Are contractible open subsets always evenly covered?
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $p:Erightarrow X$ be a covering map.
Let $U$ be a contractible open subset of $X$.
Is $U$ necessarily an evenly covered open subset, i.e. $p^{-1}(U)$ a disjoint union of open subsets of $E$ homeomorphic to $U$?
I know that if $X$ is path connected and locally path connected, then $U$ is an evenly covered open set. This can be shown by lifting the inclusion $Uhookrightarrow X$ to maps $U hookrightarrow E$.
What if $X$ is just a general topological space, not necessarily locally path connected and path connected?
general-topology algebraic-topology covering-spaces
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $p:Erightarrow X$ be a covering map.
Let $U$ be a contractible open subset of $X$.
Is $U$ necessarily an evenly covered open subset, i.e. $p^{-1}(U)$ a disjoint union of open subsets of $E$ homeomorphic to $U$?
I know that if $X$ is path connected and locally path connected, then $U$ is an evenly covered open set. This can be shown by lifting the inclusion $Uhookrightarrow X$ to maps $U hookrightarrow E$.
What if $X$ is just a general topological space, not necessarily locally path connected and path connected?
general-topology algebraic-topology covering-spaces
Generally, covering spaces only behave well under some local conditions on the space, e.g. locally path connected and semilocally simply connected. For instance, if your space is locally path-connected, being semilocally simply connected is necessary and sufficient for the existence of a universal cover.
– Joshua Mundinger
Nov 17 at 20:17
@JoshuaMundinger You're completely right, but what you said is somehow off-topic. Under some local conditions, the space does behave well, as I have mentioned in the question. However, I'm looking for a proof or disproof of the statement without those local conditions. ps. I don't think it has something to do with universal cover.
– Y. Hu
Nov 18 at 13:44
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $p:Erightarrow X$ be a covering map.
Let $U$ be a contractible open subset of $X$.
Is $U$ necessarily an evenly covered open subset, i.e. $p^{-1}(U)$ a disjoint union of open subsets of $E$ homeomorphic to $U$?
I know that if $X$ is path connected and locally path connected, then $U$ is an evenly covered open set. This can be shown by lifting the inclusion $Uhookrightarrow X$ to maps $U hookrightarrow E$.
What if $X$ is just a general topological space, not necessarily locally path connected and path connected?
general-topology algebraic-topology covering-spaces
Let $p:Erightarrow X$ be a covering map.
Let $U$ be a contractible open subset of $X$.
Is $U$ necessarily an evenly covered open subset, i.e. $p^{-1}(U)$ a disjoint union of open subsets of $E$ homeomorphic to $U$?
I know that if $X$ is path connected and locally path connected, then $U$ is an evenly covered open set. This can be shown by lifting the inclusion $Uhookrightarrow X$ to maps $U hookrightarrow E$.
What if $X$ is just a general topological space, not necessarily locally path connected and path connected?
general-topology algebraic-topology covering-spaces
general-topology algebraic-topology covering-spaces
edited Nov 15 at 15:39
David C. Ullrich
57.4k43791
57.4k43791
asked Nov 15 at 13:28
Y. Hu
28719
28719
Generally, covering spaces only behave well under some local conditions on the space, e.g. locally path connected and semilocally simply connected. For instance, if your space is locally path-connected, being semilocally simply connected is necessary and sufficient for the existence of a universal cover.
– Joshua Mundinger
Nov 17 at 20:17
@JoshuaMundinger You're completely right, but what you said is somehow off-topic. Under some local conditions, the space does behave well, as I have mentioned in the question. However, I'm looking for a proof or disproof of the statement without those local conditions. ps. I don't think it has something to do with universal cover.
– Y. Hu
Nov 18 at 13:44
add a comment |
Generally, covering spaces only behave well under some local conditions on the space, e.g. locally path connected and semilocally simply connected. For instance, if your space is locally path-connected, being semilocally simply connected is necessary and sufficient for the existence of a universal cover.
– Joshua Mundinger
Nov 17 at 20:17
@JoshuaMundinger You're completely right, but what you said is somehow off-topic. Under some local conditions, the space does behave well, as I have mentioned in the question. However, I'm looking for a proof or disproof of the statement without those local conditions. ps. I don't think it has something to do with universal cover.
– Y. Hu
Nov 18 at 13:44
Generally, covering spaces only behave well under some local conditions on the space, e.g. locally path connected and semilocally simply connected. For instance, if your space is locally path-connected, being semilocally simply connected is necessary and sufficient for the existence of a universal cover.
– Joshua Mundinger
Nov 17 at 20:17
Generally, covering spaces only behave well under some local conditions on the space, e.g. locally path connected and semilocally simply connected. For instance, if your space is locally path-connected, being semilocally simply connected is necessary and sufficient for the existence of a universal cover.
– Joshua Mundinger
Nov 17 at 20:17
@JoshuaMundinger You're completely right, but what you said is somehow off-topic. Under some local conditions, the space does behave well, as I have mentioned in the question. However, I'm looking for a proof or disproof of the statement without those local conditions. ps. I don't think it has something to do with universal cover.
– Y. Hu
Nov 18 at 13:44
@JoshuaMundinger You're completely right, but what you said is somehow off-topic. Under some local conditions, the space does behave well, as I have mentioned in the question. However, I'm looking for a proof or disproof of the statement without those local conditions. ps. I don't think it has something to do with universal cover.
– Y. Hu
Nov 18 at 13:44
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
The answer is "yes". To see this, let us recall the concept of a pullback. Given a pair of maps $(p : E to X,f : Y to X)$, a pullback of $(p,f)$ is given by a pair of maps $(p^* : E^* to Y,f^*: E^* to E)$ such that
(1) $fp^* = pf^*$
(2) For any pair of maps $(u : Z to Y, v : Z to E)$ such that $fu = pv$ there exists a unique map $w : Y to E^*$ such that $p^*w = u$ and $f^*w = v$.
This universal property implies that pullbacks are unique up to canonical homeomorphism. Here is an explicit construction:
$$E^* = { (e,y) in E times Y mid p(e) = f(y) }, p^*(e,y) = y, f^*(e,y) = e .$$
If $f$ is the inclusion map of a subspace $Y subset X$, then we may also take $E^* = p^{-1}(Y) subset E, p^*(e) = p(e), f^*(e) = e$.
It is well-known that pullbacks of covering projections are covering projections. This means that if $p$ is a covering projection, then so is $p^*$. See Pullback of a covering map.
Lemma : Let $p : E to X$ be a covering projection and $f_0, f_1 : Y to X$ be homotopic maps. Then the pullback covering projections $p^*_k : E^*_k to Y$ along $f_k$ are equivalent which means that there exists a homeomorphism $h : E^*_0 to E^*_1$ such that $p^*_1h = p^*_0$.
Proof. Let $H : Y times I to X$ be a homotopy from $f_0$ to $f_1$ and for $k = 0,1$ let $i_k : Y times { k } hookrightarrow Y times I$ denote inclusion. Form the pullback $(p^* : E^* to Y times I, H^* : E^* to E)$ of $(p,H)$ and the pullbacks $(pi_k : E^*_k to Y times { k }, i^*_k : E^*_k hookrightarrow E^*)$ of $(p^*,i_k)$, where $E^*_k = (p^*)^{-1}(Y times { k }) $. Then we may assume that $p^*_k = r_k pi_k : E^*_k to Y$, where $r_k : Y times { k } to Y, r_k(y,k) = y$.
Now the map $i_0 pi_0 : E^*_0 to Y times I$ lifts to $i^*_0 : E^*_0 to E^*$. Hence the homotopy
$$G : E^*_0 times I to Y times I, G(e,t) = (p^*_0(e),t)$$
which satisfies $G_0 = i_0 pi_0$ lifts to a homotopy $G' : E^*_0 times I to E^*$. The map $G'_1 : E^*_0 to E^*$ has the property $G'_1(E^*_0) subset (p^*)^{-1}(Y times { 1 }) = i^*_1(E^*_1)$. Therefore we get a map $h : E^*_0 to E^*_1$ such that $p^*_1h = p^*_0$. By lifting $G' : E^*_1 times I to Y times I, G'(e,t) = (p^*_1(e),1-t)$ we obtain a map $h' : E^*_1 to E^*_0$ such that $p^*_0h' = p^*_1$. It is easy to see that $h' h = id$ (this follows from unique path lifting).
Now let $U subset X$ be open and contractible. This means that the inclusion $i : U to X$ is homotopic to a constant map $c : U to X, c(y) = x_0$. Hence the covering projection $p : p^{-1}(U) to U$ is equivalent to the pullback of $p$ along $c$. But the latter is easily seen to be a trivial covering $U times F to U$ (recall $E^* = { (e,y) in E times U mid p(e) = c(y) = x_0 } = { (e,y) in E times U mid e in p^{-1}(x_0)) } , p^*(e,y) = y$). This means that $U$ is evenly covered.
Note that it suffices to assume that $i : U to X$ is inessential which is weaker than $U$ contractible.
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
The answer is "yes". To see this, let us recall the concept of a pullback. Given a pair of maps $(p : E to X,f : Y to X)$, a pullback of $(p,f)$ is given by a pair of maps $(p^* : E^* to Y,f^*: E^* to E)$ such that
(1) $fp^* = pf^*$
(2) For any pair of maps $(u : Z to Y, v : Z to E)$ such that $fu = pv$ there exists a unique map $w : Y to E^*$ such that $p^*w = u$ and $f^*w = v$.
This universal property implies that pullbacks are unique up to canonical homeomorphism. Here is an explicit construction:
$$E^* = { (e,y) in E times Y mid p(e) = f(y) }, p^*(e,y) = y, f^*(e,y) = e .$$
If $f$ is the inclusion map of a subspace $Y subset X$, then we may also take $E^* = p^{-1}(Y) subset E, p^*(e) = p(e), f^*(e) = e$.
It is well-known that pullbacks of covering projections are covering projections. This means that if $p$ is a covering projection, then so is $p^*$. See Pullback of a covering map.
Lemma : Let $p : E to X$ be a covering projection and $f_0, f_1 : Y to X$ be homotopic maps. Then the pullback covering projections $p^*_k : E^*_k to Y$ along $f_k$ are equivalent which means that there exists a homeomorphism $h : E^*_0 to E^*_1$ such that $p^*_1h = p^*_0$.
Proof. Let $H : Y times I to X$ be a homotopy from $f_0$ to $f_1$ and for $k = 0,1$ let $i_k : Y times { k } hookrightarrow Y times I$ denote inclusion. Form the pullback $(p^* : E^* to Y times I, H^* : E^* to E)$ of $(p,H)$ and the pullbacks $(pi_k : E^*_k to Y times { k }, i^*_k : E^*_k hookrightarrow E^*)$ of $(p^*,i_k)$, where $E^*_k = (p^*)^{-1}(Y times { k }) $. Then we may assume that $p^*_k = r_k pi_k : E^*_k to Y$, where $r_k : Y times { k } to Y, r_k(y,k) = y$.
Now the map $i_0 pi_0 : E^*_0 to Y times I$ lifts to $i^*_0 : E^*_0 to E^*$. Hence the homotopy
$$G : E^*_0 times I to Y times I, G(e,t) = (p^*_0(e),t)$$
which satisfies $G_0 = i_0 pi_0$ lifts to a homotopy $G' : E^*_0 times I to E^*$. The map $G'_1 : E^*_0 to E^*$ has the property $G'_1(E^*_0) subset (p^*)^{-1}(Y times { 1 }) = i^*_1(E^*_1)$. Therefore we get a map $h : E^*_0 to E^*_1$ such that $p^*_1h = p^*_0$. By lifting $G' : E^*_1 times I to Y times I, G'(e,t) = (p^*_1(e),1-t)$ we obtain a map $h' : E^*_1 to E^*_0$ such that $p^*_0h' = p^*_1$. It is easy to see that $h' h = id$ (this follows from unique path lifting).
Now let $U subset X$ be open and contractible. This means that the inclusion $i : U to X$ is homotopic to a constant map $c : U to X, c(y) = x_0$. Hence the covering projection $p : p^{-1}(U) to U$ is equivalent to the pullback of $p$ along $c$. But the latter is easily seen to be a trivial covering $U times F to U$ (recall $E^* = { (e,y) in E times U mid p(e) = c(y) = x_0 } = { (e,y) in E times U mid e in p^{-1}(x_0)) } , p^*(e,y) = y$). This means that $U$ is evenly covered.
Note that it suffices to assume that $i : U to X$ is inessential which is weaker than $U$ contractible.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
The answer is "yes". To see this, let us recall the concept of a pullback. Given a pair of maps $(p : E to X,f : Y to X)$, a pullback of $(p,f)$ is given by a pair of maps $(p^* : E^* to Y,f^*: E^* to E)$ such that
(1) $fp^* = pf^*$
(2) For any pair of maps $(u : Z to Y, v : Z to E)$ such that $fu = pv$ there exists a unique map $w : Y to E^*$ such that $p^*w = u$ and $f^*w = v$.
This universal property implies that pullbacks are unique up to canonical homeomorphism. Here is an explicit construction:
$$E^* = { (e,y) in E times Y mid p(e) = f(y) }, p^*(e,y) = y, f^*(e,y) = e .$$
If $f$ is the inclusion map of a subspace $Y subset X$, then we may also take $E^* = p^{-1}(Y) subset E, p^*(e) = p(e), f^*(e) = e$.
It is well-known that pullbacks of covering projections are covering projections. This means that if $p$ is a covering projection, then so is $p^*$. See Pullback of a covering map.
Lemma : Let $p : E to X$ be a covering projection and $f_0, f_1 : Y to X$ be homotopic maps. Then the pullback covering projections $p^*_k : E^*_k to Y$ along $f_k$ are equivalent which means that there exists a homeomorphism $h : E^*_0 to E^*_1$ such that $p^*_1h = p^*_0$.
Proof. Let $H : Y times I to X$ be a homotopy from $f_0$ to $f_1$ and for $k = 0,1$ let $i_k : Y times { k } hookrightarrow Y times I$ denote inclusion. Form the pullback $(p^* : E^* to Y times I, H^* : E^* to E)$ of $(p,H)$ and the pullbacks $(pi_k : E^*_k to Y times { k }, i^*_k : E^*_k hookrightarrow E^*)$ of $(p^*,i_k)$, where $E^*_k = (p^*)^{-1}(Y times { k }) $. Then we may assume that $p^*_k = r_k pi_k : E^*_k to Y$, where $r_k : Y times { k } to Y, r_k(y,k) = y$.
Now the map $i_0 pi_0 : E^*_0 to Y times I$ lifts to $i^*_0 : E^*_0 to E^*$. Hence the homotopy
$$G : E^*_0 times I to Y times I, G(e,t) = (p^*_0(e),t)$$
which satisfies $G_0 = i_0 pi_0$ lifts to a homotopy $G' : E^*_0 times I to E^*$. The map $G'_1 : E^*_0 to E^*$ has the property $G'_1(E^*_0) subset (p^*)^{-1}(Y times { 1 }) = i^*_1(E^*_1)$. Therefore we get a map $h : E^*_0 to E^*_1$ such that $p^*_1h = p^*_0$. By lifting $G' : E^*_1 times I to Y times I, G'(e,t) = (p^*_1(e),1-t)$ we obtain a map $h' : E^*_1 to E^*_0$ such that $p^*_0h' = p^*_1$. It is easy to see that $h' h = id$ (this follows from unique path lifting).
Now let $U subset X$ be open and contractible. This means that the inclusion $i : U to X$ is homotopic to a constant map $c : U to X, c(y) = x_0$. Hence the covering projection $p : p^{-1}(U) to U$ is equivalent to the pullback of $p$ along $c$. But the latter is easily seen to be a trivial covering $U times F to U$ (recall $E^* = { (e,y) in E times U mid p(e) = c(y) = x_0 } = { (e,y) in E times U mid e in p^{-1}(x_0)) } , p^*(e,y) = y$). This means that $U$ is evenly covered.
Note that it suffices to assume that $i : U to X$ is inessential which is weaker than $U$ contractible.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
The answer is "yes". To see this, let us recall the concept of a pullback. Given a pair of maps $(p : E to X,f : Y to X)$, a pullback of $(p,f)$ is given by a pair of maps $(p^* : E^* to Y,f^*: E^* to E)$ such that
(1) $fp^* = pf^*$
(2) For any pair of maps $(u : Z to Y, v : Z to E)$ such that $fu = pv$ there exists a unique map $w : Y to E^*$ such that $p^*w = u$ and $f^*w = v$.
This universal property implies that pullbacks are unique up to canonical homeomorphism. Here is an explicit construction:
$$E^* = { (e,y) in E times Y mid p(e) = f(y) }, p^*(e,y) = y, f^*(e,y) = e .$$
If $f$ is the inclusion map of a subspace $Y subset X$, then we may also take $E^* = p^{-1}(Y) subset E, p^*(e) = p(e), f^*(e) = e$.
It is well-known that pullbacks of covering projections are covering projections. This means that if $p$ is a covering projection, then so is $p^*$. See Pullback of a covering map.
Lemma : Let $p : E to X$ be a covering projection and $f_0, f_1 : Y to X$ be homotopic maps. Then the pullback covering projections $p^*_k : E^*_k to Y$ along $f_k$ are equivalent which means that there exists a homeomorphism $h : E^*_0 to E^*_1$ such that $p^*_1h = p^*_0$.
Proof. Let $H : Y times I to X$ be a homotopy from $f_0$ to $f_1$ and for $k = 0,1$ let $i_k : Y times { k } hookrightarrow Y times I$ denote inclusion. Form the pullback $(p^* : E^* to Y times I, H^* : E^* to E)$ of $(p,H)$ and the pullbacks $(pi_k : E^*_k to Y times { k }, i^*_k : E^*_k hookrightarrow E^*)$ of $(p^*,i_k)$, where $E^*_k = (p^*)^{-1}(Y times { k }) $. Then we may assume that $p^*_k = r_k pi_k : E^*_k to Y$, where $r_k : Y times { k } to Y, r_k(y,k) = y$.
Now the map $i_0 pi_0 : E^*_0 to Y times I$ lifts to $i^*_0 : E^*_0 to E^*$. Hence the homotopy
$$G : E^*_0 times I to Y times I, G(e,t) = (p^*_0(e),t)$$
which satisfies $G_0 = i_0 pi_0$ lifts to a homotopy $G' : E^*_0 times I to E^*$. The map $G'_1 : E^*_0 to E^*$ has the property $G'_1(E^*_0) subset (p^*)^{-1}(Y times { 1 }) = i^*_1(E^*_1)$. Therefore we get a map $h : E^*_0 to E^*_1$ such that $p^*_1h = p^*_0$. By lifting $G' : E^*_1 times I to Y times I, G'(e,t) = (p^*_1(e),1-t)$ we obtain a map $h' : E^*_1 to E^*_0$ such that $p^*_0h' = p^*_1$. It is easy to see that $h' h = id$ (this follows from unique path lifting).
Now let $U subset X$ be open and contractible. This means that the inclusion $i : U to X$ is homotopic to a constant map $c : U to X, c(y) = x_0$. Hence the covering projection $p : p^{-1}(U) to U$ is equivalent to the pullback of $p$ along $c$. But the latter is easily seen to be a trivial covering $U times F to U$ (recall $E^* = { (e,y) in E times U mid p(e) = c(y) = x_0 } = { (e,y) in E times U mid e in p^{-1}(x_0)) } , p^*(e,y) = y$). This means that $U$ is evenly covered.
Note that it suffices to assume that $i : U to X$ is inessential which is weaker than $U$ contractible.
The answer is "yes". To see this, let us recall the concept of a pullback. Given a pair of maps $(p : E to X,f : Y to X)$, a pullback of $(p,f)$ is given by a pair of maps $(p^* : E^* to Y,f^*: E^* to E)$ such that
(1) $fp^* = pf^*$
(2) For any pair of maps $(u : Z to Y, v : Z to E)$ such that $fu = pv$ there exists a unique map $w : Y to E^*$ such that $p^*w = u$ and $f^*w = v$.
This universal property implies that pullbacks are unique up to canonical homeomorphism. Here is an explicit construction:
$$E^* = { (e,y) in E times Y mid p(e) = f(y) }, p^*(e,y) = y, f^*(e,y) = e .$$
If $f$ is the inclusion map of a subspace $Y subset X$, then we may also take $E^* = p^{-1}(Y) subset E, p^*(e) = p(e), f^*(e) = e$.
It is well-known that pullbacks of covering projections are covering projections. This means that if $p$ is a covering projection, then so is $p^*$. See Pullback of a covering map.
Lemma : Let $p : E to X$ be a covering projection and $f_0, f_1 : Y to X$ be homotopic maps. Then the pullback covering projections $p^*_k : E^*_k to Y$ along $f_k$ are equivalent which means that there exists a homeomorphism $h : E^*_0 to E^*_1$ such that $p^*_1h = p^*_0$.
Proof. Let $H : Y times I to X$ be a homotopy from $f_0$ to $f_1$ and for $k = 0,1$ let $i_k : Y times { k } hookrightarrow Y times I$ denote inclusion. Form the pullback $(p^* : E^* to Y times I, H^* : E^* to E)$ of $(p,H)$ and the pullbacks $(pi_k : E^*_k to Y times { k }, i^*_k : E^*_k hookrightarrow E^*)$ of $(p^*,i_k)$, where $E^*_k = (p^*)^{-1}(Y times { k }) $. Then we may assume that $p^*_k = r_k pi_k : E^*_k to Y$, where $r_k : Y times { k } to Y, r_k(y,k) = y$.
Now the map $i_0 pi_0 : E^*_0 to Y times I$ lifts to $i^*_0 : E^*_0 to E^*$. Hence the homotopy
$$G : E^*_0 times I to Y times I, G(e,t) = (p^*_0(e),t)$$
which satisfies $G_0 = i_0 pi_0$ lifts to a homotopy $G' : E^*_0 times I to E^*$. The map $G'_1 : E^*_0 to E^*$ has the property $G'_1(E^*_0) subset (p^*)^{-1}(Y times { 1 }) = i^*_1(E^*_1)$. Therefore we get a map $h : E^*_0 to E^*_1$ such that $p^*_1h = p^*_0$. By lifting $G' : E^*_1 times I to Y times I, G'(e,t) = (p^*_1(e),1-t)$ we obtain a map $h' : E^*_1 to E^*_0$ such that $p^*_0h' = p^*_1$. It is easy to see that $h' h = id$ (this follows from unique path lifting).
Now let $U subset X$ be open and contractible. This means that the inclusion $i : U to X$ is homotopic to a constant map $c : U to X, c(y) = x_0$. Hence the covering projection $p : p^{-1}(U) to U$ is equivalent to the pullback of $p$ along $c$. But the latter is easily seen to be a trivial covering $U times F to U$ (recall $E^* = { (e,y) in E times U mid p(e) = c(y) = x_0 } = { (e,y) in E times U mid e in p^{-1}(x_0)) } , p^*(e,y) = y$). This means that $U$ is evenly covered.
Note that it suffices to assume that $i : U to X$ is inessential which is weaker than $U$ contractible.
answered Nov 25 at 13:55
Paul Frost
8,1041527
8,1041527
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2999698%2fare-contractible-open-subsets-always-evenly-covered%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
Generally, covering spaces only behave well under some local conditions on the space, e.g. locally path connected and semilocally simply connected. For instance, if your space is locally path-connected, being semilocally simply connected is necessary and sufficient for the existence of a universal cover.
– Joshua Mundinger
Nov 17 at 20:17
@JoshuaMundinger You're completely right, but what you said is somehow off-topic. Under some local conditions, the space does behave well, as I have mentioned in the question. However, I'm looking for a proof or disproof of the statement without those local conditions. ps. I don't think it has something to do with universal cover.
– Y. Hu
Nov 18 at 13:44