Cannonical group isomorpshim for fundamental group in a path connected space.












1












$begingroup$


My question is related to this one which tells us that fundamental group $pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ is abelian $textit{iff}$ for every pair $alpha$ and $beta$ of paths from $x_0$ to $x_1$, we have the same group isomorphism.



let $[I,X]$ denote the set of homotopy classes of maps of $I$ into $X$, where $I=[0,1]$. If $X$ is path connected, we can easily prove that $[I,X]$ has only one element, which mean that every path in $X$ is homotopic to each other (even a loop at $x_0 in X$ is homotopic to path $p:x_0 rightarrow x_1$).



using this fact,
$hat{alpha}([f]) = [bar{alpha}]*[f]*[alpha] = [bar{beta}]*[f]*[beta]=hat{beta}([f]) $, wehre $alpha$ and $beta$ denote paths in path connected space $X$ ($alpha simeq beta Rightarrow [alpha]= [beta] $ ). So, it seems that there is no need for the fundamental group $pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ to be abelian.



Also, for the proof that $pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ is abelian, if you take 2 loops at $x_0$, then $[f]*[g]=[g]*[f]$ by virtue of being two paths in path-connected space $X$.



Am I wrong here? Where am I wrong?






algebraic-topology fundamental-groups







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    You are confusing free homotopies with base-point preserving homotopies.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 1 '18 at 6:48










  • $begingroup$
    I read this, but I am not sure how this concept of free homotopies and base-point preserving homotopies answer my question. One of the points that I still can't find any fault is that if $alpha, beta : x_0 rightarrow x_1$, then $alpha simeq beta $(since $X$ is path connected) which imply that $ [alpha] = [beta]$ and hence, $hat{alpha}= hat{beta}$
    $endgroup$
    – MUH
    Dec 1 '18 at 8:29












  • $begingroup$
    @LordSharktheUnknown Also, if the free homotopies hold true, and given the base-point maps, (for e.g. here $hat{alpha},hat{beta}$, which are base-point maps at $x_1$ or $textit{loops}$ at $x_1$), doesn't it imply $hat{alpha}=hat{beta}$
    $endgroup$
    – MUH
    Dec 1 '18 at 8:40


















1












$begingroup$


My question is related to this one which tells us that fundamental group $pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ is abelian $textit{iff}$ for every pair $alpha$ and $beta$ of paths from $x_0$ to $x_1$, we have the same group isomorphism.



let $[I,X]$ denote the set of homotopy classes of maps of $I$ into $X$, where $I=[0,1]$. If $X$ is path connected, we can easily prove that $[I,X]$ has only one element, which mean that every path in $X$ is homotopic to each other (even a loop at $x_0 in X$ is homotopic to path $p:x_0 rightarrow x_1$).



using this fact,
$hat{alpha}([f]) = [bar{alpha}]*[f]*[alpha] = [bar{beta}]*[f]*[beta]=hat{beta}([f]) $, wehre $alpha$ and $beta$ denote paths in path connected space $X$ ($alpha simeq beta Rightarrow [alpha]= [beta] $ ). So, it seems that there is no need for the fundamental group $pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ to be abelian.



Also, for the proof that $pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ is abelian, if you take 2 loops at $x_0$, then $[f]*[g]=[g]*[f]$ by virtue of being two paths in path-connected space $X$.



Am I wrong here? Where am I wrong?






algebraic-topology fundamental-groups







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    You are confusing free homotopies with base-point preserving homotopies.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 1 '18 at 6:48










  • $begingroup$
    I read this, but I am not sure how this concept of free homotopies and base-point preserving homotopies answer my question. One of the points that I still can't find any fault is that if $alpha, beta : x_0 rightarrow x_1$, then $alpha simeq beta $(since $X$ is path connected) which imply that $ [alpha] = [beta]$ and hence, $hat{alpha}= hat{beta}$
    $endgroup$
    – MUH
    Dec 1 '18 at 8:29












  • $begingroup$
    @LordSharktheUnknown Also, if the free homotopies hold true, and given the base-point maps, (for e.g. here $hat{alpha},hat{beta}$, which are base-point maps at $x_1$ or $textit{loops}$ at $x_1$), doesn't it imply $hat{alpha}=hat{beta}$
    $endgroup$
    – MUH
    Dec 1 '18 at 8:40
















1












1








1





$begingroup$


My question is related to this one which tells us that fundamental group $pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ is abelian $textit{iff}$ for every pair $alpha$ and $beta$ of paths from $x_0$ to $x_1$, we have the same group isomorphism.



let $[I,X]$ denote the set of homotopy classes of maps of $I$ into $X$, where $I=[0,1]$. If $X$ is path connected, we can easily prove that $[I,X]$ has only one element, which mean that every path in $X$ is homotopic to each other (even a loop at $x_0 in X$ is homotopic to path $p:x_0 rightarrow x_1$).



using this fact,
$hat{alpha}([f]) = [bar{alpha}]*[f]*[alpha] = [bar{beta}]*[f]*[beta]=hat{beta}([f]) $, wehre $alpha$ and $beta$ denote paths in path connected space $X$ ($alpha simeq beta Rightarrow [alpha]= [beta] $ ). So, it seems that there is no need for the fundamental group $pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ to be abelian.



Also, for the proof that $pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ is abelian, if you take 2 loops at $x_0$, then $[f]*[g]=[g]*[f]$ by virtue of being two paths in path-connected space $X$.



Am I wrong here? Where am I wrong?






algebraic-topology fundamental-groups







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




My question is related to this one which tells us that fundamental group $pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ is abelian $textit{iff}$ for every pair $alpha$ and $beta$ of paths from $x_0$ to $x_1$, we have the same group isomorphism.



let $[I,X]$ denote the set of homotopy classes of maps of $I$ into $X$, where $I=[0,1]$. If $X$ is path connected, we can easily prove that $[I,X]$ has only one element, which mean that every path in $X$ is homotopic to each other (even a loop at $x_0 in X$ is homotopic to path $p:x_0 rightarrow x_1$).



using this fact,
$hat{alpha}([f]) = [bar{alpha}]*[f]*[alpha] = [bar{beta}]*[f]*[beta]=hat{beta}([f]) $, wehre $alpha$ and $beta$ denote paths in path connected space $X$ ($alpha simeq beta Rightarrow [alpha]= [beta] $ ). So, it seems that there is no need for the fundamental group $pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ to be abelian.



Also, for the proof that $pi_{1}(X,x_0)$ is abelian, if you take 2 loops at $x_0$, then $[f]*[g]=[g]*[f]$ by virtue of being two paths in path-connected space $X$.



Am I wrong here? Where am I wrong?






algebraic-topology fundamental-groups




algebraic-topology fundamental-groups






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 1 '18 at 7:36







MUH

















asked Dec 1 '18 at 6:19









MUHMUH

395216




395216












  • $begingroup$
    You are confusing free homotopies with base-point preserving homotopies.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 1 '18 at 6:48










  • $begingroup$
    I read this, but I am not sure how this concept of free homotopies and base-point preserving homotopies answer my question. One of the points that I still can't find any fault is that if $alpha, beta : x_0 rightarrow x_1$, then $alpha simeq beta $(since $X$ is path connected) which imply that $ [alpha] = [beta]$ and hence, $hat{alpha}= hat{beta}$
    $endgroup$
    – MUH
    Dec 1 '18 at 8:29












  • $begingroup$
    @LordSharktheUnknown Also, if the free homotopies hold true, and given the base-point maps, (for e.g. here $hat{alpha},hat{beta}$, which are base-point maps at $x_1$ or $textit{loops}$ at $x_1$), doesn't it imply $hat{alpha}=hat{beta}$
    $endgroup$
    – MUH
    Dec 1 '18 at 8:40




















  • $begingroup$
    You are confusing free homotopies with base-point preserving homotopies.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 1 '18 at 6:48










  • $begingroup$
    I read this, but I am not sure how this concept of free homotopies and base-point preserving homotopies answer my question. One of the points that I still can't find any fault is that if $alpha, beta : x_0 rightarrow x_1$, then $alpha simeq beta $(since $X$ is path connected) which imply that $ [alpha] = [beta]$ and hence, $hat{alpha}= hat{beta}$
    $endgroup$
    – MUH
    Dec 1 '18 at 8:29












  • $begingroup$
    @LordSharktheUnknown Also, if the free homotopies hold true, and given the base-point maps, (for e.g. here $hat{alpha},hat{beta}$, which are base-point maps at $x_1$ or $textit{loops}$ at $x_1$), doesn't it imply $hat{alpha}=hat{beta}$
    $endgroup$
    – MUH
    Dec 1 '18 at 8:40


















$begingroup$
You are confusing free homotopies with base-point preserving homotopies.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Dec 1 '18 at 6:48




$begingroup$
You are confusing free homotopies with base-point preserving homotopies.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Dec 1 '18 at 6:48












$begingroup$
I read this, but I am not sure how this concept of free homotopies and base-point preserving homotopies answer my question. One of the points that I still can't find any fault is that if $alpha, beta : x_0 rightarrow x_1$, then $alpha simeq beta $(since $X$ is path connected) which imply that $ [alpha] = [beta]$ and hence, $hat{alpha}= hat{beta}$
$endgroup$
– MUH
Dec 1 '18 at 8:29






$begingroup$
I read this, but I am not sure how this concept of free homotopies and base-point preserving homotopies answer my question. One of the points that I still can't find any fault is that if $alpha, beta : x_0 rightarrow x_1$, then $alpha simeq beta $(since $X$ is path connected) which imply that $ [alpha] = [beta]$ and hence, $hat{alpha}= hat{beta}$
$endgroup$
– MUH
Dec 1 '18 at 8:29














$begingroup$
@LordSharktheUnknown Also, if the free homotopies hold true, and given the base-point maps, (for e.g. here $hat{alpha},hat{beta}$, which are base-point maps at $x_1$ or $textit{loops}$ at $x_1$), doesn't it imply $hat{alpha}=hat{beta}$
$endgroup$
– MUH
Dec 1 '18 at 8:40






$begingroup$
@LordSharktheUnknown Also, if the free homotopies hold true, and given the base-point maps, (for e.g. here $hat{alpha},hat{beta}$, which are base-point maps at $x_1$ or $textit{loops}$ at $x_1$), doesn't it imply $hat{alpha}=hat{beta}$
$endgroup$
– MUH
Dec 1 '18 at 8:40












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

Your conclusion that if $alpha, beta : x_0 rightarrow x_1$, then $alpha simeq_p beta$(since $X$ is path-connected) is wrong. (I think you mean path homotopy). It is true that any two paths in path connected space is homotpic to each other but not path-homotopy.



$p:x_0 rightarrow x_1$ and $q:y_0 rightarrow y_1$ are any two paths in path-connected space $X$. Then $p simeq e_{x_0}$ and $q simeq e_{y_0} $ and since, $e_{x_0} simeq e_{y_{0}} Rightarrow p simeq q $. But this doesn't mean that $p simeq_p q$. There is a difference between path-homotopy and homotopy that path-homotopy has to satisfy additional criteria of initial point and final point for each $t in I$, which clearly doesn't get satisfied in the proof of homotopy ($textit{free homotopy}$).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    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%2f3021053%2fcannonical-group-isomorpshim-for-fundamental-group-in-a-path-connected-space%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









    1












    $begingroup$

    Your conclusion that if $alpha, beta : x_0 rightarrow x_1$, then $alpha simeq_p beta$(since $X$ is path-connected) is wrong. (I think you mean path homotopy). It is true that any two paths in path connected space is homotpic to each other but not path-homotopy.



    $p:x_0 rightarrow x_1$ and $q:y_0 rightarrow y_1$ are any two paths in path-connected space $X$. Then $p simeq e_{x_0}$ and $q simeq e_{y_0} $ and since, $e_{x_0} simeq e_{y_{0}} Rightarrow p simeq q $. But this doesn't mean that $p simeq_p q$. There is a difference between path-homotopy and homotopy that path-homotopy has to satisfy additional criteria of initial point and final point for each $t in I$, which clearly doesn't get satisfied in the proof of homotopy ($textit{free homotopy}$).






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      Your conclusion that if $alpha, beta : x_0 rightarrow x_1$, then $alpha simeq_p beta$(since $X$ is path-connected) is wrong. (I think you mean path homotopy). It is true that any two paths in path connected space is homotpic to each other but not path-homotopy.



      $p:x_0 rightarrow x_1$ and $q:y_0 rightarrow y_1$ are any two paths in path-connected space $X$. Then $p simeq e_{x_0}$ and $q simeq e_{y_0} $ and since, $e_{x_0} simeq e_{y_{0}} Rightarrow p simeq q $. But this doesn't mean that $p simeq_p q$. There is a difference between path-homotopy and homotopy that path-homotopy has to satisfy additional criteria of initial point and final point for each $t in I$, which clearly doesn't get satisfied in the proof of homotopy ($textit{free homotopy}$).






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        Your conclusion that if $alpha, beta : x_0 rightarrow x_1$, then $alpha simeq_p beta$(since $X$ is path-connected) is wrong. (I think you mean path homotopy). It is true that any two paths in path connected space is homotpic to each other but not path-homotopy.



        $p:x_0 rightarrow x_1$ and $q:y_0 rightarrow y_1$ are any two paths in path-connected space $X$. Then $p simeq e_{x_0}$ and $q simeq e_{y_0} $ and since, $e_{x_0} simeq e_{y_{0}} Rightarrow p simeq q $. But this doesn't mean that $p simeq_p q$. There is a difference between path-homotopy and homotopy that path-homotopy has to satisfy additional criteria of initial point and final point for each $t in I$, which clearly doesn't get satisfied in the proof of homotopy ($textit{free homotopy}$).






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Your conclusion that if $alpha, beta : x_0 rightarrow x_1$, then $alpha simeq_p beta$(since $X$ is path-connected) is wrong. (I think you mean path homotopy). It is true that any two paths in path connected space is homotpic to each other but not path-homotopy.



        $p:x_0 rightarrow x_1$ and $q:y_0 rightarrow y_1$ are any two paths in path-connected space $X$. Then $p simeq e_{x_0}$ and $q simeq e_{y_0} $ and since, $e_{x_0} simeq e_{y_{0}} Rightarrow p simeq q $. But this doesn't mean that $p simeq_p q$. There is a difference between path-homotopy and homotopy that path-homotopy has to satisfy additional criteria of initial point and final point for each $t in I$, which clearly doesn't get satisfied in the proof of homotopy ($textit{free homotopy}$).







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Dec 1 '18 at 9:22

























        answered Dec 1 '18 at 9:12









        bourbaki22034bourbaki22034

        614




        614






























            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%2f3021053%2fcannonical-group-isomorpshim-for-fundamental-group-in-a-path-connected-space%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

            Ellipse (mathématiques)

            Image
            Pour les articles homonymes, voir Ellipse. L'ellipse est le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante. Section du cône ou projection du cercle. En géométrie, une ellipse est une courbe plane fermée obtenue par l’intersection d’un cône de révolution avec un plan, à condition que celui-ci coupe l'axe de rotation du cône ou du cylindre : c'est une conique d'excentricité strictement comprise entre 0 et 1. On peut également la définir comme le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante (sa construction par la méthode du jardinier est très simple). Dans la vie courante, l’ellipse est la forme qu'on perçoit en regardant un cercle en perspective, ou la figure formée par l’ombre d'un disque sur une surface plane. On retrouve aussi, en première approximation [ 1 ] , des ellipses dans les trajectoires des corps célestes (planètes, comètes ou satellites arti...
            Read more

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            Image
            up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2 ...
            Read more

            Mont Emei

            Image
            Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog...
            Read more