Given only the fundamental groupoid of a topological space X, we can recover the underlying set of X since objects of the groupoid (as a category) are precisely the elements of X. I would like to know if there is a way to recover the topology of X using the information contained by its fundamental groupoid.
2026-03-25 04:39:22.1774413562
Recovering a topological space from its fundamental groupoid
190 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
2
There are 2 best solutions below
Related Questions in ALGEBRAIC-TOPOLOGY
- How to compute homology group of $S^1 \times S^n$
- the degree of a map from $S^2$ to $S^2$
- Show $f$ and $g$ are both homeomorphism mapping of $T^2$ but $f$ is not homotopy equivalent with $g.$
- Chain homotopy on linear chains: confusion from Hatcher's book
- Compute Thom and Euler class
- Are these cycles boundaries?
- a problem related with path lifting property
- Bott and Tu exercise 6.5 - Reducing the structure group of a vector bundle to $O(n)$
- Cohomology groups of a torus minus a finite number of disjoint open disks
- CW-structure on $S^n$ and orientations
Related Questions in CATEGORY-THEORY
- (From Awodey)$\sf C \cong D$ be equivalent categories then $\sf C$ has binary products if and only if $\sf D$ does.
- Continuous functor for a Grothendieck topology
- Showing that initial object is also terminal in preadditive category
- Is $ X \to \mathrm{CH}^i (X) $ covariant or contravariant?
- What concept does a natural transformation between two functors between two monoids viewed as categories correspond to?
- Please explain Mac Lane notation on page 48
- How do you prove that category of representations of $G_m$ is equivalent to the category of finite dimensional graded vector spaces?
- Terminal object for Prin(X,G) (principal $G$-bundles)
- Show that a functor which preserves colimits has a right adjoint
- Show that a certain functor preserves colimits and finite limits by verifying it on the stalks of sheaves
Related Questions in FUNDAMENTAL-GROUPS
- Help resolving this contradiction in descriptions of the fundamental groups of the figure eight and n-torus
- $f$ has square root if and only if image of $f_*$ contained in $2 \mathbb Z$
- Homotopic maps between pointed sets induce same group homomorphism
- If $H \le \pi_1(X,x)$ is conjugate to $P_*(\pi_1(Y, y))$, then $H \cong P_*(\pi_1(Y, y'))$ for some $y' \in P^{-1}(x)$
- Calculating the fundamental group of $S^1$ with SvK
- Monodromy representation.
- A set of generators of $\pi_1(X,x_0)$ where $X=U\cup V$ and $U\cap V$ path connected
- Is the fundamental group of the image a subgroup of the fundamental group of the domain?
- Showing that $\pi_1(X/G) \cong G$.
- Fundamental group of a mapping cone
Related Questions in GROUPOIDS
- Foliations and groupoids in algebraic geometry
- Are there examples of unital and nuclear $C^*$-algebras satisfying the UCT that are not groupoid algebras of an amenable etale groupoid?
- The étale topos of a scheme is the classifying topos of...?
- Higher homotopy groups in terms of the fundamental groupoid
- Understanding the monadicity of groupoids over splittings
- Morita-equivalence of groupoids and classifying topoi: correct definition
- All sheaves in a Grothendieck topos are generated by subobjects of powers of a suitable sheaf
- "Eilenberg-MacLane property" for the classifying space of a groupoid
- Definition of $\pi_0 p^{-1}(u)$
- Equivalence of Categories between the Fundamental Group and Groupoid
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
This is an interesting question, and the quick answer is "no", but the long answer is "kind of". Let me say a bit more.
First, there's a quibble here that I don't fully agree with, but I feel obligated to mention. Usually when we talk about categories, our notion of "sameness" is equivalence, rather than isomorphism. This means that we aren't allowed to ask about the "set of objects" of a category, since this set is not well defined up to equivalence (for instance, up to equivalence, the category of finite dimensional $\mathbb{R}$ vector spaces could have one object for every natural number, or it could have one for every set of size continuum). You can talk about strict categories which allow you explicit access to the underlying set, and for these the correct notion of "sameness" is isomorphism. You should think about (categories vs strict categories) and (equivalence vs isomorphism) as being rather analogous to ("homotopy types" vs "topological spaces") and ("homotopy equivalence" vs "homeomorphism").
There's many ways to make this analogy precise, but for now it's enough to know that it's too much to expect the fundamental groupoid to recover the space up to homeomorphism. It's better to ask if it can recover the space up to homotopy equivalence.
Another, more serious, issue is that the fundamental groupoid only sees "one dimensional information" about your space. This is because we remember paths in the space up to homotopy, but importantly we don't remember what precisely the homotopies were. In the language of the last paragraph, if $X$ is path connected, then the fundamental groupoid $\Pi_1 X$ is equivalent to the fundamental group $\pi_1 (X,x_0)$ for any point $x_0 \in X$ (where we view this group as a one object groupoid). In particular, for path connected spaces, the fundamental groupoid can't distinguish between spaces with the same fundamental group. But there are plenty of non homotopy equivalent spaces which happen to have the same fundamental group!
So that's why the answer is "no". First, since we talk about categories up to equivalence, it doesn't make sense to get anything more than the homotopy-type of $X$ from its fundamental groupoid. Second, since the fundamental groupoid is equivalent to the fundamental group, we can't even expect to recover the homotopy type from just this information.
Of course, you might remember that there are higher homotopy groups, and that these remember the "higher dimensional information" about $X$ which the fundamental group forgets. Is there a way to make the fundamental groupoid remember this bonus information?
The answer here, as promised, is "kind of"!
We can build a bicategory $\Pi_2 X$ whose objects are points of $X$, arrows are paths in $X$, and 2-cells homotopies (up to higher homotopy). This construction, roughly, remembers all the "$\leq 2$-dimensional information" of $X$. We can also build a tricategory $\Pi_3 X$ where our 2-cells are all homotopies, and now we have 3-cells between these, which are higher homotopies (up to even higher homotopy). This tricategory remembers all the "$\leq 3$-dimensional information" of $X$. But, of course, why stop there? One can imagine building an $\infty$-category $\Pi_\infty X$ where we remember all the homotopies in all dimensions! This is the famous Fundamental $\infty$-Groupoid of $X$, and this makes your dream a reality: From the fundamental $\infty$-gropuoid $\Pi_\infty X$ you can recover $X$ up to homotopy!
There's only one catch...
Groupoids are algebraic objects that you can really compute with, and present (by generators and relations, say), which is what makes them so useful as invariants of a space. Unfortunately we have no such algebraic description of $\infty$-groupoid. At time of writing, it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that we basically define "$\infty$-groupoid" to be "topological space up to homotopy" (this is made precise with the language of model categories). This makes computations with the fundamental $\infty$-groupoid feel much more like doing topology than doing algebra, and while the concept is still useful, it's perhaps not as useful as it might one day be.
Finding a good algebraic definition of the $\infty$-groupoid, and proving that we can recover a space (up to homotopy) from (the algebraic description of) its fundamental $\infty$-groupoid is called the Homotopy Hypothesis, which is one of the most famous open problems in algebraic topology today!
I hope this helps ^_^