Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey! Sign in to get help with your study questionsNew here? Join for free to post

Riemann surfaces

Announcements Posted on
Applying to uni this year? Check out our new personal statement advice hub 28-11-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Let F: X -> Y be a surjective map between two compact connected Riemann surfaces which has the property that for every x in X, there is some open U containing x such that F restricted to U is a homeomorphism onto its image.

    Prove that F is also a covering in the sense of topology (for every V open in Y, the pre-image of V by F is homeomorphic to V x W for W discrete).

    have no idea where to even begin. i have some fact in my notes that given y in Y, let x be a preimage in X, then F a topological covering if every path starting at y can be lifted to a path starting at X.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by around)
    Let F: X -> Y be a surjective map between two compact connected Riemann surfaces which has the property that for every x in X, there is some open U containing x such that F restricted to U is a homeomorphism onto its image.

    Prove that F is also a covering in the sense of topology (for every V open in Y, the pre-image of V by F is homeomorphic to V x W for W discrete).

    have no idea where to even begin. i have some fact in my notes that given y in Y, let x be a preimage in X, then F a topological covering if every path starting at y can be lifted to a path starting at X.
    This is a really easy question and has nothing to do with Riemann surfaces and everything to do with compactness. (Also, don't use the path lifting property. Use the definition of covering space given.)
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zhen Lin)
    This is a really easy question and has nothing to do with Riemann surfaces and everything to do with compactness. (Also, don't use the path lifting property. Use the definition of covering space given.)
    Yeah, I did it in the end using the stack-of-records theorem from Differential Geometry.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by around)
    Prove that F is also a covering in the sense of topology (for every V open in Y, the pre-image of V by F is homeomorphic to V x W for W discrete).
    Hey this definition is a bit wrong.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I've already been told this, but it's the 'definition' given by our lecturer. I think if you stare hard enough the definitions are 'equivalent' on the context we're working in, but yeah, that's not quite the right one.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (What exactly is the context?)

    \mathbb{C} and the torus are Riemann surfaces, and the standard covering of the torus is a topological covering, but not one of your coverings.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hathlan)
    (What exactly is the context?)

    \mathbb{C} and the torus are Riemann surfaces, and the standard covering of the torus is a topological covering, but not one of your coverings.
    Yeah, the lecturer's got it wrong (the preimage of any open set U on the torus is certainly of the form W x D for W open in C, but W isn't necessarily biholomorphic to U)
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    To clarify:

    Definition. A covering map is a continuous map f : E \to B such that for each point p in B there is an open neighbourhood U such that f^{-1} U is homeomorphic to U \times D for some discrete set D.

    So to fix the given definition, all we have to do is replace "for every open set" with "for every small enough open set".

    Proposition. Let f : E \to B be a local homeomorphism with E quasicompact and B satisfying the T_1 separation axiom. Then f is a covering map.

    Proof. It is easy to check that the inverse image of every point in B is a closed discrete subset of E, and a compact discrete set is automatically finite. So f has finite fibres. But f is a local homeomorphism, so there is a neighbourhood of each point such that f restricts to a homeomorphism on that neighbourhood, and by finiteness, we can just take the intersection of all of these to obtain the desired evenly-covered neighbourhood of B.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 9, 2012
New on TSR

Vote for your favourite Christmas film

Win a bundle of Xmas DVDs

Article updates
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.