Group Structure On A Covering Space
Let H be a topological group and let G be a covering space of H. If G and H are both path-connected and locally path-connected, then for any choice of element e* in the fiber over e ∈ H, there exists a unique topological group structure on G, with e* as the identity, for which the covering map p : G → H is a homomorphism.
The construction is as follows. Let a and b be elements of G and let f and g be paths in G starting at e* and terminating at a and b respectively. Define a path h : I → H by h(t) = p(f(t))p(g(t)). By the path-lifting property of covering spaces there is a unique lift of h to G with initial point e*. The product ab is defined as the endpoint of this path. By construction we have p(ab) = p(a)p(b). One must show that this definition is independent of the choice of paths f and g, and also that the group operations are continuous.
The non-connected case is interesting and is studied in the papers by Taylor and by Brown-Mucuk cited below. Essentially there is an obstruction to the existence of a universal cover which is also a topological group such that the covering map is a morphism: this obstruction lies in the third cohomology group of the group of components of G with coefficients in the fundamental group of G at the identity.
Read more about this topic: Covering Group
Famous quotes containing the words group, structure, covering and/or space:
“He hung out of the window a long while looking up and down the street. The world’s second metropolis. In the brick houses and the dingy lamplight and the voices of a group of boys kidding and quarreling on the steps of a house opposite, in the regular firm tread of a policeman, he felt a marching like soldiers, like a sidewheeler going up the Hudson under the Palisades, like an election parade, through long streets towards something tall white full of colonnades and stately. Metropolis.”
—John Dos Passos (1896–1970)
“Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.”
—Paul Tillich (1886–1965)
“We have good reason to believe that memories of early childhood do not persist in consciousness because of the absence or fragmentary character of language covering this period. Words serve as fixatives for mental images. . . . Even at the end of the second year of life when word tags exist for a number of objects in the child’s life, these words are discrete and do not yet bind together the parts of an experience or organize them in a way that can produce a coherent memory.”
—Selma H. Fraiberg (20th century)
“The limitless future of childhood shrinks to realistic proportions, to one of limited chances and goals; but, by the same token, the mastery of time and space and the conquest of helplessness afford a hitherto unknown promise of self- realization. This is the human condition of adolescence.”
—Peter Blos (20th century)