right I have been actually thinking about lens spaces which come from a group action on $S^3$ but I thought I could make things easier for my question by considering only $S^1$
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:52










  • $begingroup$
    I want to kind of understand why we cannot find other homeos of $S^1$ which permute the orbits than the rotations
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:53








2




2




$begingroup$
Since $S^1$ is not simply connected, your map $q$ is not a universal cover of $X$, so we can't say $pi_1 (X) cong text{Aut}(q)$. In fact, it is correct that $text{Aut}(q) cong mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z}$, but $pi_1 (X) cong mathbb{Z}$, since $X$ is homeomorphic to $S^1$.
$endgroup$
– Sameer Kailasa
Jan 2 at 19:43






$begingroup$
Since $S^1$ is not simply connected, your map $q$ is not a universal cover of $X$, so we can't say $pi_1 (X) cong text{Aut}(q)$. In fact, it is correct that $text{Aut}(q) cong mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z}$, but $pi_1 (X) cong mathbb{Z}$, since $X$ is homeomorphic to $S^1$.
$endgroup$
– Sameer Kailasa
Jan 2 at 19:43














$begingroup$
yes you're right I have been actually thinking about lens spaces which come from a group action on $S^3$ but I thought I could make things easier for my question by considering only $S^1$
$endgroup$
– CHwC
Jan 2 at 19:52




$begingroup$
yes you're right I have been actually thinking about lens spaces which come from a group action on $S^3$ but I thought I could make things easier for my question by considering only $S^1$
$endgroup$
– CHwC
Jan 2 at 19:52












$begingroup$
I want to kind of understand why we cannot find other homeos of $S^1$ which permute the orbits than the rotations
$endgroup$
– CHwC
Jan 2 at 19:53




$begingroup$
I want to kind of understand why we cannot find other homeos of $S^1$ which permute the orbits than the rotations
$endgroup$
– CHwC
Jan 2 at 19:53










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

$pi_1(X)$ is not meant to be equal to ${rm Aut}(q)$. That would be true if the covering was a universal cover, which is not the case here.



[An example of a universal cover of $X$ would be the map $q_{rm univ} : mathbb R to X$, sending $x mapsto x {rm mod } tfrac{2pi}{m}$. This is a universal cover because $mathbb R$ is simply connected. The deck transformation group for this universal cover is ${rm Aut}(q_{rm univ}) = mathbb Z$. Since $X$ itself is a small circle, $pi_1(X) = mathbb Z$, which agrees with ${rm Aut}(q_{rm univ})$.]



As for your original covering $q : S^1 to X$, we still have the following useful result (Hatcher 1.39): If $H : = q_star (pi_1(S^1)) $ is the image of $pi_1(S^1)$ under the group homomorphism $q_star : pi_1(S^1) to pi_1(X)$, then ${rm Aut}(q)$ is isomorphic to $N(H) / H$, where $N(H)$ is the normaliser of $q_star (pi_1(S^1))$ in $pi_1(X)$. Now $pi_1(X) = mathbb Z$, and $H$ is the subgroup $mmathbb Z$, which is a normal subgroup, so the theorem tells us that ${rm Aut}(q) = mathbb Z_m$. And this agrees perfectly with your counting.



Finally, I'll address the question in your comment: Can we see directly that there are no more than $m$ deck transformations for $q$? The answer is yes, because $q$ is an $m$-sheeted covering of $X$ (meaning that the preimage of $q^{-1}(x)$ for any point $x in X$ consists of $m $ points. Given a point $x in X$, a deck transformation $f$ is uniquely determined by where it sends $x$. But $f$ can only send $x$ to one of the points in $q^{-1}(x)$, and there are $m$ such points. Hence there can be at most $m$ deck transformations.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    okay but is there any way to see "directly" why there can be no other homeos which satisfy $qf=q$ then the rotations?
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:50










  • $begingroup$
    when I try to imagine such other homeos then I have to twist things around so much that I feel like the continuity of these maps is lost somewhere, but I dont see how to express this formally
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:51










  • $begingroup$
    @CHwC See edit...
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Wong
    Jan 2 at 20:02










  • $begingroup$
    why is a deck transformation uniquely determined by the value it takes on an arbitrary point x? i guess thats the point that i am missing
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 21:35










  • $begingroup$
    @CHwC This is a consequence of the Unique Lifting Property (Hatcher 1.34): Given a covering space $q : widetilde X to X$ and a map $f : Y to X$ with two lifts $widetilde f_1, widetilde f_2 : Y to widetilde X$ that agree at one point of $Y$, then if $Y$ is connected, these two lifts must agree on all of $Y$. If you apply this with $Y = widetilde X$ and $f = q$, then $widetilde f_1, widetilde f_2$ are deck transformations, so the theorem tells you that if two deck transformations agree at one point, then they agree everywhere.
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Wong
    Jan 2 at 21:40













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3059868%2ffundamental-group-via-deck-transformations-considering-rotation-on-sphere%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3












$begingroup$

$pi_1(X)$ is not meant to be equal to ${rm Aut}(q)$. That would be true if the covering was a universal cover, which is not the case here.



[An example of a universal cover of $X$ would be the map $q_{rm univ} : mathbb R to X$, sending $x mapsto x {rm mod } tfrac{2pi}{m}$. This is a universal cover because $mathbb R$ is simply connected. The deck transformation group for this universal cover is ${rm Aut}(q_{rm univ}) = mathbb Z$. Since $X$ itself is a small circle, $pi_1(X) = mathbb Z$, which agrees with ${rm Aut}(q_{rm univ})$.]



As for your original covering $q : S^1 to X$, we still have the following useful result (Hatcher 1.39): If $H : = q_star (pi_1(S^1)) $ is the image of $pi_1(S^1)$ under the group homomorphism $q_star : pi_1(S^1) to pi_1(X)$, then ${rm Aut}(q)$ is isomorphic to $N(H) / H$, where $N(H)$ is the normaliser of $q_star (pi_1(S^1))$ in $pi_1(X)$. Now $pi_1(X) = mathbb Z$, and $H$ is the subgroup $mmathbb Z$, which is a normal subgroup, so the theorem tells us that ${rm Aut}(q) = mathbb Z_m$. And this agrees perfectly with your counting.



Finally, I'll address the question in your comment: Can we see directly that there are no more than $m$ deck transformations for $q$? The answer is yes, because $q$ is an $m$-sheeted covering of $X$ (meaning that the preimage of $q^{-1}(x)$ for any point $x in X$ consists of $m $ points. Given a point $x in X$, a deck transformation $f$ is uniquely determined by where it sends $x$. But $f$ can only send $x$ to one of the points in $q^{-1}(x)$, and there are $m$ such points. Hence there can be at most $m$ deck transformations.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    okay but is there any way to see "directly" why there can be no other homeos which satisfy $qf=q$ then the rotations?
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:50










  • $begingroup$
    when I try to imagine such other homeos then I have to twist things around so much that I feel like the continuity of these maps is lost somewhere, but I dont see how to express this formally
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:51










  • $begingroup$
    @CHwC See edit...
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Wong
    Jan 2 at 20:02










  • $begingroup$
    why is a deck transformation uniquely determined by the value it takes on an arbitrary point x? i guess thats the point that i am missing
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 21:35










  • $begingroup$
    @CHwC This is a consequence of the Unique Lifting Property (Hatcher 1.34): Given a covering space $q : widetilde X to X$ and a map $f : Y to X$ with two lifts $widetilde f_1, widetilde f_2 : Y to widetilde X$ that agree at one point of $Y$, then if $Y$ is connected, these two lifts must agree on all of $Y$. If you apply this with $Y = widetilde X$ and $f = q$, then $widetilde f_1, widetilde f_2$ are deck transformations, so the theorem tells you that if two deck transformations agree at one point, then they agree everywhere.
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Wong
    Jan 2 at 21:40


















3












$begingroup$

$pi_1(X)$ is not meant to be equal to ${rm Aut}(q)$. That would be true if the covering was a universal cover, which is not the case here.



[An example of a universal cover of $X$ would be the map $q_{rm univ} : mathbb R to X$, sending $x mapsto x {rm mod } tfrac{2pi}{m}$. This is a universal cover because $mathbb R$ is simply connected. The deck transformation group for this universal cover is ${rm Aut}(q_{rm univ}) = mathbb Z$. Since $X$ itself is a small circle, $pi_1(X) = mathbb Z$, which agrees with ${rm Aut}(q_{rm univ})$.]



As for your original covering $q : S^1 to X$, we still have the following useful result (Hatcher 1.39): If $H : = q_star (pi_1(S^1)) $ is the image of $pi_1(S^1)$ under the group homomorphism $q_star : pi_1(S^1) to pi_1(X)$, then ${rm Aut}(q)$ is isomorphic to $N(H) / H$, where $N(H)$ is the normaliser of $q_star (pi_1(S^1))$ in $pi_1(X)$. Now $pi_1(X) = mathbb Z$, and $H$ is the subgroup $mmathbb Z$, which is a normal subgroup, so the theorem tells us that ${rm Aut}(q) = mathbb Z_m$. And this agrees perfectly with your counting.



Finally, I'll address the question in your comment: Can we see directly that there are no more than $m$ deck transformations for $q$? The answer is yes, because $q$ is an $m$-sheeted covering of $X$ (meaning that the preimage of $q^{-1}(x)$ for any point $x in X$ consists of $m $ points. Given a point $x in X$, a deck transformation $f$ is uniquely determined by where it sends $x$. But $f$ can only send $x$ to one of the points in $q^{-1}(x)$, and there are $m$ such points. Hence there can be at most $m$ deck transformations.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    okay but is there any way to see "directly" why there can be no other homeos which satisfy $qf=q$ then the rotations?
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:50










  • $begingroup$
    when I try to imagine such other homeos then I have to twist things around so much that I feel like the continuity of these maps is lost somewhere, but I dont see how to express this formally
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:51










  • $begingroup$
    @CHwC See edit...
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Wong
    Jan 2 at 20:02










  • $begingroup$
    why is a deck transformation uniquely determined by the value it takes on an arbitrary point x? i guess thats the point that i am missing
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 21:35










  • $begingroup$
    @CHwC This is a consequence of the Unique Lifting Property (Hatcher 1.34): Given a covering space $q : widetilde X to X$ and a map $f : Y to X$ with two lifts $widetilde f_1, widetilde f_2 : Y to widetilde X$ that agree at one point of $Y$, then if $Y$ is connected, these two lifts must agree on all of $Y$. If you apply this with $Y = widetilde X$ and $f = q$, then $widetilde f_1, widetilde f_2$ are deck transformations, so the theorem tells you that if two deck transformations agree at one point, then they agree everywhere.
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Wong
    Jan 2 at 21:40
















3












3








3





$begingroup$

$pi_1(X)$ is not meant to be equal to ${rm Aut}(q)$. That would be true if the covering was a universal cover, which is not the case here.



[An example of a universal cover of $X$ would be the map $q_{rm univ} : mathbb R to X$, sending $x mapsto x {rm mod } tfrac{2pi}{m}$. This is a universal cover because $mathbb R$ is simply connected. The deck transformation group for this universal cover is ${rm Aut}(q_{rm univ}) = mathbb Z$. Since $X$ itself is a small circle, $pi_1(X) = mathbb Z$, which agrees with ${rm Aut}(q_{rm univ})$.]



As for your original covering $q : S^1 to X$, we still have the following useful result (Hatcher 1.39): If $H : = q_star (pi_1(S^1)) $ is the image of $pi_1(S^1)$ under the group homomorphism $q_star : pi_1(S^1) to pi_1(X)$, then ${rm Aut}(q)$ is isomorphic to $N(H) / H$, where $N(H)$ is the normaliser of $q_star (pi_1(S^1))$ in $pi_1(X)$. Now $pi_1(X) = mathbb Z$, and $H$ is the subgroup $mmathbb Z$, which is a normal subgroup, so the theorem tells us that ${rm Aut}(q) = mathbb Z_m$. And this agrees perfectly with your counting.



Finally, I'll address the question in your comment: Can we see directly that there are no more than $m$ deck transformations for $q$? The answer is yes, because $q$ is an $m$-sheeted covering of $X$ (meaning that the preimage of $q^{-1}(x)$ for any point $x in X$ consists of $m $ points. Given a point $x in X$, a deck transformation $f$ is uniquely determined by where it sends $x$. But $f$ can only send $x$ to one of the points in $q^{-1}(x)$, and there are $m$ such points. Hence there can be at most $m$ deck transformations.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



$pi_1(X)$ is not meant to be equal to ${rm Aut}(q)$. That would be true if the covering was a universal cover, which is not the case here.



[An example of a universal cover of $X$ would be the map $q_{rm univ} : mathbb R to X$, sending $x mapsto x {rm mod } tfrac{2pi}{m}$. This is a universal cover because $mathbb R$ is simply connected. The deck transformation group for this universal cover is ${rm Aut}(q_{rm univ}) = mathbb Z$. Since $X$ itself is a small circle, $pi_1(X) = mathbb Z$, which agrees with ${rm Aut}(q_{rm univ})$.]



As for your original covering $q : S^1 to X$, we still have the following useful result (Hatcher 1.39): If $H : = q_star (pi_1(S^1)) $ is the image of $pi_1(S^1)$ under the group homomorphism $q_star : pi_1(S^1) to pi_1(X)$, then ${rm Aut}(q)$ is isomorphic to $N(H) / H$, where $N(H)$ is the normaliser of $q_star (pi_1(S^1))$ in $pi_1(X)$. Now $pi_1(X) = mathbb Z$, and $H$ is the subgroup $mmathbb Z$, which is a normal subgroup, so the theorem tells us that ${rm Aut}(q) = mathbb Z_m$. And this agrees perfectly with your counting.



Finally, I'll address the question in your comment: Can we see directly that there are no more than $m$ deck transformations for $q$? The answer is yes, because $q$ is an $m$-sheeted covering of $X$ (meaning that the preimage of $q^{-1}(x)$ for any point $x in X$ consists of $m $ points. Given a point $x in X$, a deck transformation $f$ is uniquely determined by where it sends $x$. But $f$ can only send $x$ to one of the points in $q^{-1}(x)$, and there are $m$ such points. Hence there can be at most $m$ deck transformations.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 2 at 21:03

























answered Jan 2 at 19:48









Kenny WongKenny Wong

19.1k21440




19.1k21440












  • $begingroup$
    okay but is there any way to see "directly" why there can be no other homeos which satisfy $qf=q$ then the rotations?
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:50










  • $begingroup$
    when I try to imagine such other homeos then I have to twist things around so much that I feel like the continuity of these maps is lost somewhere, but I dont see how to express this formally
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:51










  • $begingroup$
    @CHwC See edit...
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Wong
    Jan 2 at 20:02










  • $begingroup$
    why is a deck transformation uniquely determined by the value it takes on an arbitrary point x? i guess thats the point that i am missing
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 21:35










  • $begingroup$
    @CHwC This is a consequence of the Unique Lifting Property (Hatcher 1.34): Given a covering space $q : widetilde X to X$ and a map $f : Y to X$ with two lifts $widetilde f_1, widetilde f_2 : Y to widetilde X$ that agree at one point of $Y$, then if $Y$ is connected, these two lifts must agree on all of $Y$. If you apply this with $Y = widetilde X$ and $f = q$, then $widetilde f_1, widetilde f_2$ are deck transformations, so the theorem tells you that if two deck transformations agree at one point, then they agree everywhere.
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Wong
    Jan 2 at 21:40




















  • $begingroup$
    okay but is there any way to see "directly" why there can be no other homeos which satisfy $qf=q$ then the rotations?
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:50










  • $begingroup$
    when I try to imagine such other homeos then I have to twist things around so much that I feel like the continuity of these maps is lost somewhere, but I dont see how to express this formally
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 19:51










  • $begingroup$
    @CHwC See edit...
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Wong
    Jan 2 at 20:02










  • $begingroup$
    why is a deck transformation uniquely determined by the value it takes on an arbitrary point x? i guess thats the point that i am missing
    $endgroup$
    – CHwC
    Jan 2 at 21:35










  • $begingroup$
    @CHwC This is a consequence of the Unique Lifting Property (Hatcher 1.34): Given a covering space $q : widetilde X to X$ and a map $f : Y to X$ with two lifts $widetilde f_1, widetilde f_2 : Y to widetilde X$ that agree at one point of $Y$, then if $Y$ is connected, these two lifts must agree on all of $Y$. If you apply this with $Y = widetilde X$ and $f = q$, then $widetilde f_1, widetilde f_2$ are deck transformations, so the theorem tells you that if two deck transformations agree at one point, then they agree everywhere.
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Wong
    Jan 2 at 21:40


















$begingroup$
okay but is there any way to see "directly" why there can be no other homeos which satisfy $qf=q$ then the rotations?
$endgroup$
– CHwC
Jan 2 at 19:50




$begingroup$
okay but is there any way to see "directly" why there can be no other homeos which satisfy $qf=q$ then the rotations?
$endgroup$
– CHwC
Jan 2 at 19:50












$begingroup$
when I try to imagine such other homeos then I have to twist things around so much that I feel like the continuity of these maps is lost somewhere, but I dont see how to express this formally
$endgroup$
– CHwC
Jan 2 at 19:51




$begingroup$
when I try to imagine such other homeos then I have to twist things around so much that I feel like the continuity of these maps is lost somewhere, but I dont see how to express this formally
$endgroup$
– CHwC
Jan 2 at 19:51












$begingroup$
@CHwC See edit...
$endgroup$
– Kenny Wong
Jan 2 at 20:02




$begingroup$
@CHwC See edit...
$endgroup$
– Kenny Wong
Jan 2 at 20:02












$begingroup$
why is a deck transformation uniquely determined by the value it takes on an arbitrary point x? i guess thats the point that i am missing
$endgroup$
– CHwC
Jan 2 at 21:35




$begingroup$
why is a deck transformation uniquely determined by the value it takes on an arbitrary point x? i guess thats the point that i am missing
$endgroup$
– CHwC
Jan 2 at 21:35












$begingroup$
@CHwC This is a consequence of the Unique Lifting Property (Hatcher 1.34): Given a covering space $q : widetilde X to X$ and a map $f : Y to X$ with two lifts $widetilde f_1, widetilde f_2 : Y to widetilde X$ that agree at one point of $Y$, then if $Y$ is connected, these two lifts must agree on all of $Y$. If you apply this with $Y = widetilde X$ and $f = q$, then $widetilde f_1, widetilde f_2$ are deck transformations, so the theorem tells you that if two deck transformations agree at one point, then they agree everywhere.
$endgroup$
– Kenny Wong
Jan 2 at 21:40






$begingroup$
@CHwC This is a consequence of the Unique Lifting Property (Hatcher 1.34): Given a covering space $q : widetilde X to X$ and a map $f : Y to X$ with two lifts $widetilde f_1, widetilde f_2 : Y to widetilde X$ that agree at one point of $Y$, then if $Y$ is connected, these two lifts must agree on all of $Y$. If you apply this with $Y = widetilde X$ and $f = q$, then $widetilde f_1, widetilde f_2$ are deck transformations, so the theorem tells you that if two deck transformations agree at one point, then they agree everywhere.
$endgroup$
– Kenny Wong
Jan 2 at 21:40




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3059868%2ffundamental-group-via-deck-transformations-considering-rotation-on-sphere%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Bressuire

Image
.mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid
Read more

Cabo Verde

Image
  Nota: Cabo-verdiano redireciona para este artigo. Para a língua falada em Cabo Verde, veja crioulo cabo-verdiano. Para outros significados, veja Cabo Verde (desambiguação). Coordenadas: 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cabo Verde República de Cabo Verde Bandeira Brasão de Armas Lema: Unidade, Trabalho, Progresso Hino nacional: Cântico da Liberdade Gentílico: cabo-verdiano [ 1 ] Capital Praia 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cidade mais populosa Praia Língua oficial Português Governo República unitária semipresidencialista [ 2 ]  - Presidente Jorge Carlos Fonseca  - Primeiro-ministro Ulisses Correia e Silva História    - Descoberta 1460   - Independência 00 • de Portugal 5 de Julho de 1975   - Multipartidarismo 13 de Janeiro de 1990  Área    - Total 4 033 km² (146.º)  - Água (%) 0,08 População    - Estimativa para 2017 560 899 [ 3 ] hab. (173.º)
Read more

Gyllenstierna

Image
.mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid
Read more