When are quotients of homeomorphic spaces homeomorphic?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
Let $X$ and $Y$ be homeomorphic topological spaces, connected by the homeomorphism $f : X rightarrow Y$. Let $sim$ be an equivalence relation on $X$ and $approx$ be an equivalence relation on $Y$.
I would think that there would be some structure that I could place on the equivalence relations $sim$ and $approx$ that would allow me to construct, using the homeomorphism $f$, a homeomorphism $barf$ from $X/sim$ to $Y/approx$. I suspect that that relationship is $a sim b leftrightarrow f(a) approx f(b), forall a, b in X$.
That is, I suspect that "equivalent" quotients of homeomorphic spaces are homeomorphic, but I don't know exactly how to formulate this or prove it.
(This result, by the way, to me, seems to hinge on the existence of a "reverse" universal quotient property: juts as functions $f : X/sim rightarrow Y$ correspond uniquely to a subset of functions $f : X rightarrow Y$, I suspect that functions $f : X rightarrow Y/approx$ correspond uniquely to some subset of functions $f : X rightarrow Y$, but I don't know how this works either.)
general-topology category-theory
add a comment |
Let $X$ and $Y$ be homeomorphic topological spaces, connected by the homeomorphism $f : X rightarrow Y$. Let $sim$ be an equivalence relation on $X$ and $approx$ be an equivalence relation on $Y$.
I would think that there would be some structure that I could place on the equivalence relations $sim$ and $approx$ that would allow me to construct, using the homeomorphism $f$, a homeomorphism $barf$ from $X/sim$ to $Y/approx$. I suspect that that relationship is $a sim b leftrightarrow f(a) approx f(b), forall a, b in X$.
That is, I suspect that "equivalent" quotients of homeomorphic spaces are homeomorphic, but I don't know exactly how to formulate this or prove it.
(This result, by the way, to me, seems to hinge on the existence of a "reverse" universal quotient property: juts as functions $f : X/sim rightarrow Y$ correspond uniquely to a subset of functions $f : X rightarrow Y$, I suspect that functions $f : X rightarrow Y/approx$ correspond uniquely to some subset of functions $f : X rightarrow Y$, but I don't know how this works either.)
general-topology category-theory
1
There is no such "reverse universal property". For instance you have many maps $S^1to S^1$ that don't factor through the quotient map $mathbbRto S^1$
– Max
Dec 15 at 15:59
Hmm, interesting. Is there a familiar subset of maps that do factor through in this fashion? I wonder if the question I'm asking here is best answered topologically or categorically.
– Billy Smith
Dec 15 at 17:59
In the specific case of $mathbbRto S^1$ the maps $Xto S^1$ that factor through it are precisely the nullhomotopic maps if $X$ is connected and locally path-connected. I don't know if there's a criterion for general quotient maps, but I don't think there is.
– Max
Dec 15 at 18:04
add a comment |
Let $X$ and $Y$ be homeomorphic topological spaces, connected by the homeomorphism $f : X rightarrow Y$. Let $sim$ be an equivalence relation on $X$ and $approx$ be an equivalence relation on $Y$.
I would think that there would be some structure that I could place on the equivalence relations $sim$ and $approx$ that would allow me to construct, using the homeomorphism $f$, a homeomorphism $barf$ from $X/sim$ to $Y/approx$. I suspect that that relationship is $a sim b leftrightarrow f(a) approx f(b), forall a, b in X$.
That is, I suspect that "equivalent" quotients of homeomorphic spaces are homeomorphic, but I don't know exactly how to formulate this or prove it.
(This result, by the way, to me, seems to hinge on the existence of a "reverse" universal quotient property: juts as functions $f : X/sim rightarrow Y$ correspond uniquely to a subset of functions $f : X rightarrow Y$, I suspect that functions $f : X rightarrow Y/approx$ correspond uniquely to some subset of functions $f : X rightarrow Y$, but I don't know how this works either.)
general-topology category-theory
Let $X$ and $Y$ be homeomorphic topological spaces, connected by the homeomorphism $f : X rightarrow Y$. Let $sim$ be an equivalence relation on $X$ and $approx$ be an equivalence relation on $Y$.
I would think that there would be some structure that I could place on the equivalence relations $sim$ and $approx$ that would allow me to construct, using the homeomorphism $f$, a homeomorphism $barf$ from $X/sim$ to $Y/approx$. I suspect that that relationship is $a sim b leftrightarrow f(a) approx f(b), forall a, b in X$.
That is, I suspect that "equivalent" quotients of homeomorphic spaces are homeomorphic, but I don't know exactly how to formulate this or prove it.
(This result, by the way, to me, seems to hinge on the existence of a "reverse" universal quotient property: juts as functions $f : X/sim rightarrow Y$ correspond uniquely to a subset of functions $f : X rightarrow Y$, I suspect that functions $f : X rightarrow Y/approx$ correspond uniquely to some subset of functions $f : X rightarrow Y$, but I don't know how this works either.)
general-topology category-theory
general-topology category-theory
asked Dec 15 at 14:27
Billy Smith
685
685
1
There is no such "reverse universal property". For instance you have many maps $S^1to S^1$ that don't factor through the quotient map $mathbbRto S^1$
– Max
Dec 15 at 15:59
Hmm, interesting. Is there a familiar subset of maps that do factor through in this fashion? I wonder if the question I'm asking here is best answered topologically or categorically.
– Billy Smith
Dec 15 at 17:59
In the specific case of $mathbbRto S^1$ the maps $Xto S^1$ that factor through it are precisely the nullhomotopic maps if $X$ is connected and locally path-connected. I don't know if there's a criterion for general quotient maps, but I don't think there is.
– Max
Dec 15 at 18:04
add a comment |
1
There is no such "reverse universal property". For instance you have many maps $S^1to S^1$ that don't factor through the quotient map $mathbbRto S^1$
– Max
Dec 15 at 15:59
Hmm, interesting. Is there a familiar subset of maps that do factor through in this fashion? I wonder if the question I'm asking here is best answered topologically or categorically.
– Billy Smith
Dec 15 at 17:59
In the specific case of $mathbbRto S^1$ the maps $Xto S^1$ that factor through it are precisely the nullhomotopic maps if $X$ is connected and locally path-connected. I don't know if there's a criterion for general quotient maps, but I don't think there is.
– Max
Dec 15 at 18:04
1
1
There is no such "reverse universal property". For instance you have many maps $S^1to S^1$ that don't factor through the quotient map $mathbbRto S^1$
– Max
Dec 15 at 15:59
There is no such "reverse universal property". For instance you have many maps $S^1to S^1$ that don't factor through the quotient map $mathbbRto S^1$
– Max
Dec 15 at 15:59
Hmm, interesting. Is there a familiar subset of maps that do factor through in this fashion? I wonder if the question I'm asking here is best answered topologically or categorically.
– Billy Smith
Dec 15 at 17:59
Hmm, interesting. Is there a familiar subset of maps that do factor through in this fashion? I wonder if the question I'm asking here is best answered topologically or categorically.
– Billy Smith
Dec 15 at 17:59
In the specific case of $mathbbRto S^1$ the maps $Xto S^1$ that factor through it are precisely the nullhomotopic maps if $X$ is connected and locally path-connected. I don't know if there's a criterion for general quotient maps, but I don't think there is.
– Max
Dec 15 at 18:04
In the specific case of $mathbbRto S^1$ the maps $Xto S^1$ that factor through it are precisely the nullhomotopic maps if $X$ is connected and locally path-connected. I don't know if there's a criterion for general quotient maps, but I don't think there is.
– Max
Dec 15 at 18:04
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Your suspicion is correct. If $X$ and $Y$ are topological spaces with equivalence relations $sim$ and $approx$ and $f:Xto Y$ is a homeomorphism such that $xsim y$ if and only if $f(x)approx f(y)$, then $f$ passes to the quotient as $X/_sim cong Y/_approx$.
Proof goes roughly like this: define $widetildef([x]_sim)doteq [f(x)]_approx$. We have that $widetildef$ is well-defined and injective because of the condition relating $sim$ and $approx$, while surjectivity follows from the surjectivity of $f$. Continuity of $widetildef$ and $widetildef^-1$ follow from the universal property of the quotient topologies applied to the relations $widetildefcircpi_sim=pi_approxcirc f$ and $widetildef^-1circ pi_approx=pi_simcirc f^-1$ with the continuity of $f$ and $f^-1$.
add a comment |
I think you are correct. Here is a sketch of the argument:
$phi:=pi_Ycirc f$ is a continuous surjection: $Xto Y/approx$ and it induces a bijection: $X^*=left phi^-1([y]): [y]in Y/approx right oversetoverlinephirightarrow Y/approx , $ which is a homeomorphism if and only if $phi$ is a quotient map.
As $phi $ is indeed a quotient map, the induced map is a homeomorphism. So, $X/sim$ and $Y/approx$ will be homoeomorphic if and only if $X^*$ and $X/sim$ are.
This means that the map $[x]mapsto f^-1circ pi^-1_Y([y])$ must be a homeomorphism. That is, $f([x])mapsto pi^-1_Y([y])$ must be a homeomorphism.
But the above map is well-defined if and only if $xsim x'Rightarrow f(x)approx f(x'),$ and in this case, it is obviously continuous, and it should be easy to check that it is bijective with continuous inverse.
add a comment |
For a categorical argument, a topological space equipped with an equivalence relation can be viewed as a parallel pair of arrows $Rrightrightarrows X$, where $Rsubset Xtimes X$ is the subspace consisting of the related pairs of points. Then the claim follows from reinterpreting your condition that $f$ preserve and reflect the equivalence relation as asking that $f$ extend to a natural isomorphism between the diagrams $Rrightrightarrows X$ and $Srightrightarrows Y$. Then your claim is a special case of the fact that naturally isomorphic diagrams have naturally isomorphic colimits, which follows from the fact that colimits are functorial.
This perspective clarifies that this really has nothing to do with equivalence relations, nor with topological spaces. As far as the technical details of the proof, any map $f:Xto Y$ induces a natural transformation between the diagrams $Xtimes Xrightrightarrows X$ and $Ytimes Yrightrightarrows Y$, so one is reduced to proving that $f$ induces a bijection $Rtimes Rto Stimes S$, which is exactly your assumption. There's no need to say anything more nitty-gritty.
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3041546%2fwhen-are-quotients-of-homeomorphic-spaces-homeomorphic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Your suspicion is correct. If $X$ and $Y$ are topological spaces with equivalence relations $sim$ and $approx$ and $f:Xto Y$ is a homeomorphism such that $xsim y$ if and only if $f(x)approx f(y)$, then $f$ passes to the quotient as $X/_sim cong Y/_approx$.
Proof goes roughly like this: define $widetildef([x]_sim)doteq [f(x)]_approx$. We have that $widetildef$ is well-defined and injective because of the condition relating $sim$ and $approx$, while surjectivity follows from the surjectivity of $f$. Continuity of $widetildef$ and $widetildef^-1$ follow from the universal property of the quotient topologies applied to the relations $widetildefcircpi_sim=pi_approxcirc f$ and $widetildef^-1circ pi_approx=pi_simcirc f^-1$ with the continuity of $f$ and $f^-1$.
add a comment |
Your suspicion is correct. If $X$ and $Y$ are topological spaces with equivalence relations $sim$ and $approx$ and $f:Xto Y$ is a homeomorphism such that $xsim y$ if and only if $f(x)approx f(y)$, then $f$ passes to the quotient as $X/_sim cong Y/_approx$.
Proof goes roughly like this: define $widetildef([x]_sim)doteq [f(x)]_approx$. We have that $widetildef$ is well-defined and injective because of the condition relating $sim$ and $approx$, while surjectivity follows from the surjectivity of $f$. Continuity of $widetildef$ and $widetildef^-1$ follow from the universal property of the quotient topologies applied to the relations $widetildefcircpi_sim=pi_approxcirc f$ and $widetildef^-1circ pi_approx=pi_simcirc f^-1$ with the continuity of $f$ and $f^-1$.
add a comment |
Your suspicion is correct. If $X$ and $Y$ are topological spaces with equivalence relations $sim$ and $approx$ and $f:Xto Y$ is a homeomorphism such that $xsim y$ if and only if $f(x)approx f(y)$, then $f$ passes to the quotient as $X/_sim cong Y/_approx$.
Proof goes roughly like this: define $widetildef([x]_sim)doteq [f(x)]_approx$. We have that $widetildef$ is well-defined and injective because of the condition relating $sim$ and $approx$, while surjectivity follows from the surjectivity of $f$. Continuity of $widetildef$ and $widetildef^-1$ follow from the universal property of the quotient topologies applied to the relations $widetildefcircpi_sim=pi_approxcirc f$ and $widetildef^-1circ pi_approx=pi_simcirc f^-1$ with the continuity of $f$ and $f^-1$.
Your suspicion is correct. If $X$ and $Y$ are topological spaces with equivalence relations $sim$ and $approx$ and $f:Xto Y$ is a homeomorphism such that $xsim y$ if and only if $f(x)approx f(y)$, then $f$ passes to the quotient as $X/_sim cong Y/_approx$.
Proof goes roughly like this: define $widetildef([x]_sim)doteq [f(x)]_approx$. We have that $widetildef$ is well-defined and injective because of the condition relating $sim$ and $approx$, while surjectivity follows from the surjectivity of $f$. Continuity of $widetildef$ and $widetildef^-1$ follow from the universal property of the quotient topologies applied to the relations $widetildefcircpi_sim=pi_approxcirc f$ and $widetildef^-1circ pi_approx=pi_simcirc f^-1$ with the continuity of $f$ and $f^-1$.
answered Dec 15 at 15:31
Ivo Terek
45.2k951139
45.2k951139
add a comment |
add a comment |
I think you are correct. Here is a sketch of the argument:
$phi:=pi_Ycirc f$ is a continuous surjection: $Xto Y/approx$ and it induces a bijection: $X^*=left phi^-1([y]): [y]in Y/approx right oversetoverlinephirightarrow Y/approx , $ which is a homeomorphism if and only if $phi$ is a quotient map.
As $phi $ is indeed a quotient map, the induced map is a homeomorphism. So, $X/sim$ and $Y/approx$ will be homoeomorphic if and only if $X^*$ and $X/sim$ are.
This means that the map $[x]mapsto f^-1circ pi^-1_Y([y])$ must be a homeomorphism. That is, $f([x])mapsto pi^-1_Y([y])$ must be a homeomorphism.
But the above map is well-defined if and only if $xsim x'Rightarrow f(x)approx f(x'),$ and in this case, it is obviously continuous, and it should be easy to check that it is bijective with continuous inverse.
add a comment |
I think you are correct. Here is a sketch of the argument:
$phi:=pi_Ycirc f$ is a continuous surjection: $Xto Y/approx$ and it induces a bijection: $X^*=left phi^-1([y]): [y]in Y/approx right oversetoverlinephirightarrow Y/approx , $ which is a homeomorphism if and only if $phi$ is a quotient map.
As $phi $ is indeed a quotient map, the induced map is a homeomorphism. So, $X/sim$ and $Y/approx$ will be homoeomorphic if and only if $X^*$ and $X/sim$ are.
This means that the map $[x]mapsto f^-1circ pi^-1_Y([y])$ must be a homeomorphism. That is, $f([x])mapsto pi^-1_Y([y])$ must be a homeomorphism.
But the above map is well-defined if and only if $xsim x'Rightarrow f(x)approx f(x'),$ and in this case, it is obviously continuous, and it should be easy to check that it is bijective with continuous inverse.
add a comment |
I think you are correct. Here is a sketch of the argument:
$phi:=pi_Ycirc f$ is a continuous surjection: $Xto Y/approx$ and it induces a bijection: $X^*=left phi^-1([y]): [y]in Y/approx right oversetoverlinephirightarrow Y/approx , $ which is a homeomorphism if and only if $phi$ is a quotient map.
As $phi $ is indeed a quotient map, the induced map is a homeomorphism. So, $X/sim$ and $Y/approx$ will be homoeomorphic if and only if $X^*$ and $X/sim$ are.
This means that the map $[x]mapsto f^-1circ pi^-1_Y([y])$ must be a homeomorphism. That is, $f([x])mapsto pi^-1_Y([y])$ must be a homeomorphism.
But the above map is well-defined if and only if $xsim x'Rightarrow f(x)approx f(x'),$ and in this case, it is obviously continuous, and it should be easy to check that it is bijective with continuous inverse.
I think you are correct. Here is a sketch of the argument:
$phi:=pi_Ycirc f$ is a continuous surjection: $Xto Y/approx$ and it induces a bijection: $X^*=left phi^-1([y]): [y]in Y/approx right oversetoverlinephirightarrow Y/approx , $ which is a homeomorphism if and only if $phi$ is a quotient map.
As $phi $ is indeed a quotient map, the induced map is a homeomorphism. So, $X/sim$ and $Y/approx$ will be homoeomorphic if and only if $X^*$ and $X/sim$ are.
This means that the map $[x]mapsto f^-1circ pi^-1_Y([y])$ must be a homeomorphism. That is, $f([x])mapsto pi^-1_Y([y])$ must be a homeomorphism.
But the above map is well-defined if and only if $xsim x'Rightarrow f(x)approx f(x'),$ and in this case, it is obviously continuous, and it should be easy to check that it is bijective with continuous inverse.
edited Dec 15 at 17:36
answered Dec 15 at 16:33
Matematleta
9,8722918
9,8722918
add a comment |
add a comment |
For a categorical argument, a topological space equipped with an equivalence relation can be viewed as a parallel pair of arrows $Rrightrightarrows X$, where $Rsubset Xtimes X$ is the subspace consisting of the related pairs of points. Then the claim follows from reinterpreting your condition that $f$ preserve and reflect the equivalence relation as asking that $f$ extend to a natural isomorphism between the diagrams $Rrightrightarrows X$ and $Srightrightarrows Y$. Then your claim is a special case of the fact that naturally isomorphic diagrams have naturally isomorphic colimits, which follows from the fact that colimits are functorial.
This perspective clarifies that this really has nothing to do with equivalence relations, nor with topological spaces. As far as the technical details of the proof, any map $f:Xto Y$ induces a natural transformation between the diagrams $Xtimes Xrightrightarrows X$ and $Ytimes Yrightrightarrows Y$, so one is reduced to proving that $f$ induces a bijection $Rtimes Rto Stimes S$, which is exactly your assumption. There's no need to say anything more nitty-gritty.
add a comment |
For a categorical argument, a topological space equipped with an equivalence relation can be viewed as a parallel pair of arrows $Rrightrightarrows X$, where $Rsubset Xtimes X$ is the subspace consisting of the related pairs of points. Then the claim follows from reinterpreting your condition that $f$ preserve and reflect the equivalence relation as asking that $f$ extend to a natural isomorphism between the diagrams $Rrightrightarrows X$ and $Srightrightarrows Y$. Then your claim is a special case of the fact that naturally isomorphic diagrams have naturally isomorphic colimits, which follows from the fact that colimits are functorial.
This perspective clarifies that this really has nothing to do with equivalence relations, nor with topological spaces. As far as the technical details of the proof, any map $f:Xto Y$ induces a natural transformation between the diagrams $Xtimes Xrightrightarrows X$ and $Ytimes Yrightrightarrows Y$, so one is reduced to proving that $f$ induces a bijection $Rtimes Rto Stimes S$, which is exactly your assumption. There's no need to say anything more nitty-gritty.
add a comment |
For a categorical argument, a topological space equipped with an equivalence relation can be viewed as a parallel pair of arrows $Rrightrightarrows X$, where $Rsubset Xtimes X$ is the subspace consisting of the related pairs of points. Then the claim follows from reinterpreting your condition that $f$ preserve and reflect the equivalence relation as asking that $f$ extend to a natural isomorphism between the diagrams $Rrightrightarrows X$ and $Srightrightarrows Y$. Then your claim is a special case of the fact that naturally isomorphic diagrams have naturally isomorphic colimits, which follows from the fact that colimits are functorial.
This perspective clarifies that this really has nothing to do with equivalence relations, nor with topological spaces. As far as the technical details of the proof, any map $f:Xto Y$ induces a natural transformation between the diagrams $Xtimes Xrightrightarrows X$ and $Ytimes Yrightrightarrows Y$, so one is reduced to proving that $f$ induces a bijection $Rtimes Rto Stimes S$, which is exactly your assumption. There's no need to say anything more nitty-gritty.
For a categorical argument, a topological space equipped with an equivalence relation can be viewed as a parallel pair of arrows $Rrightrightarrows X$, where $Rsubset Xtimes X$ is the subspace consisting of the related pairs of points. Then the claim follows from reinterpreting your condition that $f$ preserve and reflect the equivalence relation as asking that $f$ extend to a natural isomorphism between the diagrams $Rrightrightarrows X$ and $Srightrightarrows Y$. Then your claim is a special case of the fact that naturally isomorphic diagrams have naturally isomorphic colimits, which follows from the fact that colimits are functorial.
This perspective clarifies that this really has nothing to do with equivalence relations, nor with topological spaces. As far as the technical details of the proof, any map $f:Xto Y$ induces a natural transformation between the diagrams $Xtimes Xrightrightarrows X$ and $Ytimes Yrightrightarrows Y$, so one is reduced to proving that $f$ induces a bijection $Rtimes Rto Stimes S$, which is exactly your assumption. There's no need to say anything more nitty-gritty.
answered Dec 15 at 22:56
Kevin Carlson
32.4k23271
32.4k23271
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3041546%2fwhen-are-quotients-of-homeomorphic-spaces-homeomorphic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
There is no such "reverse universal property". For instance you have many maps $S^1to S^1$ that don't factor through the quotient map $mathbbRto S^1$
– Max
Dec 15 at 15:59
Hmm, interesting. Is there a familiar subset of maps that do factor through in this fashion? I wonder if the question I'm asking here is best answered topologically or categorically.
– Billy Smith
Dec 15 at 17:59
In the specific case of $mathbbRto S^1$ the maps $Xto S^1$ that factor through it are precisely the nullhomotopic maps if $X$ is connected and locally path-connected. I don't know if there's a criterion for general quotient maps, but I don't think there is.
– Max
Dec 15 at 18:04