Results 1 to 4 of 4

Math Help - Fibre cardinality

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    54

    Fibre cardinality

    p: E \to B is a covering map. B is connected. Suppose b_0 \in B such that p^{-1}(b_0) has cardinality k. Show that p^{-1}(b) has cardinality k,\, \forall b \in B.

    Why does the base space need to be connected? Here is what I have:

    Denote by card(A) the cardinality of A.

    Let b \in B. Let  U_0 be an open neighborhood of b_0 evenly covered by p. p^{-1}(U_0) = \{V_i\}_{i=1}^k where the V_i are disjoint. Then each V_i contains a distinct element of E that maps to b. That is, card(p^{-1}(b)) \geq k.

    Now suppose that there is some b\in B such that card(p^{-1}(b)) > k (is strictly greater than k). But this implies that there are at least k+1 distinct elements in the preimage of b_0, contradicting card(p^{-1}(b_0)) = k.



    That seemed like it went way too quick and way too simply relative to the standard exercises in my course. What gives?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by cribby View Post
    p: E \to B is a covering map. B is connected. Suppose b_0 \in B such that p^{-1}(b_0) has cardinality k. Show that p^{-1}(b) has cardinality k,\, \forall b \in B.

    Why does the base space need to be connected? Here is what I have:

    Denote by card(A) the cardinality of A.

    Let b \in B. Let  U_0 be an open neighborhood of b_0 evenly covered by p. p^{-1}(U_0) = \{V_i\}_{i=1}^k where the V_i are disjoint. Then each V_i contains a distinct element of E that maps to b. That is, card(p^{-1}(b)) \geq k.
    Now suppose that there is some b\in B such that card(p^{-1}(b)) > k (is strictly greater than k). But this implies that there are at least k+1 distinct elements in the preimage of b_0, contradicting card(p^{-1}(b_0)) = k.
    The above part is a bit awkward logically, especially "for some" and its negation in order to establish the contradiction.

    My suggestion is to divide B into two subsets for the sake of the contradiction. One of them is the set consisting of card(p^{-1}(b)) = k and the other is the set consisting of card(p^{-1}(b))) \neq k. Use the fact that a covering map is an open map and B is connected, which implies that B cannot be the union of two disjoint nonempty open sets. I'll leave it to you to establish the necessary contradiction.

    Or,

    You can construct a bijective map between p^{-1}(b_0) \rightarrow p^{-1}(b_1) for an arbitrary pair of points b_0 and b_1 in B. For instance, choose a path f between b_0 and b_1 and lifts that path to g in E whose initial point is y_0 \in p^{-1}(b_0) and terminal point is y_1 \in p^{-1}(b_1) such that pg=f.

    That seemed like it went way too quick and way too simply relative to the standard exercises in my course. What gives?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    54
    It looks like I ended up with something similar to your first suggestion. I essentially showed that for any two points in an evenly covered open neighborhood having k-cardinality preimage, the preimage of the two points must have cardinality k. Then used this with a set construction similar to your suggestion (sorry, I'm being code-lazy this morning), showed this set must be open and its complement must be open. The connectedness of the base space establishes that the constructed set is, in fact, the entire base space as it is nonempty by assumption.

    If its not too much of a bother, however, I would appreciate a little more enlightenment on why connectedness is necessary. Perhaps a counterexample to the statement with a non-connected base space?

    Thank you much!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by cribby View Post
    It looks like I ended up with something similar to your first suggestion. I essentially showed that for any two points in an evenly covered open neighborhood having k-cardinality preimage, the preimage of the two points must have cardinality k. Then used this with a set construction similar to your suggestion (sorry, I'm being code-lazy this morning), showed this set must be open and its complement must be open. The connectedness of the base space establishes that the constructed set is, in fact, the entire base space as it is nonempty by assumption.

    If its not too much of a bother, however, I would appreciate a little more enlightenment on why connectedness is necessary. Perhaps a counterexample to the statement with a non-connected base space?

    Thank you much!
    If p:E \rightarrow B is a covering map, then we assume conventionally E and B are locally path connected and path connected.

    However, for the sake of a counterexample of your question, we can consider this covering map:

    Let (X', p) be a covering space of X and (Y', q) be a covering space of Y, where p is an m-fold and q is an n-fold covering map for X and Y, m>=1, n>=1, m \neq n, respectively.
    Then (X' \coprod Y', f) is the covering space of X \coprod Y defined by f|_{X'}=p, f|_{Y'}=q.
    Now your base space is disconnected (see here) and satisfies the condition for the counterexample.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Cardinality
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: April 5th 2010, 02:16 PM
  2. Cardinality of R, [0,1], R^2, [0,1] x [0,1]
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 18th 2010, 02:20 PM
  3. Cardinality
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 31st 2009, 03:56 PM
  4. Cardinality
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 21st 2009, 09:14 AM
  5. Cardinality
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 11th 2009, 05:36 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum