Equivalence Between Covering Groupoids and Covering Spaces












3












$begingroup$


On page 390 of Topology and Groupoids he discusses the equivalence of the category of Covering Groupoids and the category of Covering Spaces.



Could someone give me some examples on how it would be useful to translate topological problems into problems about covering groupoids? I do not immediately see the use.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    On page 390 of Topology and Groupoids he discusses the equivalence of the category of Covering Groupoids and the category of Covering Spaces.



    Could someone give me some examples on how it would be useful to translate topological problems into problems about covering groupoids? I do not immediately see the use.










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3


      1



      $begingroup$


      On page 390 of Topology and Groupoids he discusses the equivalence of the category of Covering Groupoids and the category of Covering Spaces.



      Could someone give me some examples on how it would be useful to translate topological problems into problems about covering groupoids? I do not immediately see the use.










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      On page 390 of Topology and Groupoids he discusses the equivalence of the category of Covering Groupoids and the category of Covering Spaces.



      Could someone give me some examples on how it would be useful to translate topological problems into problems about covering groupoids? I do not immediately see the use.







      general-topology algebraic-topology category-theory groupoids






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 5 '17 at 5:42









      Anthony PeterAnthony Peter

      3,27111652




      3,27111652






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          There is a lovely space called the configuration space $C_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ of $n$ unordered distinct points in $mathbb{R}^2$ with fundamental group the braid group $B_n$. It has a lovely covering space, namely the ordered configuration space $OC_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ of $n$ ordered distinct points in $mathbb{R}^2$; its fundamental group is the pure braid group $P_n$, and these groups fit into a short exact sequence



          $$1 to P_n to B_n to S_n to 1.$$



          Now, here is a curious observation: the symmetric group $S_n$ clearly acts freely on $OC_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ by permuting the points, and the quotient by this action is the covering map to the unordered configuration space. This covering map is in turn classified by $P_n$ as a subgroup of $B_n$, using the standard classification of covering spaces in terms of subgroups. However, the standard classification of covering spaces in terms of subgroups is not an equivalence of categories, which means it cannot address the following: the action of $S_n$ on $OC_n$ does not give rise to an action on its fundamental group, because the action has no fixed points.



          However, it does act on the fundamental groupoid of $OC_n$, and so working with covering groupoids allows you to talk about this cover in a way that allows you to continue talking about the $S_n$ action on it as well.



          In general, the basic reason to care about groupoids as opposed to thinking only in terms of collections of groups is that groupoids with extra structure (in this case, a group action) are generally much more interesting than collections of groups with extra structure.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            You might also have the sense that the $S_n$ action on the fundamental groupoid of $OC_n$ ought to somehow be enough information to recover $B_n$, and you would be right. The construction that accomplishes this is called taking the homotopy quotient; it generalizes taking the semidirect product in a way that allows you to in fact recover every extension of groups, but to define it honestly really requires talking about the 2-category structure of groupoids.
            $endgroup$
            – Qiaochu Yuan
            Nov 5 '17 at 5:54












          • $begingroup$
            Would you be so kind as to point me to (1) "does not give rise to an action on its fundamental group, because the action has no fixed points." the relevant theorem here, and (2) how $S_n$ acts on $OC_n$ as a groupoid?
            $endgroup$
            – Anthony Peter
            Nov 5 '17 at 6:00



















          1












          $begingroup$

          This question somewhat overlaps with this stackexchnge question.



          Just to tell some personal history on this, in 1967 I gave a talk to a British Math. Colloquium on the groupoid van Kampen theorem, and afterwards a person came up to me at tea and said: "That was very interesting. I have been using groupoids for years. My name is Mackey."



          He told me of his work on ergodic groupoids which involved actions of groups. I gradually realised that if two people could come across this idea from two quite different directions, then there was more in this groupoid idea than had previously met my eye. Later, it could be seen that Mackey's work and that of his students was influential on the development of the area of noncommutative geometry.



          I decided that it was an error to miss out on actions of groups, groupoids and covering spaces for my topology book, and in the summer of 1967 wrote the chapter giving a groupoid approach to covering spaces. I was happy with the result; later editions have developed it somewhat, but this approach has been only partly adopted elsewhere, and seen as idiosyncratic.



          Writing this chapter also led to the notion of fibration of groupoids, which turned out to be useful, and appeared in later editions of the book. See also arXiv:1207.6404 for recent uses of groupoids.



          For the question under discussion, my own argument is that an algebraic model of a covering map is better seen as a covering morphism rather than an action of a group, a description which also involves a choice of base point. The notion of lifting maps is then conveniently algebraically modelled by lifting morphisms.



          But I insist that it is up to readers to make their own comparisons and judgements!



          Nov 11, 2017 A further point is that the first main use of groupoids in the first edition was the van Kampen theorem for the fundamental groupoid on a set of base points, so yielding easily the fundamental group of the circle, and much more. It was then of interest to see how the use of groupoids can be helpful in other areas of algebraic topology, such as covering spaces, and orbit spaces. In algebraic topology we investigate algebraic models of topological situations. For further discussion, see this recent paper.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2505330%2fequivalence-between-covering-groupoids-and-covering-spaces%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2












            $begingroup$

            There is a lovely space called the configuration space $C_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ of $n$ unordered distinct points in $mathbb{R}^2$ with fundamental group the braid group $B_n$. It has a lovely covering space, namely the ordered configuration space $OC_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ of $n$ ordered distinct points in $mathbb{R}^2$; its fundamental group is the pure braid group $P_n$, and these groups fit into a short exact sequence



            $$1 to P_n to B_n to S_n to 1.$$



            Now, here is a curious observation: the symmetric group $S_n$ clearly acts freely on $OC_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ by permuting the points, and the quotient by this action is the covering map to the unordered configuration space. This covering map is in turn classified by $P_n$ as a subgroup of $B_n$, using the standard classification of covering spaces in terms of subgroups. However, the standard classification of covering spaces in terms of subgroups is not an equivalence of categories, which means it cannot address the following: the action of $S_n$ on $OC_n$ does not give rise to an action on its fundamental group, because the action has no fixed points.



            However, it does act on the fundamental groupoid of $OC_n$, and so working with covering groupoids allows you to talk about this cover in a way that allows you to continue talking about the $S_n$ action on it as well.



            In general, the basic reason to care about groupoids as opposed to thinking only in terms of collections of groups is that groupoids with extra structure (in this case, a group action) are generally much more interesting than collections of groups with extra structure.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              You might also have the sense that the $S_n$ action on the fundamental groupoid of $OC_n$ ought to somehow be enough information to recover $B_n$, and you would be right. The construction that accomplishes this is called taking the homotopy quotient; it generalizes taking the semidirect product in a way that allows you to in fact recover every extension of groups, but to define it honestly really requires talking about the 2-category structure of groupoids.
              $endgroup$
              – Qiaochu Yuan
              Nov 5 '17 at 5:54












            • $begingroup$
              Would you be so kind as to point me to (1) "does not give rise to an action on its fundamental group, because the action has no fixed points." the relevant theorem here, and (2) how $S_n$ acts on $OC_n$ as a groupoid?
              $endgroup$
              – Anthony Peter
              Nov 5 '17 at 6:00
















            2












            $begingroup$

            There is a lovely space called the configuration space $C_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ of $n$ unordered distinct points in $mathbb{R}^2$ with fundamental group the braid group $B_n$. It has a lovely covering space, namely the ordered configuration space $OC_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ of $n$ ordered distinct points in $mathbb{R}^2$; its fundamental group is the pure braid group $P_n$, and these groups fit into a short exact sequence



            $$1 to P_n to B_n to S_n to 1.$$



            Now, here is a curious observation: the symmetric group $S_n$ clearly acts freely on $OC_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ by permuting the points, and the quotient by this action is the covering map to the unordered configuration space. This covering map is in turn classified by $P_n$ as a subgroup of $B_n$, using the standard classification of covering spaces in terms of subgroups. However, the standard classification of covering spaces in terms of subgroups is not an equivalence of categories, which means it cannot address the following: the action of $S_n$ on $OC_n$ does not give rise to an action on its fundamental group, because the action has no fixed points.



            However, it does act on the fundamental groupoid of $OC_n$, and so working with covering groupoids allows you to talk about this cover in a way that allows you to continue talking about the $S_n$ action on it as well.



            In general, the basic reason to care about groupoids as opposed to thinking only in terms of collections of groups is that groupoids with extra structure (in this case, a group action) are generally much more interesting than collections of groups with extra structure.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              You might also have the sense that the $S_n$ action on the fundamental groupoid of $OC_n$ ought to somehow be enough information to recover $B_n$, and you would be right. The construction that accomplishes this is called taking the homotopy quotient; it generalizes taking the semidirect product in a way that allows you to in fact recover every extension of groups, but to define it honestly really requires talking about the 2-category structure of groupoids.
              $endgroup$
              – Qiaochu Yuan
              Nov 5 '17 at 5:54












            • $begingroup$
              Would you be so kind as to point me to (1) "does not give rise to an action on its fundamental group, because the action has no fixed points." the relevant theorem here, and (2) how $S_n$ acts on $OC_n$ as a groupoid?
              $endgroup$
              – Anthony Peter
              Nov 5 '17 at 6:00














            2












            2








            2





            $begingroup$

            There is a lovely space called the configuration space $C_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ of $n$ unordered distinct points in $mathbb{R}^2$ with fundamental group the braid group $B_n$. It has a lovely covering space, namely the ordered configuration space $OC_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ of $n$ ordered distinct points in $mathbb{R}^2$; its fundamental group is the pure braid group $P_n$, and these groups fit into a short exact sequence



            $$1 to P_n to B_n to S_n to 1.$$



            Now, here is a curious observation: the symmetric group $S_n$ clearly acts freely on $OC_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ by permuting the points, and the quotient by this action is the covering map to the unordered configuration space. This covering map is in turn classified by $P_n$ as a subgroup of $B_n$, using the standard classification of covering spaces in terms of subgroups. However, the standard classification of covering spaces in terms of subgroups is not an equivalence of categories, which means it cannot address the following: the action of $S_n$ on $OC_n$ does not give rise to an action on its fundamental group, because the action has no fixed points.



            However, it does act on the fundamental groupoid of $OC_n$, and so working with covering groupoids allows you to talk about this cover in a way that allows you to continue talking about the $S_n$ action on it as well.



            In general, the basic reason to care about groupoids as opposed to thinking only in terms of collections of groups is that groupoids with extra structure (in this case, a group action) are generally much more interesting than collections of groups with extra structure.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            There is a lovely space called the configuration space $C_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ of $n$ unordered distinct points in $mathbb{R}^2$ with fundamental group the braid group $B_n$. It has a lovely covering space, namely the ordered configuration space $OC_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ of $n$ ordered distinct points in $mathbb{R}^2$; its fundamental group is the pure braid group $P_n$, and these groups fit into a short exact sequence



            $$1 to P_n to B_n to S_n to 1.$$



            Now, here is a curious observation: the symmetric group $S_n$ clearly acts freely on $OC_n(mathbb{R}^2)$ by permuting the points, and the quotient by this action is the covering map to the unordered configuration space. This covering map is in turn classified by $P_n$ as a subgroup of $B_n$, using the standard classification of covering spaces in terms of subgroups. However, the standard classification of covering spaces in terms of subgroups is not an equivalence of categories, which means it cannot address the following: the action of $S_n$ on $OC_n$ does not give rise to an action on its fundamental group, because the action has no fixed points.



            However, it does act on the fundamental groupoid of $OC_n$, and so working with covering groupoids allows you to talk about this cover in a way that allows you to continue talking about the $S_n$ action on it as well.



            In general, the basic reason to care about groupoids as opposed to thinking only in terms of collections of groups is that groupoids with extra structure (in this case, a group action) are generally much more interesting than collections of groups with extra structure.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 5 '17 at 5:50









            Qiaochu YuanQiaochu Yuan

            281k32593938




            281k32593938












            • $begingroup$
              You might also have the sense that the $S_n$ action on the fundamental groupoid of $OC_n$ ought to somehow be enough information to recover $B_n$, and you would be right. The construction that accomplishes this is called taking the homotopy quotient; it generalizes taking the semidirect product in a way that allows you to in fact recover every extension of groups, but to define it honestly really requires talking about the 2-category structure of groupoids.
              $endgroup$
              – Qiaochu Yuan
              Nov 5 '17 at 5:54












            • $begingroup$
              Would you be so kind as to point me to (1) "does not give rise to an action on its fundamental group, because the action has no fixed points." the relevant theorem here, and (2) how $S_n$ acts on $OC_n$ as a groupoid?
              $endgroup$
              – Anthony Peter
              Nov 5 '17 at 6:00


















            • $begingroup$
              You might also have the sense that the $S_n$ action on the fundamental groupoid of $OC_n$ ought to somehow be enough information to recover $B_n$, and you would be right. The construction that accomplishes this is called taking the homotopy quotient; it generalizes taking the semidirect product in a way that allows you to in fact recover every extension of groups, but to define it honestly really requires talking about the 2-category structure of groupoids.
              $endgroup$
              – Qiaochu Yuan
              Nov 5 '17 at 5:54












            • $begingroup$
              Would you be so kind as to point me to (1) "does not give rise to an action on its fundamental group, because the action has no fixed points." the relevant theorem here, and (2) how $S_n$ acts on $OC_n$ as a groupoid?
              $endgroup$
              – Anthony Peter
              Nov 5 '17 at 6:00
















            $begingroup$
            You might also have the sense that the $S_n$ action on the fundamental groupoid of $OC_n$ ought to somehow be enough information to recover $B_n$, and you would be right. The construction that accomplishes this is called taking the homotopy quotient; it generalizes taking the semidirect product in a way that allows you to in fact recover every extension of groups, but to define it honestly really requires talking about the 2-category structure of groupoids.
            $endgroup$
            – Qiaochu Yuan
            Nov 5 '17 at 5:54






            $begingroup$
            You might also have the sense that the $S_n$ action on the fundamental groupoid of $OC_n$ ought to somehow be enough information to recover $B_n$, and you would be right. The construction that accomplishes this is called taking the homotopy quotient; it generalizes taking the semidirect product in a way that allows you to in fact recover every extension of groups, but to define it honestly really requires talking about the 2-category structure of groupoids.
            $endgroup$
            – Qiaochu Yuan
            Nov 5 '17 at 5:54














            $begingroup$
            Would you be so kind as to point me to (1) "does not give rise to an action on its fundamental group, because the action has no fixed points." the relevant theorem here, and (2) how $S_n$ acts on $OC_n$ as a groupoid?
            $endgroup$
            – Anthony Peter
            Nov 5 '17 at 6:00




            $begingroup$
            Would you be so kind as to point me to (1) "does not give rise to an action on its fundamental group, because the action has no fixed points." the relevant theorem here, and (2) how $S_n$ acts on $OC_n$ as a groupoid?
            $endgroup$
            – Anthony Peter
            Nov 5 '17 at 6:00











            1












            $begingroup$

            This question somewhat overlaps with this stackexchnge question.



            Just to tell some personal history on this, in 1967 I gave a talk to a British Math. Colloquium on the groupoid van Kampen theorem, and afterwards a person came up to me at tea and said: "That was very interesting. I have been using groupoids for years. My name is Mackey."



            He told me of his work on ergodic groupoids which involved actions of groups. I gradually realised that if two people could come across this idea from two quite different directions, then there was more in this groupoid idea than had previously met my eye. Later, it could be seen that Mackey's work and that of his students was influential on the development of the area of noncommutative geometry.



            I decided that it was an error to miss out on actions of groups, groupoids and covering spaces for my topology book, and in the summer of 1967 wrote the chapter giving a groupoid approach to covering spaces. I was happy with the result; later editions have developed it somewhat, but this approach has been only partly adopted elsewhere, and seen as idiosyncratic.



            Writing this chapter also led to the notion of fibration of groupoids, which turned out to be useful, and appeared in later editions of the book. See also arXiv:1207.6404 for recent uses of groupoids.



            For the question under discussion, my own argument is that an algebraic model of a covering map is better seen as a covering morphism rather than an action of a group, a description which also involves a choice of base point. The notion of lifting maps is then conveniently algebraically modelled by lifting morphisms.



            But I insist that it is up to readers to make their own comparisons and judgements!



            Nov 11, 2017 A further point is that the first main use of groupoids in the first edition was the van Kampen theorem for the fundamental groupoid on a set of base points, so yielding easily the fundamental group of the circle, and much more. It was then of interest to see how the use of groupoids can be helpful in other areas of algebraic topology, such as covering spaces, and orbit spaces. In algebraic topology we investigate algebraic models of topological situations. For further discussion, see this recent paper.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$


















              1












              $begingroup$

              This question somewhat overlaps with this stackexchnge question.



              Just to tell some personal history on this, in 1967 I gave a talk to a British Math. Colloquium on the groupoid van Kampen theorem, and afterwards a person came up to me at tea and said: "That was very interesting. I have been using groupoids for years. My name is Mackey."



              He told me of his work on ergodic groupoids which involved actions of groups. I gradually realised that if two people could come across this idea from two quite different directions, then there was more in this groupoid idea than had previously met my eye. Later, it could be seen that Mackey's work and that of his students was influential on the development of the area of noncommutative geometry.



              I decided that it was an error to miss out on actions of groups, groupoids and covering spaces for my topology book, and in the summer of 1967 wrote the chapter giving a groupoid approach to covering spaces. I was happy with the result; later editions have developed it somewhat, but this approach has been only partly adopted elsewhere, and seen as idiosyncratic.



              Writing this chapter also led to the notion of fibration of groupoids, which turned out to be useful, and appeared in later editions of the book. See also arXiv:1207.6404 for recent uses of groupoids.



              For the question under discussion, my own argument is that an algebraic model of a covering map is better seen as a covering morphism rather than an action of a group, a description which also involves a choice of base point. The notion of lifting maps is then conveniently algebraically modelled by lifting morphisms.



              But I insist that it is up to readers to make their own comparisons and judgements!



              Nov 11, 2017 A further point is that the first main use of groupoids in the first edition was the van Kampen theorem for the fundamental groupoid on a set of base points, so yielding easily the fundamental group of the circle, and much more. It was then of interest to see how the use of groupoids can be helpful in other areas of algebraic topology, such as covering spaces, and orbit spaces. In algebraic topology we investigate algebraic models of topological situations. For further discussion, see this recent paper.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$
















                1












                1








                1





                $begingroup$

                This question somewhat overlaps with this stackexchnge question.



                Just to tell some personal history on this, in 1967 I gave a talk to a British Math. Colloquium on the groupoid van Kampen theorem, and afterwards a person came up to me at tea and said: "That was very interesting. I have been using groupoids for years. My name is Mackey."



                He told me of his work on ergodic groupoids which involved actions of groups. I gradually realised that if two people could come across this idea from two quite different directions, then there was more in this groupoid idea than had previously met my eye. Later, it could be seen that Mackey's work and that of his students was influential on the development of the area of noncommutative geometry.



                I decided that it was an error to miss out on actions of groups, groupoids and covering spaces for my topology book, and in the summer of 1967 wrote the chapter giving a groupoid approach to covering spaces. I was happy with the result; later editions have developed it somewhat, but this approach has been only partly adopted elsewhere, and seen as idiosyncratic.



                Writing this chapter also led to the notion of fibration of groupoids, which turned out to be useful, and appeared in later editions of the book. See also arXiv:1207.6404 for recent uses of groupoids.



                For the question under discussion, my own argument is that an algebraic model of a covering map is better seen as a covering morphism rather than an action of a group, a description which also involves a choice of base point. The notion of lifting maps is then conveniently algebraically modelled by lifting morphisms.



                But I insist that it is up to readers to make their own comparisons and judgements!



                Nov 11, 2017 A further point is that the first main use of groupoids in the first edition was the van Kampen theorem for the fundamental groupoid on a set of base points, so yielding easily the fundamental group of the circle, and much more. It was then of interest to see how the use of groupoids can be helpful in other areas of algebraic topology, such as covering spaces, and orbit spaces. In algebraic topology we investigate algebraic models of topological situations. For further discussion, see this recent paper.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                This question somewhat overlaps with this stackexchnge question.



                Just to tell some personal history on this, in 1967 I gave a talk to a British Math. Colloquium on the groupoid van Kampen theorem, and afterwards a person came up to me at tea and said: "That was very interesting. I have been using groupoids for years. My name is Mackey."



                He told me of his work on ergodic groupoids which involved actions of groups. I gradually realised that if two people could come across this idea from two quite different directions, then there was more in this groupoid idea than had previously met my eye. Later, it could be seen that Mackey's work and that of his students was influential on the development of the area of noncommutative geometry.



                I decided that it was an error to miss out on actions of groups, groupoids and covering spaces for my topology book, and in the summer of 1967 wrote the chapter giving a groupoid approach to covering spaces. I was happy with the result; later editions have developed it somewhat, but this approach has been only partly adopted elsewhere, and seen as idiosyncratic.



                Writing this chapter also led to the notion of fibration of groupoids, which turned out to be useful, and appeared in later editions of the book. See also arXiv:1207.6404 for recent uses of groupoids.



                For the question under discussion, my own argument is that an algebraic model of a covering map is better seen as a covering morphism rather than an action of a group, a description which also involves a choice of base point. The notion of lifting maps is then conveniently algebraically modelled by lifting morphisms.



                But I insist that it is up to readers to make their own comparisons and judgements!



                Nov 11, 2017 A further point is that the first main use of groupoids in the first edition was the van Kampen theorem for the fundamental groupoid on a set of base points, so yielding easily the fundamental group of the circle, and much more. It was then of interest to see how the use of groupoids can be helpful in other areas of algebraic topology, such as covering spaces, and orbit spaces. In algebraic topology we investigate algebraic models of topological situations. For further discussion, see this recent paper.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Jan 14 at 15:10

























                answered Nov 5 '17 at 12:05









                Ronnie BrownRonnie Brown

                12.1k12939




                12.1k12939






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2505330%2fequivalence-between-covering-groupoids-and-covering-spaces%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Human spaceflight

                    Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

                    File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg