What does “wildness” really refer to?
I’ll post about higher dimensional wildness soon but to avoid getting too general, I’m going to focus on a more specific question: what does it mean for a space to have a wild fundamental group?
If you surveyed mathematicians with this question most responses would likely say:
has a wild fundamental group if
is not semilocally simply connected.
You might get a few answers of “not locally contractible,” which is a good answer to a more general question but that would be a deflection from our current focus on . A space can easily fail to be locally contractible but still have tame 1-dimensional homotopy. The first answer is reasonable because we often study fundamental groups using covering space theory and, assuming locally path-connectivity,
has a universal (i.e. simply connected) covering space if and only if
is semilocally simply connected. But does failing to be semilocally simply connected really imply that the topology interacts with the algebra of
in any kind of wild fashion?
The answer is: a lot of the time, but not always.
I’ll detail both parts of this answer but I think the not always part of the answer involves some fun topology. First, some quick and possibly skip-able review:
Definition: A space is semilocally simply connected at
if there exists an open neighborhood
such that the inclusion
induces the trivial homomorphism
on fundamental groups. We say
is semilocally simply connected if it is semilocally simply connected at all of its points.
Intuition: Despite the complicated name, the idea behind being “semilocally simply connected” is pretty straightforward. The triviality of the homomorphism simply means that every loop in
based at
can be contracted in
(but not necessarily in
). For instance, let
be a cone of height
over a circle in the xy-plane. Then the open set
is a annular neighborhood of the base circle and is therefore homotopy equivalent to a circle. Any loop in
is null homotopic in
but a loop going around the base circle once is non-trivial in
since you must use the top of the cone to contract it. In this case,
is trivial even though
is not.
Again, this property is a key assumption in classical covering space theory: If is path connected and locally path connected, then
has a simply connected (i.e universal) covering space if and only if
is semilocally simply connected.
Let’s analyze the situation where a space fails to have this property.
Topological Wildness
Definition: The topological 1-wild set of is the subspace
.
Hence, for locally path-connected , the set
is precisely the topological obstruction to the existence of a universal covering space. If
isn’t locally path connected, remember that we have this handy dandy tool.
Examples:
if and only if
is semilocally simply connected. Included are all simply connected spaces, CW-complexes, polyhedra, and manifolds.
- If
is the Hawaiian earring with join point
, then
is a singleton.
- The space pictured below has a shrinking sequence of Hawaiian earrings attached to the points
. The wild set is
, which is not discrete.
Notice that this space is wild at
because every neighborhood of that point contains all but finitely many Hawaiian earrings.
- If
is the dyadic arc-space pictured below as the union of the base-arc
and countably many semi-circles, then
is an interval and thus has uncountably many points.
The dyadic arc space
- It is possible that
! Examples include the Menger Curve, Sierpinski Triangle, and Sierpinski Carpet.
In all of the above examples, is closed in
; this is not a coincidence. Proving it’s true in general is a nice exercise to include in a course on fundamental groups.
Exercise: Prove that if is locally path-connected, then
is closed in
.
In fact, even in the non-locally path-connected case, something can be said.
More general exercise: Show that if is a map from a locally path-connected space
, then
is closed in
.
An inquisitive reader may wonder in what ways the space is a kind of homotopy invariant of
. Some partial answers are published, but I promised myself not to go down the rabbit hole of writing about this yet.
What is algebraic wildness?
In particular, does , imply that the fundamental group
is wild?
At first glance, it seems like it might. Surely, arbitrarily small non-trivial loops are going to result in complicated algebra, right? To find out, let’s clarify what kind of property “wildness” should be for .
- It can’t be a purely group theoretic property since, by CW-approximation, every group is the fundamental group of some 2-dimensional CW-complex. I don’t care how complicated your group is or how hard the Whitehead conjecture is, the fundamental group of a CW-complex does not count as being wild.
- An algebraically “wild” fundamental group should admit at least one (possibly trivial) element that is represented by an infinite concatenation of non-contractible loops.
- It doesn’t just have to happen at the basepoint. Because of path-conjugation, wildness might occur at any point of
.
Therefore, since algebraic wildness is really about the natural presence of infinitary operations like infinite sums in calculus/analysis (and in contrast with binary, trinary, or other finitary operations that come for free in ordinary groups), we’ll use the more descriptive word “infinitary” instead of “wild.”
Definition: A fundamental group is infinitary at
if there exists a loop
based at
, and a closed set
with such that
has infinitely many components, and for each component
of
, the loop
is not null-homotopic. If
is not infinitary at
, then we say it is finitary at
. If
is finitary at all points of
, we say the group is finitary. If there is at least one point, where
is infinitary, we say the group is infinitary.

Two possible examples of path decompositions giving rise to an infinite product. The first example realizes an ordinary infinite product and the second case is a dense (or transfinite) product where is the middle third Cantor set.
Equivalent but more practical definition: A fundamental group is infinitary at
if and only if there exists a map
from the Hawaiian earring such that
restricted to each circle of
is not a null-homotopic loop.
Proof of Equivalence: If you start with the first definition, the loop satisfies
and thus induces a map
. However, because
has a countably infinite number of components,
. Moreover, each loop
induces the restriction of
to a unique circle of
. Conversely, if we start with a map
, let
be the image of the wild point. If we take
to be the loop which is the image of
on the
-th circle, consider the infinite concatenation
defined as
on
, and
. The set
now satisfies the first definition.
Definition: The algebraic 1-wild set of a space is the subspace
.
Exercise: Construct a locally path-connected space such that is not sequentially closed.
Of course, topological 1-wildness (arbitrarily small non-contractible loops) and algebraic 1-wildness (a shrinking sequence of non-contractible loops) should feel closely related – they both involve the existence of arbitrarily small non-contractible loops at some point.
A lot of the time, they’re the same
The next theorem shows where the two kinds of wildness agree.
Theorem: If is semilocally simply connected at
, then
is finitary at
. The converse is true if
is first countable at
.
Proof. Suppose is semilocally simply connected at
and
is a map. We must show that
applied to at least one circle of
is null-homotopic. Find an open neighborhood
of
such that every loop in
based at
is null-homotopic in
. Write
as the usual union of circles
of radius
. By the continuity of
, there is a neighborhood
of
such that
. Given the topology of
, we may find an
such that
for all
. Therefore,
maps
to a loop in
, which must be null-homotopic in
. This completes the first direction.
For the converse, suppose is first countable at
and that
is not semilocally simply connected at
. Let
be a neighborhood base at
. By assumption, for each
, there is a loop
based at
, which is not null-homotopic in
.
Define a function to be
on
. To check the continuity of
, we really only need to check the continuity of
at
: If
is a neighborhood of
, find
with
. Then it is clear that
. For
find a neighborhood
of
in
such that
. Now
is a neighborhood of
such that
. Since
is continuous an non-trivial on each circle,
is infinitary.
Corollary: For any space , we have
with equality if
is first countable.
So, for first countable spaces, the two notions of wildness are the same. Of course, even with some non-first countable spaces like very large CW-complexes, we still have equivalence.
This all suggests that to find a difference between topological and algebraic wildness, we need to dig into difference between nets and sequences of loops.
but not always
General Topology permits all sorts of phenomenon, including interesting spaces that are not first countable. To conclude this post, I’m going to describe a space that isn’t semilocally simply connected (and doesn’t have a universal covering space) but whose fundamental group is not wild, i.e. is finitary.
Let be the first uncountable ordinal and
be it’s successor, the first compact uncountable ordinal. Here,
denote the maximal point of
and we take it to be the basepoint. The key topological fact we’ll need to remember is that there does not exist any sequence in
that converges to
. Let
be the reduced suspension with canonical basepoint . For each countable ordinal
, the image of
will result in a unique circle
in
. These circles will all be joined at
. However, the topology of this space is not the one you’d give to a wedge of CW-complexes. To help visualize this monster, consider the first convergent sequence
in
. This corresponds to the subspace
of
illustrated below as the sequence of circles
converging to the limit circle
.
From this subspace, imagine building inductively by creating larger and larger bouquet’s of circles parameterized by countable ordinals. In the limit, the circles will “converge” to
in the sense that if
is an open neighborhood of
, then there exists a
such that
.
Sorry, Not Sorry: The space is compact and it’s locally path connected at
, but it’s not locally path-connected at all of its points. I take no responsibility for this. Countable limit ordinals like
are to blame. Fortunately, we’re interested in the topology around
so there is no harm in sweeping this under the rug. If you’re unhappy about it, remember that you can take the locally path-connected coreflection without any loss of homotopy/homology group data. The downside to doing so is that the coreflection is not compact. So it goes.
Observation 1: is not semilocally simply connected. In particular,
.
Proof. Since is a quotient space of
and
is compact, for every neighborhood
of
, there is a countable ordinal
such that
. Also,
retracts onto each circle
. Therefore, the loop traversing
is contained in
and is not contractible in
. Since ordinals are totally path disconnected, every path component of
is an open interval. Therefore,
is semilocally simply connected at every point in
.
Observation 2: is finitary, i.e.
.
Proof. Since , if
contains a point, it must be
. Consider any map
and suppose, to obtain a contradiction, that
is not null-homotopic for each circle
,
of
. In order for this to happen, it must be the case that, for each
, there exists some arc of the circle
that maps onto some circle
.
In particular, we may find such that
is the image of the point
in the circle
(this is the point on
furthest from/antipodal to
). Since
in
, the continuity of
tells us that the sequence
converges to
in
.
Maybe you already see the problem. Remember the one thing I said we’d need to use about ? There is no sequence of countable ordinals converging to
. But if
is an arbitrary neighborhood of
in
, then we may take
to be the open neighborhood of
, which is the image of
in
. The only way for the sequence
to eventually be in
is for the sequence
of countable ordinals to eventually be inside
. This implies
; a contradiction of the topology of
. Since
is not in
, this set must be empty.
Having made Observations 1 and 2, we conclude that even though fails to have a simply connected covering space, it’s fundamental group is completely tame. In fact, from a fundamental group perspective, it’s basically the same as an ordinary wedge of circles
, which is a CW-complex! Intuitively, the neighborhood base at
is so large (more precisely, the “tightness” is so large) that shrinking sequences of loops don’t actually converge to the constant loop at
and this sequential convergence is exactly what is required to have an infinitary fundamental group.
If you put together the ideas behind the proofs of Observations 1 and 2, it’s not too hard to prove the following more detailed results:
Theorem: The continuous identity function from the ordinary (i.e. CW) wedge of circles to
is a weak homotopy equivalence.
Corollary: is canonically isomorphic to the free group
on uncountably many generators.
Here’s a fun exercise I’ll leave you with.
Challenge Exercise: Construct a locally path-connected space for which
is not closed.
Pingback: Higher Dimensional Hawaiian Earrings | Wild Topology
Pingback: Testing the limits of Eda’s Theorem | Wild Topology