Construct 2-Fold Cover of M Using H^1(M;Z2)

  • Thread starter wofsy
  • Start date
In summary: Inverse image of H1(M;Z) -> Z2.Right! So the subgroup of index 2 in the fundamental group is the kernel of the homomorphism from M to Z2.
  • #1
wofsy
726
0
if H^1(M;Z2) has a non-zero element then one can use this to construct a 2 fold cover of M. How does this work?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Try starting with M = circle, and see what you can manage.

(P.S. What choices of 'definition' of H1(M; Z2) do you have available?)
 
  • #3
Hurkyl said:
Try starting with M = circle, and see what you can manage.

(P.S. What choices of 'definition' of H1(M; Z2) do you have available?)

For the circle that's easy but it's fundamental group is abelian. I'll take any definition of H^1(M;Z2) that you like. How about singular homology.
 
  • #4
So you meant H1, not H1?

Sure it's easy to construct a 2-fold cover of a circle. But can you do so in a way that relates to the generator of the homology group?
 
  • #5
Hurkyl said:
So you meant H1, not H1?

Sure it's easy to construct a 2-fold cover of a circle. But can you do so in a way that relates to the generator of the homology group?

Well either - but I meant cohomology.
 
  • #6
Ah. So then, the elements of H1(M, Z2) are named by functions from curves on M to Z2 that have certain properties.

(Ponders a bit to think of there's an easy way to directly turn such a function into a topological space, and then to wonder if I can make that into a cover)


Anyways, what sort of mental picture do you have about covering spaces? For this problem, in order to construct something, we would probably want to name points in the covering space by points in the base space + some additional data. (An element of Z2 seems like an obvious choice) Do you have any mental pictures of covering spaces that work in that fashion?

If the circle is too trivial for ya, other familiar examples you might consider are Riemann surfaces -- e.g. the double-valued complex sqrt function. (Or maybe the complex log function, although that has infinite degree, rather than being a double cover)


I suppose, maybe a different approach is to start thinking about how to build things out of simplices.
 
  • #7
If the fundamental group is abelian then a non-zero element of H^1(M:Z2) corresponds to a subgroup of index 2, the kernel of the homomorphism into Z2. The universal covering space mod this subgroup of index 2 gives you the 2 fold covering space.

If the fundamental group is not abelian I am not sure. I guess what you are implying is that it is essentially the same argument. Let me think about this.
 
  • #8
Hah! I didn't even think of doing something like that -- I had a much more lowbrow construction in mind. I bet your approach is easier if you have the relevant facts fresh in your mind.


P.S. If I recall correctly, in any group (even nonabelian ones), any subgroup of index 2 is normal.
 
  • #9
Actually -- yes, I think that is the construction I had in mind. I was just trying to construct it in a much more complicated fashion.

You can use the cohomology element directly to define the equivalence relation on the universal cover, rather than trying to do it in a roundabout way by constructing subgroups of the fundamental group.

The cohomology element tels you when two paths from the same basepoint in the universal cover ought to lead to the same point in the double cover
 
  • #10
Hurkyl said:
Actually -- yes, I think that is the construction I had in mind. I was just trying to construct it in a much more complicated fashion.

You can use the cohomology element directly to define the equivalence relation on the universal cover, rather than trying to do it in a roundabout way by constructing subgroups of the fundamental group.

The cohomology element tels you when two paths from the same basepoint in the universal cover ought to lead to the same point in the double cover

but I think your more complicated construction will be needed for the whole proof.
 
  • #11
Well, my complicated construction was trying to build the space from scratch. After choosing a basepoint, I expected that I should somehow be able to name points in the double cover by paths in the base space. I hadn't worked out exactly what data was needed to name points, exactly how to tell what data corresponded to the same point, and exactly how to specify the topology. But once you brought the universal cover into it, the way forward becomes clearer, because someone already worked the details out for us in that case. Rather than trying to build my own, I can just start with that space!
 
  • #12
Hurkyl said:
Well, my complicated construction was trying to build the space from scratch. After choosing a basepoint, I expected that I should somehow be able to name points in the double cover by paths in the base space. I hadn't worked out exactly what data was needed to name points, exactly how to tell what data corresponded to the same point, and exactly how to specify the topology. But once you brought the universal cover into it, the way forward becomes clearer, because someone already worked the details out for us in that case. :smile:

Right. I think your point that a subgroup of index 2 must be normal may be the key.

You know that there is a subgroup of index 2 in the fundamental group abelianized. Its inverse image in the entire fundamental group is a subgroup of index 2.

By inverse image I mean in the exact sequence 1 -> Commutator subgroup of fundamental group - > fundamental group -> H1(M;Z) -> 0
 
  • #13
Hurkyl said:
Well, my complicated construction was trying to build the space from scratch. After choosing a basepoint, I expected that I should somehow be able to name points in the double cover by paths in the base space. I hadn't worked out exactly what data was needed to name points, exactly how to tell what data corresponded to the same point, and exactly how to specify the topology. But once you brought the universal cover into it, the way forward becomes clearer, because someone already worked the details out for us in that case. Rather than trying to build my own, I can just start with that space!

BTW I want to thank you for guiding this discussion. Much appreciated.
 
  • #14
A [itex]Z_2[/itex]-valued 1-form [itex]\Omega[/itex] can be visualized as an n-1-dimensional submanifold N. The value of [itex]\Omega[/itex] on a curve [itex]\gamma[/itex] is given by

[tex]\Omega(\gamma) =[/tex] number of crossings with N mod 2.

If the form is closed then the corresponding submanifold is a cycle. If the form is exact, the submanifold is a boundary.

Since [itex]H^1(M,Z_2)[/itex] is nontrivial, there is a 1-form which is closed but not exact and the corresponding submanifold is a cycle that does not bound. Now take two copies of M, cut them along such a nonbounding cycle and glue them together. The resulting manifold is a two fold cover.
 
  • #15
OrderOfThings said:
A [itex]Z_2[/itex]-valued 1-form [itex]\Omega[/itex] can be visualized as an n-1-dimensional submanifold N. The value of [itex]\Omega[/itex] on a curve [itex]\gamma[/itex] is given by

[tex]\Omega(\gamma) =[/tex] number of crossings with N mod 2.

If the form is closed then the corresponding submanifold is a cycle. If the form is exact, the submanifold is a boundary.

Since [itex]H^1(M,Z_2)[/itex] is nontrivial, there is a 1-form which is closed but not exact and the corresponding submanifold is a cycle that does not bound. Now take two copies of M, cut them along such a nonbounding cycle and glue them together. The resulting manifold is a two fold cover.

you appeal to a lot of machinery. How do you know that every element of H^1(M;Z2) determines a hypersurface? I guess you mean that the Poincare dual is a hypersurface.

I also don't see how the covering is necessarily two fold along the gluing boundary. Here it seems that it can be 1 fold. For instance, if I cut a Klein bottle along a Moebius band circle I get a manifold with connected boundary. What happens if you cut RP3 along an equatorial (quotient of an equatorial sphere in S3) projective plane. Isn't this also a manifold with connected boundary?
 
  • #16
OrderOfThings said:
A [itex]Z_2[/itex]-valued 1-form [itex]\Omega[/itex] can be visualized as an n-1-dimensional submanifold N. The value of [itex]\Omega[/itex] on a curve [itex]\gamma[/itex] is given by

[tex]\Omega(\gamma) =[/tex] number of crossings with N mod 2.

If the form is closed then the corresponding submanifold is a cycle. If the form is exact, the submanifold is a boundary.

Since [itex]H^1(M,Z_2)[/itex] is nontrivial, there is a 1-form which is closed but not exact and the corresponding submanifold is a cycle that does not bound. Now take two copies of M, cut them along such a nonbounding cycle and glue them together. The resulting manifold is a two fold cover.

How would you do this construction for a circle?
 
  • #17
Yes, it seems the gluing most be done cross-wise. Maybe it is possible to reason like this: The nonbounding cycle will also have nontrivial homotopy and will admit an antipodal fibration. This fibration gives a cross-wise gluing?
 
Last edited:
  • #18
OrderOfThings said:
Yes, it seems the gluing most be done cross-wise. Maybe it is possible to reason like this: The nonbounding cycle will also have nontrivial homotopy and will admit an antipodal fibration. This fibration gives a cross-wise gluing?

can you elaborate this idea?
 
  • #19
The two manifolds should be glued together by a two fold covering of the nonbounding cycle.
 
  • #20
There may be a characteristic classes approach to this. If I recall correctly, the presence of such an element guarantees the existence of a non-trivial line bundle over M. Since a non-trivial line bundle is necessarily non-orientable, you can take the oriented double cover and the zero section will be a double cover of M.
 
  • #21
zhentil said:
There may be a characteristic classes approach to this. If I recall correctly, the presence of such an element guarantees the existence of a non-trivial line bundle over M. Since a non-trivial line bundle is necessarily non-orientable, you can take the oriented double cover and the zero section will be a double cover of M.

This argument seems right but I think you are just restating the problem in terms of bundles.
 
  • #22
Since we are speaking of bundles - here is a related problem. Suppose I have a circle bundle over some space. When is there a 2 fold covering by another circle bundle in which fibers are mapped to fibers?
 
  • #23
That would be possible if (and only if?) the base space has a two fold covering.

But was the gluing in constructing the two fold cover clear enough? It should be done cross-wise: Cut the two manifolds along the nonbounding cycle. Label the two ends A1 and B1 on the first manifold and A2, B2 on the second. Then glue A1-B2 and B1-A2.
 
  • #24
OrderOfThings said:
That would be possible if (and only if?) the base space has a two fold covering.

But was the gluing in constructing the two fold cover clear enough? It should be done cross-wise: Cut the two manifolds along the nonbounding cycle. Label the two ends A1 and B1 on the first manifold and A2, B2 on the second. Then glue A1-B2 and B1-A2.

This workd if the cut creates two boundaries. But what if it does not?
 
  • #25
wofsy said:
This argument seems right but I think you are just restating the problem in terms of bundles.
I thought you had already figured it out - I was trying to rephrase it terms you might be more familiar with. The natural projection from the fundamental group gives you an index 2 subgroup in the fundamental group, which a fortiori is normal. In this case, modding out the universal cover by this subgroup gives you a two-sheeted covering space of M. (cf. Hatcher's algebraic topology book, pp. 70-80).
 
  • #26
zhentil said:
I thought you had already figured it out - I was trying to rephrase it terms you might be more familiar with. The natural projection from the fundamental group gives you an index 2 subgroup in the fundamental group, which a fortiori is normal. In this case, modding out the universal cover by this subgroup gives you a two-sheeted covering space of M. (cf. Hatcher's algebraic topology book, pp. 70-80).

Yes - I thought you were trying to restate the gluing argument - my mistake - I also think that the bundle argument which is very neat does not have an independent proof - you need to derive it from the other arguments - if I am wrong about this I would love to see the direct bundle argument - it would be very cool -
 
  • #27
wofsy said:
This workd if the cut creates two boundaries. But what if it does not?
I was wondering that too. It's clear (?) that locally the cut has two different sides, and in special cases it's obvious this holds true globally -- but it's not immediately obvious to me how to prove it in general. I want to show that if I construct a path from one side to the other while remaining in neighborhoods of the boundary, then either I must pass through the cut or the cut actually has a boundary...
 
  • #28
For example, consider the projective plane. Any line is a cycle that is not a boundary -- however it only has one side, and so OrderOfThings's construction can't work.

So, it is not enough to simply have a hypersurface that is a cycle and not a boundary -- the fact this cycle has an associated element of H1(M, Z2) has to be used in an essential way.

I assume orientability is the key -- I think if the manifold and hypersurface are orientable, that immediately separates defines two distinct sides to the cut.
 
  • #29
Hurkyl said:
For example, consider the projective plane. Any line is a cycle that is not a boundary -- however it only has one side, and so OrderOfThings's construction can't work.

So, it is not enough to simply have a hypersurface that is a cycle and not a boundary -- the fact this cycle has an associated element of H1(M, Z2) has to be used in an essential way.

I assume orientability is the key -- I think if the manifold and hypersurface are orientable, that immediately separates defines two distinct sides to the cut.

this seems right
 
  • #30
On the other hand... (silly me for not noticing this yesterday)

I think the fact the projective plane's cut has one side allows a slightly simpler gluing construction: just attach another copy on the other side.

My suspicion now is that in every example, the cut is a disjoint union of one-sided and two-sided cuts.
 
  • #31
That's right. Just glue the two manifolds together. (But to be able to visualize this you might have turn one of the manifolds inside out.) When you cut along the nonbounding cycle, the resulting boundary is a two fold cover of the cycle. If the cycle is orientable then the cover is disconnected and if it is not orientable the cover will be connected.

Example. Start with P3 and cut along a P2-hypersurface. This will result in a ball with S2-boundary, say [itex]\{|(x,y,z)|\leq 1\}[/itex]. Take the other manifold to be the ball [itex]\{|(x,y,z)|\geq 1\}\cup \{\infty\}[/itex]. Gluing them together results in S3. (See http://sketchesoftopology.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/two-balls/" [Broken] for a nice animation.)

Yet another way to think of the gluing, is to again start with two copies of the manifold and consider the nonbounding cycle to be a "magic membrane". If you pass through it you do not arrive on the other side, but instead the other side of the membrane in the other manifold.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Oh bah -- I confused myself by trying to picture things, didn't I? One only needs to specify the gluing locally, so the fact that the cut locally splits the manifold into two pieces is all you need. Alas, there's a few technical details I would to work out (e.g. that the cut really can be covered by open balls that are cut in half -- I'm worried about the possibility of some pathological behavior).

That's why I really liked the universal covering space approach -- I really want to take advantage of something whose details have already been worked out (and is in the domain of things I know a little about). But I suppose I ought to be able to understand this way too...
 
Last edited:
  • #33
OrderOfThings said:
That's right. Just glue the two manifolds together. (But to be able to visualize this you might have turn one of the manifolds inside out.) When you cut along the nonbounding cycle, the resulting boundary is a two fold cover of the cycle. If the cycle is orientable then the cover is disconnected and if it is not orientable the cover will be connected.

Example. Start with P3 and cut along a P2-hypersurface. This will result in a ball with S2-boundary, say [itex]\{|(x,y,z)|\leq 1\}[/itex]. Take the other manifold to be the ball [itex]\{|(x,y,z)|\geq 1\}\cup \{\infty\}[/itex]. Gluing them together results in S3. (See http://sketchesoftopology.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/two-balls/" [Broken] for a nice animation.)

Yet another way to think of the gluing, is to again start with two copies of the manifold and consider the nonbounding cycle to be a "magic membrane". If you pass through it you do not arrive on the other side, but instead the other side of the membrane in the other manifold.
Now I see what your are saying. So it is like the classical thing of cutting a Moebius band down the middle and getting a twisted cylinder of twice the length.

This makes me think that the general situation is: start with a manifold with boundary and a fixed point free involution of the boundary. The quotient space by the involution contains a hypersurface that is covered twice by the boundary. the hypersurface's Poincare dual is the corresponding element of H^1(quotient;Z2).

It would be interesting to do some examples. If you know of any good ones I'd like to see them.

For starters I am wondering what you get from involutions of a torus as the boundary of a solid torus. Suppose I rotate in 1 direction by 180 degrees and reflect in the other. The seam manifold will be a Klein bottle. What if I just rotate 180 degrees in one direction?

What if I take a solid Klein bottle and take the involution that rotates 180 degrees along its fiber direction?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What is a "2-fold cover" in mathematics?

A 2-fold cover is a mathematical concept that refers to a covering space of a topological space, where each point in the original space is covered by two points in the covering space. In other words, it is a map that takes each point in a space and "covers" it with two points in a different space.

2. What is the significance of constructing a 2-fold cover of a space?

Constructing a 2-fold cover of a space can provide insight into the topology and geometry of the original space. It can also be used to study the fundamental group of the space, which is a fundamental concept in algebraic topology.

3. What is H^1(M;Z2) in this context?

H^1(M;Z2) refers to the first cohomology group of the space M with coefficients in the group Z2. In simpler terms, it is a mathematical tool used to study the topology of M by assigning algebraic structures to it.

4. How is Construct 2-Fold Cover of M Using H^1(M;Z2) related to algebraic topology?

Constructing a 2-fold cover of a space using H^1(M;Z2) is a technique commonly used in algebraic topology to study the fundamental group and other algebraic structures of a space. It allows for a deeper understanding of the topology and geometry of a space through algebraic methods.

5. Can this concept be applied to other spaces besides M?

Yes, the concept of constructing a 2-fold cover using H^1(M;Z2) can be applied to other spaces as well. In fact, it is a common technique used in algebraic topology to study various spaces and their fundamental groups.

Similar threads

  • Differential Geometry
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
741
Back
Top