Van Kampen's theorem and fundamental groups

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of van Kampen's theorem in algebraic topology, specifically in calculating fundamental groups of spaces that are decomposed into open, path-connected sets. Participants explore the complexities of identifying the normal subgroup involved in the theorem's formulation and provide examples, including the torus and double torus, to illustrate their points.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on calculating the normal subgroup N in van Kampen's theorem, indicating uncertainty about the relations imposed by the overlap of sets.
  • Another participant explains that the normal subgroup N is defined by the relations on the overlap of the decomposed spaces, suggesting that describing these relations is more straightforward than calculating N directly.
  • An example involving the torus is provided, where the fundamental group is derived from the free group on two generators, with the relation leading to an abelianization of the group.
  • A later post discusses the application of the same method to the double torus, raising questions about the relations that should be imposed and how to handle cases where the fundamental group of the overlapping space is not trivial.
  • Participants reference Hatcher's book for presentations of fundamental groups, indicating some confusion about the correct interpretation of the relations and their implications.
  • One participant suggests that the edges of a polygon representation of a surface yield the relations for the fundamental group, contrasting this with the use of van Kampen's theorem.
  • Another participant mentions a problem involving the fundamental group of R^2 - Q^2, noting that this particular case does not require van Kampen's theorem.
  • There is a suggestion that van Kampen's theorem is often most useful in simpler cases, with some participants expressing skepticism about its applicability in more complex scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and confidence regarding the application of van Kampen's theorem and the calculation of normal subgroups. There is no consensus on the best approach to determine the relations in more complex cases, and some participants challenge the utility of the theorem in certain contexts.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions involve assumptions about the nature of the spaces being decomposed and the properties of the fundamental groups involved. The complexity of identifying relations in overlapping spaces remains unresolved, particularly in cases where the fundamental group of the overlap is not trivial.

sparkster
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
I didn't see a topology forum, so I thought I'd post this question here. Can anyone give any pointers on using van Kampen's theorem? I understand the basic way it works, decompose a space X into open, path-connected sets, say U and V.

Then pi1(U) * pi1(V) = pi1(X)/N, where N is a normal subgroup. The N is what gives me trouble. How do calculate what the normal subgroup is?

Any help is appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It depends on what the decomposition is. It is more complicated to describe than do. Let me recap a bit:

Effectively you decompose T into two smaller sets U and V such that you know the fund. grps of U and V and UnV. Obviously, any loop in UnV defines a loop in U and a loop in V.

Then the fund grp of T is the (free) product of the fundamental groups of U and V modulo the relations imposed by the fact that loops in the overlap are identified.

Those relations are the "modulo N" part.

I guess this isn't a direct answer, but then I wouldn't calculate N, i'd describe explicitly the relations on the overlap, that implicitly tell you what N is.

Let's do an example where we already know the answer: the torus.

Let U be the torus less one point - the punctured torus.

Let V be a disc around that puncture point.

U can then be deformation retracted to the bouquet of two circles, thus its fundamental group is the free group on two generators F_2. Let the gens be g and h, we'll explain why in a second.

V has trivial fundamental group

UnV is homotopic to a circle. It's fundamental group is Z; let t be some (homotopy class of) loop generating this group. In V this is sent to the identity, as V is contractible. In U this loop is sent to the path ghg^{-1}h^{-1}. To see this, imagine the torus as the square with opposite sides identified. U is then this square with, the centre missing, thus the punctred torus retracts to the boundary of the square, which identifies to give two circles joined at a point. A loop around the hole retracts to be a path that goes along the top edge of the square, down the side along the bottom and up the other side again, right? So it is a path around one circle, then around the other, back along the first circle in the opposite direction, and then along the second circle, again in the opp. direction, ie ghg^{-1}h^{-1} in the fundamental group.


Phew, this is complicated to write, but draw a diagram to see what's going on.

Anyway, by the van Kampen Theorem, the fundamental group is

(F_2)*(e) = F_2 modulo the relation that ghg^{-1}h^{-1}=e; we identify those loops we described.

This means that we make gh=hg, ie abelianize F_2=ZxZ, so N in this case would be the commutator subgroup of F_2.


It sounds more complicated than it is, honest.

N is the subgroup generated by the relations we impose because of the overlap.
 
Sorry to resurrect an old thead. Thanks for the above explanation, it does help some. I tried copied your method for the double torus.

Let U=double torus - {point}
let V=Disk around the point.

Everything is open and connected like it should be and U u V = X = double torus.

U deformation retracts to a wedge of 4 circles--it's fundamental group is a free group with 4 generators, a1, b1, a2, b2, say. V is contractible.

U n V is homotopic to a circle. So tracing along the circle, we get a_1b_1a_1(^-1)b_1(^-1)a_2b_2a_2(^-1)b_2^(-1).

Okay, here's where its gets iffy for me. Since V is contractible, we equate the above string to e?

Then I get a_1b_1a_1(^-1)b_1(^-1)a_2b_2a_2(^-1)b_2^(-1)=e

a_1b_1a_1(^-1)b_1(^-1)=b_2a_2b_2^(-1)a_2^(-1)

So what is this?

From Hatcher's book I see that the presentation should be <a1,b1,a2,b2|[a1,b1][a2,b2]>

I guess my problem is figuring out what the relations should be.

Also, If V was not contractible, how would I proceed?


ETA:
[a1b1][a2b2] in the presentation just means multiplying the commutators together? If so, then I think I'm starting to get it. Still not sure what to do if fundamental group of V isn't the identity, though.
 
Last edited:
all compact connect oriented surfaces of genus g are most easily computed as riemann did, by cutting open the surface into a 4g sided polygon.

for a geuns one torus we get generators a,b, and one relation going around the outside of the rectangel, namely the commutator a b a^-1 b^-1, as matt said

in general, the edges of the polygon seem to give the one relation
a1 b1 a1^(-1) b1^(-1)...ag bg ag^-1 bg^-1. not what you have above. ah yes you misread hatcher page 51.

as often happens this problem is easier done without the machinery of van kampens theorem, although topologists love this theorem and their are no doubt many situations where it is essential.

actually hatcher is essentially using riemanns presentation of the manifold via a 2 cell attached to a wedge of 2g circles.
 
mathwonk said:
in general, the edges of the polygon seem to give the one relation
a1 b1 a1^(-1) b1^(-1)...ag bg ag^-1 bg^-1. not what you have above. ah yes you misread hatcher page 51.
Unless I'm have a very stupid moment, isn't that what I wrote?
 
my mistake, that is what you wrote. then what is your question?

i.e.hatcher's presentation is what a_1b_1a_1(^-1)b_1(^-1)a_2b_2a_2(^-1)b_2^(-1)=e
means.
 
If the intersection of the decomposed spaces is a simple space, like S^1, and I know how to construct the original space from a polygon, like a genus 1 or 2 torus, then I think I can apply van kampen. That takes care of all orientable and nonorientable surfaces.

But what if it isn't so easy? One problem in Hatcher that I've been working on is show the fundamental group of R^2 - Q^2 is uncountable.
 
That's a straight forward result, and doesn't need Van Kampen.

Pick irrational numbers r<s<t, and another irrational x consider the square loops round the points

(r,x) to (s,x) to (s,x+1) to (r,x+1) to (r,x)

and the same with s replaced by t. These loops are not homotopic, and thus we can easily find an uncountable number of non-homotopic loops.

As mathwonk said, Van Kampen is all well and good, but is almost always useless except in the nice cases.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K