Here is one of my favorite spaces: The earring space, i.e. the “shrinking wedge of circles.”
This space is the first step into the world of “wild” topological spaces. This post is meant to be an introduction into how one can understand the fundamental group of this space, which I will just refer to as the earring group. I’m no longer using “Hawaiian” on purpose. In fact, this is not just a regular group. If you can imagine groups (like the complex numbers) with geometrically relevant, natural infinite product operations, and is a “free” object of this type.
The earring space is usually defined as the following planar set: let
be the circle of radius
centered at
. Now take the union
with the subspace topology of
.
The key feature of this space is that if is any open neighborhood of the “wild” point
, then there is an
such that
for all
. Note that the earring space has the same underlying set as the infinite wedge
of circles, however the topology of
is finer than that of
. So there is a canonical continuous bijection
, which is not a homeomorphism.
Topological facts: is a connected, one-dimensional, locally path connected, compact metric space.
Other ways to construct :
- As a one-point compactification:
is homeomorphic to the one-point compactification of a countable disjoint union
of open intervals.
- As a subspace of
: View
as a subspace of
in the obvious way and give it the subspace topology. The resulting space is homeomorphic to
.
- As an inverse limit: Let
. If
, there is a retraction
which collapses the circles
,
to
. These maps form an inverse system
. The inverse limit
of this inverse system is homeormorphic to
.
The really interesting things happen when you start considering loops and their homotopy classes, i.e. the fundamental group . For each
consider the loop
, where
which traverses the n-th circle
once in the counterclockwise direction (and is based at
). Let’s write
for the reverse loop
which goes around in the opposite direction. The loop
is definitely not homotopic to the constant loop (for a proof of this, consider the retraction
collapsing all other circles to
). It seems that together, the homotopy classes
should “generate”
in some way but these will not be group generators in the usual sense.
A space is semilocally simply connected at a point
if there is an open neighborhood
of
such that every loop in
based at
is homotopic to the constant loop at
in
(but not necessarily by a homotopy in
). This definition is very important in covering space theory. In particular, one must typically require a space to be semilocally simply connected in order to guarantee the existence of a universal covering.
Proposition: is not semilocally simply connected.
Proof. Every neighborhood of the wild point contains all but finitely many of the circles
and therefore the non-trivial loops
.
In fact, the earring space does not have a universal covering (though there is a known suitable replacement) and one must attack the fundamental group using other methods.
Wild loops: The combinatorial structure of is complicated by the fact that we can form “infinite” concatenations of loops. For instance, we can define a loop
by defining
to be
on the interval
and
. This loop is continuous because of the topology of
at
. In this way we obtain an infinite “word”
. What is intuitive but (formally) less obvious is that
is not in the free subgroup of
generated by the set
.
With all these wild loops floating around, we have a pretty big group on our hands.
Proposition: is uncountably generated.
Proof. If were countably generated, then
would be countable. Thus it suffices to show
is uncountable. Recall that the infinite product
of the cyclic group
of order
is uncountable. For any sequence
, we construct a loop
by defining
to be constant on
if
and
to be
on
if
. We also define
. In this way we obtain an uncountable family of homotopy class
. It suffices to show
whenever
. Suppose
. Then, without loss of generality, we have
and
for some
. We again call upon the retraction
which collapses all circles but
. If
, then
in
. But
is trivial and
is non-trivial, which is a contradiction. Therefore
.
Uncountability and the Specker group: Another way to show that is uncountable is to show
surjects onto the uncountable infinite product
which is usually called the Specker group and happens to be the first Cech homology group of
. Each map
collapsing all but the n-th circles to the basepoint induces a retraction of groups
which essentially picks out the “winding number” around the n-th circle. Together, these winding numbers uniquely induce a homomorphism
given by
. To check surjectivity, convince yourself that
sends the homotopy class of a loop
defined as
on the interval
and
to the generic sequence
.
One might be tempted to think that all elements of can be realized as products of infinite sequences of shrinking loops like
but alas, this is also too much to hope for. Not only is this too much to hope for, but the combinatorial structure of
is far from free [3] since we can have “infinite” cancellations of the letters
when we multiply two elements. See this post for a proof of non-freeness. As a first example, notice that
can be thought of as the infinite word
and the product
is the identity element. In more geometric terms, this means we can construct a null-homotopy of
by nesting “small null-homotopies” of the loops
inside of each other.
You can take this one-step further by considering the following iterative construction. Start with
Now insert more trivial pairs, but make the index of the ‘s get larger at each step so the construction is actually represented by a continuous loop.
(cont. on next line)
At every stage and in the limit, this construction should represent the identity element of the group, however, in the “transfinite word” which is the limit, there are no straightforward cancellation pairs to be found anywhere! This is because we went on to put new letters in the middle of every such pair. So the cancellations that go on in
can be quite subtle. How could you possibly define a loop representing the above word? Well, if you look closely at where new pairs are inserted, you can see that it has a “Cantor set-ish” feel to it.
To describe loops representing all elements of , we call upon the middle-third Cantor set
. There are countably many open intervals
. We can define a loop
by defining
and defining
on
to either be the constant loop or to be one of the loops
for some
. We have one restriction to ensure that
is continuous. We must ensure that for each
, we only have
for finitely many
. This means for fixed
, the loops
and
can only be used finitely many times. Otherwise, we would admit infinite concatenations like
which clearly cannot be continuous. It turns out that any element of
is represented by a loop constructed in this way. You can convince yourself of this by first noticing that for any loop
, the preimage
is a countable union of disjoint open intervals.
We’ve yet to really compute . We could argue exactly what I mean by “compute” here but I really mean “identify the isomorphism class” as a reasonably familiar group so that we can make formal algebraic arguments about the group structure without appealing to loops. This is done using shape theory. Before we continue, I should mention that this shape theoretic approach can fail to provide an explicit characterization of
when you start considering subsets of
.
Recall that one way to construct is as an inverse limit
where where
is the union of the first n-circles. Note that
is the free group on the generators
. If we apply the fundamental group
to the entire inverse system
,
we get an inverse system of free groups
where the homomorphism collapses
to the identity. The inverse limit
is the first shape group of
. To be fair, the shape group cannot always be constructed in this way but this is a nice way to understand the one-dimensional case.
We also have projections which collapse
to the basepoint for
. The induced homomorphisms
clearly agree with the bonding homomorphisms
in the inverse system of free groups so we get an induced homomorphism
to the first shape group.
The inverse limit of free groups is constructed as a subgroup of
. Specifically,
consists of the sequences
of words
such that
. This means we can think of elements of
as sequences of words
where the word
(in letters
) is obtained from the word
(in letters
) by removing all instances of the letter
. The homomorphism
is defied as
where
.
The key to understanding is the following theorem which originally appeared in a paper of H.B. Griffiths [1]. Griffiths’ proof apparently had some sort of error in it; a corrected proof was given by Morgan and Morrison [2] and many have since appeared.
Shape Injectivity Theorem: is injective.
One way to prove this theorem is to use the data of infinite “word reduction” to construct a null-homotopy of a loop such that
(equivalently
for each
). It is helpful to imagine doing this for the example above where we kept inserting trivial pairs
between trivial pairs and so on. The details of a full proof are somewhat non-trivial so I’ll skip it for now (but plan to come back to it later). The upshot of the theorem is that we can now understand elements of
as sequences of words in
.
The question then remains: what is the image of ?
Proposition: is not surjective.
Consider the sequence of commutators
. Note that as
the number of appearances of
grows without bound. But we can’t have a loop
that corresponds to this element since no continuous loop can traverse
infinitely many times. This geometric restriction suggests which subgroup we should be looking for.
Definition: If and
, let
be the number of times
appears in the reduced word
. We say an element
is locally eventually constant if for each
, the sequence
is eventually constant (as
). Let
be the subgroup of locally eventually constant sequences.
If is not locally eventually constant, then we’d have some
where the number of times
appears is unbounded and this contradicts the continuity of
. On the other hand, our method of using the Cantor set to construct loops provides a nice way to represent every locally eventually constant sequence by a continuous loop. We conclude that the locally eventually constant sequences are precisely the sequences corresponding to continuous loops.
Theorem [2]: embeds
isomorphically onto
.
The group is sometimes called the free
-product of
in infinite group theory.
Summary
Let’s sum up this combinatorial description of : The fundamental group of the earring space
is isomorphic to the group of sequences
where
is a reduced word in the free group on letters
,
- removing the letter
from
gives the word
,
- for each
, the number of times the letter
appears in
stabilizes at
(i.e. the sequence
is eventually constant for each
).
References.
[1] H.B. Griffiths, Infinite products of semigroups and local connectivity, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 6 (1956), 455-485.
[2] J. Morgan, I. Morrison, A van kampen theorem for weak joins, Proc. London Math. Soc. 53 (1986) 562–576.
[3] B. de Smit, The fundamental group of the Hawaiian earring is not free, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 2 (1) (1992) 33–37.
Another great reference on the earring group is
[4] J.W. Cannon, G.R. Conner, The combinatorial structure of the Hawaiian earring group, Topology Appl. 106 (2000) 225-271.
Pingback: The Hawaiian Earring Group is not Free (Part I) | Wild Topology
Pingback: The Hawaiian Earring Group is not Free (Part II) | Wild Topology
Pingback: The harmonic archipelago | Wild Topology
Pingback: The Uncountability of the Harmonic Archipelago Group | Wild Topology
Pingback: Homomorphisms from the Hawaiian earring group to finite groups | Wild Topology
Pingback: The Griffiths Twin Cone | Wild Topology
Pingback: The locally path-connected coreflection | Wild Topology
Pingback: The locally path-connected coreflection III | Wild Topology
Pingback: Homotopically Hausdorff Spaces I | Wild Topology
Please post injectivity of the function from the fundamental group of H to the projective limit
LikeLike
Post I for this is up!
LikeLike
Pingback: Shape injectivity of the Hawaiian earring Part I | Wild Topology
Pingback: Topological wildness vs. algebraic wildness | Wild Topology
Pingback: Higher Dimensional Hawaiian Earrings | Wild Topology
sorry to interrupt,I can‘t see why we should describe the element of hawaiian earring group by cantor set,since the way that we send the intervals [nk-1/nk,nk/nk+1] to Lnk or Lnk^(-1)will also work,what’s more, the quoitent sapce:[0,1]/{n-1/n|n ∈N} also gives a realization of hawaiian earring group on [0,1].
LikeLike
It sounds to me like you’re describing the Hawaiian earring space as a quotient space. Indeed, this is possible to do in many many ways. However, this not the same thing as finding a unified way to represent all of the uncountably many homotopy classes of loops in the Hawaiian earring. If you consider a “dense” product, that is a product indexed by a dense linear order, you do need to use the Cantor set. For instance, consider this product that I’ll construct in stages:
L_1
L_2L_1L_3
L_4L_2L_5L_1L_6L_3L_7
and so on…
A simple image of this is given in Figure 2 on page 5 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.06908.pdf
The reality is that this is a well-defined loop, where the subloops are densely ordered. The cut set of a countable dense order is homeomorphic to the Cantor set. Moreover, since ever countable order embeds into a countable dense order (say the rationals) the Cantor set can be used to represent (not uniquely) all homotopy classes of loops in the Hawaiian earring. So the point is that you must use the Cantor set, not to construct the Hawaiian earring as a space, but you absolutely need it to describe fundamental group elements. It is not possible to just use infinite products indexed by the naturals or scattered orders precisely because such dense products can be constructed.
LikeLike
Thanks for these detailed explanation!!
LikeLike
Pingback: The Griffiths twin cone and the harmonic archipelago have isomorphic fundamental group (Part 1) | Wild Topology
Pingback: Homotopically Reduced Paths (Part III) | Wild Topology
Pingback: How to “topologize” the fundamental group: a primer | Wild Topology