Questions about Covering maps, manifolds, compactness

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PsychonautQQ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Manifolds
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the properties of covering maps in topology, specifically regarding manifolds. It establishes that if ##p: C-->X## is a covering map with ##C## as an n-manifold and ##X## as Hausdorff, then ##X## is also an n-manifold. Conversely, if ##X## is an n-manifold, then ##C## must be an n-manifold as well. Furthermore, it concludes that ##C## is compact if and only if ##p## is a finite sheeted covering when ##X## is a compact manifold. Key proofs involve demonstrating second-countability and locally Euclidean properties.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of covering maps in topology
  • Familiarity with n-manifolds and their properties
  • Knowledge of Hausdorff spaces and compactness in topology
  • Concepts of second-countability and locally Euclidean spaces
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of covering maps in detail, focusing on their implications for manifold structures
  • Learn about the proof techniques for establishing second-countability in topological spaces
  • Investigate the relationship between compactness and covering maps, particularly in the context of finite sheeted coverings
  • Explore the axiom of choice and its applications in topology, especially in relation to basis constructions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in topology, graduate students studying manifold theory, and anyone interested in the properties of covering maps and their implications for manifold structures.

PsychonautQQ
Messages
781
Reaction score
10
Suppose ##p: C-->X## is a covering map.

a) If ##C## is an n-manifold and ##X## is Hausdorff, show that ##X## is an n-manifold.
b) If ##X## is an n-manifold, show that ##C##is an n-manifold
c) suppose that ##X## is a compact manifold. Show that ##C## is compact if and only if p is a finite sheeted covering.Thoughts:

a) I will have to show that ##X## is second countable and has a basis of n-euclidean balls. To show that it has a basis of n-euclidean balls, I could take the pre image of any basis element of ##X## and then use any component of the preimage which will be homeomorphic to both a euclidean n-ball and the basis element in ##X##. To show that ##X## is second countable I don't know what I would do yet.

b) The key here is using the fact that slices of the preimage of ##p## will map homeomorphically to their source neighborhood in ##X##. Perhaps if I can show that the preimage of basis elements of ##X## is surjective onto ##C## the proof will not be far away.

c) I could suppose ##C## is compact and then proceed by contradiction: Take the preimage of any neighborhood in ##X## and use this infinite preimage to construct an open covering of ##C## with no finite sub covering. I am hesitant about this strategy because I haven't seen how I can use the fact that ##X## is a compact manifold.

Any feedback is appreciated as always! Thanks PF!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For (a) and (b) we need to prove the second-countability and locally Euclidean properties. For (b) we also need to prove C is Hausdorff. So, five things to prove overall between the two sub-questions. I found three of them not too hard.

For (a) a natural suggestion for a countable basis for X would be ##\mathscr B^X=\{f(B)\ :\ B\in\mathscr B^C\}## where ##\mathscr B^C## is a countable basis for C. Then take an open set U in X and show it can be written as a union of elements of ##\mathscr B^X##.

My proof of that uses the axiom of choice to first express X as a union of open sets each of which is homeomorphic to a stack of homeomorphic images in C. From there on it is easy. I am pondering whether there's a version that doesn't use Choice.

For (b) the hard bit will be showing second-countability. The trouble with just considering pre-images of basis elements of X is that, if we split them up into their connected components, there may be uncountably many since, as I recall, there is nothing in the definition of covering space to say that the stack of slices above an open set in X can't be uncountable. But if we don't split them up then we may lose Hausdorffness of C since we may no longer be able to separate different slices by open sets.

So I currently have no answer for second-countability in (b) and only a Choice-tainted answer for second-countability in (a). But I can prove the other bits. Let me know if you want any hints for them.

I haven't thought about (c) yet. 'If and only if' questions make me feel tired, because one has to prove BOTH directions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim mcnamara

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K