DOCSLIB.ORG

Modeling Homotopy Theories

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Modeling Homotopy Theories Modeling Homotopy Theories Julia E. Bergner Throughout mathematics, each field has fundamental ob- which induce isomorphisms on all homology groups. In jects of study, whether it be real-valued functions or vector these examples, there is no reason to assume that such a spaces or Lie algebras or smooth manifolds. Furthermore, function has any kind of meaningful function going in the we are not only interested in what these objects are but reverse direction at all. These two situations provide clas- also in appropriate kinds of functions between them, such sical examples of “homotopy theories.” as linear transformations of vector spaces or smooth func- Our aim in this article is to give an overview of the devel- tions between manifolds. Of particular interest are those opment of the notion of homotopy theory, starting with functions that tell us that two specific objects are the same these classical examples and leading up to more modern as each other in some critical way. For example, we typ- perspectives. As we discuss briefly at the end, we have cho- ically do not distinguish between two different sets that sen one of several possible entry points into this subject each have three elements, since they are in bijection with and in particular do not say much about the higher categor- one another. Similarly, we ignore the difference between ical aspects of the theory. We simply remark that the “ho- groups that are isomorphic or topological spaces that are motopy theories” that we discuss here coincide with the homeomorphic. In each of these examples, the criterion “(∞, 1)-categories” that are being used widely in a num- for “sameness” is quite rigid: there is a function of the ap- ber of related fields. propriate flavor (function of sets, group homomorphism, or continuous map) that admits an inverse. Topological Spaces and Chain Complexes In other situations, we have notions of “sameness” that We begin our investigations with the classical homotopy are not quite so strict. For instance, since it is generally theory of topological spaces. Let us first recall the precise extremely difficult to determine whether there is a homeo- definition of homotopy equivalence. morphism between two topological spaces, one might ask 푓∶ 푋 → 푌 instead whether there is a homotopy equivalence between Definition 1. A continuous map of topological them, namely, a map that may not have an inverse on the spaces is a homotopy equivalence if there exists a continuous 푔∶ 푌 → 푋 푔∘푓 nose but only up to homotopy. map such that is homotopic to the identity 푋 푓 ∘ 푔 Many further examples can be described via invariants. map of and is homotopic to the identity map of 푌 One might consider weak homotopy equivalences of topo- . logical spaces, which induce isomorphisms on all homo- To define the related notion of weak homotopy equiva- topy groups, or quasi-isomorphisms of chain complexes, lence, we need to consider the homotopy groups of a topo- logical space. The most familiar of these groups is the fol- Julia Bergner is a professor of mathematics at the University of Virginia. Her lowing. email address is [email protected]. For permission to reprint this article, please contact: Definition 2. Let 푋 be a topological space with a chosen [email protected]. basepoint 푥0. Then its fundamental group is 휋1(푋, 푥0) = 1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1090/noti1957 [푆 , 푋]∗, the set of homotopy classes of basepoint- OCTOBER 2019 NOTICES OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY 1423 that the composite 푊 → ∗ → 푊 is homotopic to the identity on 푊. However, we had to use a rather exotic example of a topological space to see the difference between our two notions of equivalence, so we might ask if they agree for maps between spaces that are sufficiently nice. A good an- swer comes from the following two theorems. Whitehead’s Theorem. Any weak homotopy equivalence be- tween CW complexes is a homotopy equivalence. A CW complex is a topological space that, roughly speaking, is built by gluing together cells of different Figure 1. A quasi-circle. dimensions. Such spaces are considered well-behaved be- cause they can be described so explicitly, but the following 푆1 → 푋 preserving maps which has a natural group op- theorem also tells us that they are sufficiently general to eration. capture much of the behavior of topological spaces. While not as frequently presented in an introductory CW Approximation Theorem. Given any topological space course, higher homotopy groups can be defined analogous- 푋, there exists a weak homotopy equivalence 푌 → 푋 with 푌 a ly. CW complex. 푋 Definition 3. Let be a topological space with basepoint Taking these two theorems together, we can transition 푥 푛 ≥ 1 푛 푋 0. Then for any , the th homotopy group of is from the usual category of topological spaces and contin- 휋 (푋, 푥 ) = [푆푛, 푋] 푛 0 ∗. uous maps to a new category in which weak homotopy This definition also works when 푛 = 0, but in that case equivalences become isomorphisms. This category still 휋0(푋) is simply the set of path components of 푋 and does has all topological spaces as objects, but given two spaces not have a natural group structure. 푋 and 푌, we define the set of maps 푋 → 푌 to consist of When 푛 ≥ 1, the group 휋푛(푋, 푥0) does not depend homotopy classes of maps between CW replacements of on the specific basepoint 푥0 but only on the path compo- 푋 and 푌. Since homotopy equivalences have inverses up nent from which it is chosen. Hence, in what follows we to homotopy, their corresponding homotopy classes have implicitly assume that appropriate statements hold for all inverses in this new category, which we call the homotopy path components and simply write the homotopy groups category of spaces. as 휋푛(푋). Now let us look at an algebraic example for which the An important feature of homotopy groups is that they same kind of phenomenon occurs. Let 푅 be a ring, and are functorial: given a continuous map of topological consider nonnegatively graded chain complexes of spaces 푓∶ 푋 → 푌, there are induced group homomor- 푅-modules phisms 푓∗ ∶ 휋푛(푋) → 휋푛(푌). 휕1 휕2 퐶• = (퐶0 ← 퐶1 ← 퐶2 ← ⋯). Definition 4. A continuous map of topological spaces Each 퐶푖 is an 푅-module, and each composite 푋 → 푌 is a weak homotopy equivalence if, for every 푛 ≥ 0, 휕푖 휕푖+1 the map 퐶푖−1 ← 퐶푖 ← 퐶푖+1 휋푛(푋) → 휋푛(푌) is the zero map. Given another such chain complex 퐷•, a is an isomorphism. chain map 푓∶ 퐶• → 퐷• consists of 푅-module homomor- 푓 ∶ 퐶 → 퐷 푖 ≥ 0 One can check, using functoriality of homotopy groups, phisms 푖 푖 푖 for each so that the diagram o o o that any homotopy equivalence is a weak homotopy equiv- 퐶0 퐶1 퐶2 ⋯ alence. However, the converse does not hold, as the fol- 푓0 푓1 푓2 lowing example illustrates. o o o Example 5. Let 푊 be the quasi-circle in which an arc of 퐷0 퐷1 퐷2 ⋯ 1 1 푆 is replaced by a sin( 푥 ) curve and its limit interval, as commutes. depicted in Figure 1. Then the unique map 푊 → ∗ is a Just as for the example of topological spaces, there are weak homotopy equivalence, since the homotopy groups two natural ways to think of equivalences between chain of both spaces are all trivial. However, this map is not a complexes. First, there is the notion of chain homotopy homotopy equivalence, since there is no map ∗ → 푊 such equivalence, which means having an inverse up to chain 1424 NOTICES OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY VOLUME 66, NUMBER 9 homotopy. There is also the weaker notion of quasi- following the primary example of topological spaces, are isomorphism or map that induces isomorphisms on all ho- called fibrations and cofibrations, which are subject to several mology groups 퐻푖(퐶•) = ker(휕푖)/ im(휕푖+1). So, again, axioms. The following definition first appeared in [15], we see two flavors of equivalence: one that produces iso- although we follow more closely the one given in [6]. morphisms after taking appropriate homotopy classes of ℳ maps, and one defined by an algebraic invariant. Definition 8. A model category is a category together with a choice of three distinguished classes of morphisms: So what is the comparable kind of object to CW com- ∼ plexes here? The following theorem provides an answer. weak equivalences (→), cofibrations (↪), and fibrations (↠), each closed under composition and containing all isomor- Theorem 6. Any quasi-isomorphism between nonnegatively phisms and such that the following five axioms hold. graded chain complexes made up of projective modules is a chain (MC1) The category ℳ has all small limits and colimits. homotopy equivalence. (MC2) All three classes of morphisms are closed under But, as before, chain complexes of projective modules retracts. are also quite general. (MC3) The class of weak equivalences satisfies the two-out- of-three property: if 푓∶ 푋 → 푌 and 푔∶ 푌 → 푍 are Theorem 7. Any nonnegatively graded chain complex has a morphisms in ℳ such that two of 푓, 푔, and 푔푓 projective resolution, namely, a quasi-isomorphic chain complex are weak equivalences, then so is the third. made up entirely of projective modules. (MC4) Consider any commutative square Once again, we can define a category whose objects are / 퐴 _ > 푋 푅 } nonnegatively graded chain complexes of -modules and } whose maps are chain homotopy classes of maps between 푖 } 푝 } projective resolutions. The resulting category is often / 퐵 푌. called the derived category in homological algebra.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Algebraic K-Theory and Equivariant Homotopy Theory
    Algebraic K-Theory and Equivariant Homotopy Theory Vigleik Angeltveit (Australian National University), Andrew J. Blumberg (University of Texas at Austin), Teena Gerhardt (Michigan State University), Michael Hill (University of Virginia), and Tyler Lawson (University of Minnesota) February 12- February 17, 2012 1 Overview of the Field The study of the algebraic K-theory of rings and schemes has been revolutionized over the past two decades by the development of “trace methods”. Following ideas of Goodwillie, Bokstedt¨ and Bokstedt-Hsiang-¨ Madsen developed topological analogues of Hochschild homology and cyclic homology and a “trace map” out of K-theory that lands in these theories [15, 8, 9]. The fiber of this map can often be understood (by work of McCarthy and Dundas) [27, 13]. Topological Hochschild homology (THH) has a natural circle action, and topological cyclic homology (TC) is relatively computable using the methods of equivariant stable homotopy theory. Starting from Quillen’s computation of the K-theory of finite fields [28], Hesselholt and Madsen used TC to make extensive computations in K-theory [16, 17], in particular verifying certain cases of the Quillen-Lichtenbaum conjecture. As a consequence of these developments, the modern study of algebraic K-theory is deeply intertwined with development of computational tools and foundations in equivariant stable homotopy theory. At the same time, there has been a flurry of renewed interest and activity in equivariant homotopy theory motivated by the nature of the Hill-Hopkins-Ravenel solution to the Kervaire invariant problem [19]. The construction of the norm functor from H-spectra to G-spectra involves exploiting a little-known aspect of the equivariant stable category from a novel perspective, and this has begun to lead to a variety of analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • Sheaves and Homotopy Theory
    SHEAVES AND HOMOTOPY THEORY DANIEL DUGGER The purpose of this note is to describe the homotopy-theoretic version of sheaf theory developed in the work of Thomason [14] and Jardine [7, 8, 9]; a few enhancements are provided here and there, but the bulk of the material should be credited to them. Their work is the foundation from which Morel and Voevodsky build their homotopy theory for schemes [12], and it is our hope that this exposition will be useful to those striving to understand that material. Our motivating examples will center on these applications to algebraic geometry. Some history: The machinery in question was invented by Thomason as the main tool in his proof of the Lichtenbaum-Quillen conjecture for Bott-periodic algebraic K-theory. He termed his constructions `hypercohomology spectra', and a detailed examination of their basic properties can be found in the first section of [14]. Jardine later showed how these ideas can be elegantly rephrased in terms of model categories (cf. [8], [9]). In this setting the hypercohomology construction is just a certain fibrant replacement functor. His papers convincingly demonstrate how many questions concerning algebraic K-theory or ´etale homotopy theory can be most naturally understood using the model category language. In this paper we set ourselves the specific task of developing some kind of homotopy theory for schemes. The hope is to demonstrate how Thomason's and Jardine's machinery can be built, step-by-step, so that it is precisely what is needed to solve the problems we encounter. The papers mentioned above all assume a familiarity with Grothendieck topologies and sheaf theory, and proceed to develop the homotopy-theoretic situation as a generalization of the classical case.
    [Show full text]
  • Simplicial Sets, Nerves of Categories, Kan Complexes, Etc
    SIMPLICIAL SETS, NERVES OF CATEGORIES, KAN COMPLEXES, ETC FOLING ZOU These notes are taken from Peter May's classes in REU 2018. Some notations may be changed to the note taker's preference and some detailed definitions may be skipped and can be found in other good notes such as [2] or [3]. The note taker is responsible for any mistakes. 1. simplicial approach to defining homology Defnition 1. A simplical set/group/object K is a sequence of sets/groups/objects Kn for each n ≥ 0 with face maps: di : Kn ! Kn−1; 0 ≤ i ≤ n and degeneracy maps: si : Kn ! Kn+1; 0 ≤ i ≤ n satisfying certain commutation equalities. Images of degeneracy maps are said to be degenerate. We can define a functor: ordered abstract simplicial complex ! sSet; K 7! Ks; where s Kn = fv0 ≤ · · · ≤ vnjfv0; ··· ; vng (may have repetition) is a simplex in Kg: s s Face maps: di : Kn ! Kn−1; 0 ≤ i ≤ n is by deleting vi; s s Degeneracy maps: si : Kn ! Kn+1; 0 ≤ i ≤ n is by repeating vi: In this way it is very straightforward to remember the equalities that face maps and degeneracy maps have to satisfy. The simplical viewpoint is helpful in establishing invariants and comparing different categories. For example, we are going to define the integral homology of a simplicial set, which will agree with the simplicial homology on a simplical complex, but have the virtue of avoiding the barycentric subdivision in showing functoriality and homotopy invariance of homology. This is an observation made by Samuel Eilenberg. To start, we construct functors: F C sSet sAb ChZ: The functor F is the free abelian group functor applied levelwise to a simplical set.
    [Show full text]
  • Homotopy Coherent Structures
    HOMOTOPY COHERENT STRUCTURES EMILY RIEHL Abstract. Naturally occurring diagrams in algebraic topology are commuta- tive up to homotopy, but not on the nose. It was quickly realized that very little can be done with this information. Homotopy coherent category theory arose out of a desire to catalog the higher homotopical information required to restore constructibility (or more precisely, functoriality) in such “up to homo- topy” settings. The first lecture will survey the classical theory of homotopy coherent diagrams of topological spaces. The second lecture will revisit the free resolutions used to define homotopy coherent diagrams and prove that they can also be understood as homotopy coherent realizations. This explains why diagrams valued in homotopy coherent nerves or more general 1-categories are automatically homotopy coherent. The final lecture will venture into ho- motopy coherent algebra, connecting the newly discovered notion of homotopy coherent adjunction to the classical cobar and bar resolutions for homotopy coherent algebras. Contents Part I. Homotopy coherent diagrams 2 I.1. Historical motivation 2 I.2. The shape of a homotopy coherent diagram 3 I.3. Homotopy coherent diagrams and homotopy coherent natural transformations 7 Part II. Homotopy coherent realization and the homotopy coherent nerve 10 II.1. Free resolutions are simplicial computads 11 II.2. Homotopy coherent realization and the homotopy coherent nerve 13 II.3. Further applications 17 Part III. Homotopy coherent algebra 17 III.1. From coherent homotopy theory to coherent category theory 17 III.2. Monads in category theory 19 III.3. Homotopy coherent monads 19 III.4. Homotopy coherent adjunctions 21 Date: July 12-14, 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Quasi-Categories Vs Simplicial Categories
    Quasi-categories vs Simplicial categories Andr´eJoyal January 07 2007 Abstract We show that the coherent nerve functor from simplicial categories to simplicial sets is the right adjoint in a Quillen equivalence between the model category for simplicial categories and the model category for quasi-categories. Introduction A quasi-category is a simplicial set which satisfies a set of conditions introduced by Boardman and Vogt in their work on homotopy invariant algebraic structures [BV]. A quasi-category is often called a weak Kan complex in the literature. The category of simplicial sets S admits a Quillen model structure in which the cofibrations are the monomorphisms and the fibrant objects are the quasi- categories [J2]. We call it the model structure for quasi-categories. The resulting model category is Quillen equivalent to the model category for complete Segal spaces and also to the model category for Segal categories [JT2]. The goal of this paper is to show that it is also Quillen equivalent to the model category for simplicial categories via the coherent nerve functor of Cordier. We recall that a simplicial category is a category enriched over the category of simplicial sets S. To every simplicial category X we can associate a category X0 enriched over the homotopy category of simplicial sets Ho(S). A simplicial functor f : X → Y is called a Dwyer-Kan equivalence if the functor f 0 : X0 → Y 0 is an equivalence of Ho(S)-categories. It was proved by Bergner, that the category of (small) simplicial categories SCat admits a Quillen model structure in which the weak equivalences are the Dwyer-Kan equivalences [B1].
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Homotopy Theory Primer
    4 Homotopy theory primer Given that some topological invariant is different for topological spaces X and Y one can definitely say that the spaces are not homeomorphic. The more invariants one has at his/her disposal the more detailed testing of equivalence of X and Y one can perform. The homotopy theory constructs infinitely many topological invariants to characterize a given topological space. The main idea is the following. Instead of directly comparing struc- tures of X and Y one takes a “test manifold” M and considers the spacings of its mappings into X and Y , i.e., spaces C(M, X) and C(M, Y ). Studying homotopy classes of those mappings (see below) one can effectively compare the spaces of mappings and consequently topological spaces X and Y . It is very convenient to take as “test manifold” M spheres Sn. It turns out that in this case one can endow the spaces of mappings (more precisely of homotopy classes of those mappings) with group structure. The obtained groups are called homotopy groups of corresponding topological spaces and present us with very useful topological invariants characterizing those spaces. In physics homotopy groups are mostly used not to classify topological spaces but spaces of mappings themselves (i.e., spaces of field configura- tions). 4.1 Homotopy Definition Let I = [0, 1] is a unit closed interval of R and f : X Y , → g : X Y are two continuous maps of topological space X to topological → space Y . We say that these maps are homotopic and denote f g if there ∼ exists a continuous map F : X I Y such that F (x, 0) = f(x) and × → F (x, 1) = g(x).
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Waldhausen Constructions
    COMPARISON OF WALDHAUSEN CONSTRUCTIONS JULIA E. BERGNER, ANGELICA´ M. OSORNO, VIKTORIYA OZORNOVA, MARTINA ROVELLI, AND CLAUDIA I. SCHEIMBAUER Dedicated to the memory of Thomas Poguntke Abstract. In previous work, we develop a generalized Waldhausen S•- construction whose input is an augmented stable double Segal space and whose output is a 2-Segal space. Here, we prove that this construc- tion recovers the previously known S•-constructions for exact categories and for stable and exact (∞, 1)-categories, as well as the relative S•- construction for exact functors. Contents Introduction 2 1. Augmented stable double Segal objects 3 2. The S•-construction for exact categories 7 3. The S•-construction for stable (∞, 1)-categories 17 4. The S•-construction for proto-exact (∞, 1)-categories 23 5. The relative S•-construction 26 Appendix: Some results on quasi-categories 33 References 38 Date: May 29, 2020. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 55U10, 55U35, 55U40, 18D05, 18G55, 18G30, arXiv:1901.03606v2 [math.AT] 28 May 2020 19D10. Key words and phrases. 2-Segal spaces, Waldhausen S•-construction, double Segal spaces, model categories. The first-named author was partially supported by NSF CAREER award DMS- 1659931. The second-named author was partially supported by a grant from the Simons Foundation (#359449, Ang´elica Osorno), the Woodrow Wilson Career Enhancement Fel- lowship and NSF grant DMS-1709302. The fourth-named and fifth-named authors were partially funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, grants P2ELP2 172086 and P300P2 164652. The fifth-named author was partially funded by the Bergen Research Foundation and would like to thank the University of Oxford for its hospitality.
    [Show full text]
  • Lectures on Quasi-Isometric Rigidity Michael Kapovich 1 Lectures on Quasi-Isometric Rigidity 3 Introduction: What Is Geometric Group Theory? 3 Lecture 1
    Contents Lectures on quasi-isometric rigidity Michael Kapovich 1 Lectures on quasi-isometric rigidity 3 Introduction: What is Geometric Group Theory? 3 Lecture 1. Groups and Spaces 5 1. Cayley graphs and other metric spaces 5 2. Quasi-isometries 6 3. Virtual isomorphisms and QI rigidity problem 9 4. Examples and non-examples of QI rigidity 10 Lecture 2. Ultralimits and Morse Lemma 13 1. Ultralimits of sequences in topological spaces. 13 2. Ultralimits of sequences of metric spaces 14 3. Ultralimits and CAT(0) metric spaces 14 4. Asymptotic Cones 15 5. Quasi-isometries and asymptotic cones 15 6. Morse Lemma 16 Lecture 3. Boundary extension and quasi-conformal maps 19 1. Boundary extension of QI maps of hyperbolic spaces 19 2. Quasi-actions 20 3. Conical limit points of quasi-actions 21 4. Quasiconformality of the boundary extension 21 Lecture 4. Quasiconformal groups and Tukia's rigidity theorem 27 1. Quasiconformal groups 27 2. Invariant measurable conformal structure for qc groups 28 3. Proof of Tukia's theorem 29 4. QI rigidity for surface groups 31 Lecture 5. Appendix 33 1. Appendix 1: Hyperbolic space 33 2. Appendix 2: Least volume ellipsoids 35 3. Appendix 3: Different measures of quasiconformality 35 Bibliography 37 i Lectures on quasi-isometric rigidity Michael Kapovich IAS/Park City Mathematics Series Volume XX, XXXX Lectures on quasi-isometric rigidity Michael Kapovich Introduction: What is Geometric Group Theory? Historically (in the 19th century), groups appeared as automorphism groups of some structures: • Polynomials (field extensions) | Galois groups. • Vector spaces, possibly equipped with a bilinear form| Matrix groups.
    [Show full text]
  • The Real Projective Spaces in Homotopy Type Theory
    The real projective spaces in homotopy type theory Ulrik Buchholtz Egbert Rijke Technische Universität Darmstadt Carnegie Mellon University Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Abstract—Homotopy type theory is a version of Martin- topology and homotopy theory developed in homotopy Löf type theory taking advantage of its homotopical models. type theory (homotopy groups, including the fundamen- In particular, we can use and construct objects of homotopy tal group of the circle, the Hopf fibration, the Freuden- theory and reason about them using higher inductive types. In this article, we construct the real projective spaces, key thal suspension theorem and the van Kampen theorem, players in homotopy theory, as certain higher inductive types for example). Here we give an elementary construction in homotopy type theory. The classical definition of RPn, in homotopy type theory of the real projective spaces as the quotient space identifying antipodal points of the RPn and we develop some of their basic properties. n-sphere, does not translate directly to homotopy type theory. R n In classical homotopy theory the real projective space Instead, we define P by induction on n simultaneously n with its tautological bundle of 2-element sets. As the base RP is either defined as the space of lines through the + case, we take RP−1 to be the empty type. In the inductive origin in Rn 1 or as the quotient by the antipodal action step, we take RPn+1 to be the mapping cone of the projection of the 2-element group on the sphere Sn [4].
    [Show full text]
  • Floer Homology, Gauge Theory, and Low-Dimensional Topology
    Floer Homology, Gauge Theory, and Low-Dimensional Topology Clay Mathematics Proceedings Volume 5 Floer Homology, Gauge Theory, and Low-Dimensional Topology Proceedings of the Clay Mathematics Institute 2004 Summer School Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics Budapest, Hungary June 5–26, 2004 David A. Ellwood Peter S. Ozsváth András I. Stipsicz Zoltán Szabó Editors American Mathematical Society Clay Mathematics Institute 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 57R17, 57R55, 57R57, 57R58, 53D05, 53D40, 57M27, 14J26. The cover illustrates a Kinoshita-Terasaka knot (a knot with trivial Alexander polyno- mial), and two Kauffman states. These states represent the two generators of the Heegaard Floer homology of the knot in its topmost filtration level. The fact that these elements are homologically non-trivial can be used to show that the Seifert genus of this knot is two, a result first proved by David Gabai. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Clay Mathematics Institute. Summer School (2004 : Budapest, Hungary) Floer homology, gauge theory, and low-dimensional topology : proceedings of the Clay Mathe- matics Institute 2004 Summer School, Alfr´ed R´enyi Institute of Mathematics, Budapest, Hungary, June 5–26, 2004 / David A. Ellwood ...[et al.], editors. p. cm. — (Clay mathematics proceedings, ISSN 1534-6455 ; v. 5) ISBN 0-8218-3845-8 (alk. paper) 1. Low-dimensional topology—Congresses. 2. Symplectic geometry—Congresses. 3. Homol- ogy theory—Congresses. 4. Gauge fields (Physics)—Congresses. I. Ellwood, D. (David), 1966– II. Title. III. Series. QA612.14.C55 2004 514.22—dc22 2006042815 Copying and reprinting. Material in this book may be reproduced by any means for educa- tional and scientific purposes without fee or permission with the exception of reproduction by ser- vices that collect fees for delivery of documents and provided that the customary acknowledgment of the source is given.
    [Show full text]
  • The Seifert-Van Kampen Theorem Via Covering Spaces
    Treball final de grau GRAU DE MATEMÀTIQUES Facultat de Matemàtiques i Informàtica Universitat de Barcelona The Seifert-Van Kampen theorem via covering spaces Autor: Roberto Lara Martín Director: Dr. Javier José Gutiérrez Marín Realitzat a: Departament de Matemàtiques i Informàtica Barcelona, 29 de juny de 2017 Contents Introduction ii 1 Category theory 1 1.1 Basic terminology . .1 1.2 Coproducts . .6 1.3 Pushouts . .7 1.4 Pullbacks . .9 1.5 Strict comma category . 10 1.6 Initial objects . 12 2 Groups actions 13 2.1 Groups acting on sets . 13 2.2 The category of G-sets . 13 3 Homotopy theory 15 3.1 Homotopy of spaces . 15 3.2 The fundamental group . 15 4 Covering spaces 17 4.1 Definition and basic properties . 17 4.2 The category of covering spaces . 20 4.3 Universal covering spaces . 20 4.4 Galois covering spaces . 25 4.5 A relation between covering spaces and the fundamental group . 26 5 The Seifert–van Kampen theorem 29 Bibliography 33 i Introduction The Seifert-Van Kampen theorem describes a way of computing the fundamen- tal group of a space X from the fundamental groups of two open subspaces that cover X, and the fundamental group of their intersection. The classical proof of this result is done by analyzing the loops in the space X and deforming them into loops in the subspaces. For all the details of such proof see [1, Chapter I]. The aim of this work is to provide an alternative proof of this theorem using covering spaces, sets with actions of groups and category theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Topology and Robot Motion Planning
    Topology and robot motion planning Mark Grant (University of Aberdeen) Maths Club talk 18th November 2015 Plan 1 What is Topology? Topological spaces Continuity Algebraic Topology 2 Topology and Robotics Configuration spaces End-effector maps Kinematics The motion planning problem What is Topology? What is Topology? It is the branch of mathematics concerned with properties of shapes which remain unchanged under continuous deformations. What is Topology? What is Topology? Like Geometry, but exact distances and angles don't matter. What is Topology? What is Topology? The name derives from Greek (τoπoζ´ means place and λoγoζ´ means study). Not to be confused with topography! What is Topology? Topological spaces Topological spaces Topological spaces arise naturally: I as configuration spaces of mechanical or physical systems; I as solution sets of differential equations; I in other branches of mathematics (eg, Geometry, Analysis or Algebra). M¨obiusstrip Torus Klein bottle What is Topology? Topological spaces Topological spaces A topological space consists of: I a set X of points; I a collection of subsets of X which are declared to be open. This collection must satisfy certain axioms (not given here). The collection of open sets is called a topology on X. It gives a notion of \nearness" of points. What is Topology? Topological spaces Topological spaces Usually the topology comes from a metric|a measure of distance between points. 2 For example, the plane R has a topology coming from the usual Euclidean metric. y y x x f(x; y) j x2 + y2 < 1g is open. f(x; y) j x2 + y2 ≤ 1g is not.
    [Show full text]