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

410316




410316












  • $begingroup$
    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

            How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

            Image
            3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question
            Read more

            Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

            Image
            up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx
            Read more

            Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

            Image
            0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"
            Read more