Fundamental groups and path lifting for algebraic varieties
J\'anos Koll\'ar

TL;DR
This paper investigates fundamental groups of algebraic varieties, focusing on how surjectivity on π₁ behaves under base change, the relationship between Zariski and Euclidean topologies, and the conditions for path lifting in morphisms.
Contribution
It provides new insights into the behavior of fundamental groups under base change, compares topological notions, and characterizes morphisms with path lifting properties.
Findings
Surjectivity on π₁ is preserved under certain base changes.
Openness in Zariski topology relates to Euclidean topology.
Criteria for morphisms to have the path lifting property.
Abstract
We study 3 basic questions about fundamental groups of algebraic varieties. For a morphism, is being surjective on preserved by base change? What is the connection between openness in the Zariski and in the Euclidean topologies? Which morphisms have the path lifting property?
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory · Commutative Algebra and Its Applications · Polynomial and algebraic computation
Fundamental groups and path lifting
for algebraic varieties
János Kollár
Abstract.
We study 3 basic questions about fundamental groups of algebraic varieties. For a morphism, is being surjective on preserved by base change? What is the connection between openness in the Zariski and in the Euclidean topologies? Which morphisms have the path lifting property?
The aim of these notes is to study 3 questions involving maps between the fundemantal groups of algebraic varieties.
- •
Let be a morphism of schemes that induces a surjection on the algebraic fundemantal groups. Does the same hold after a base change ?
- •
Let be a morphism between -schemes. When can we lift every continuous path in to a path in ?
- •
Let be a morphism between -schemes. What is the connection between openness in the Zariski and in the Euclidean topologies?
An answer to the first question was used in the study of Pell surfaces [Kol19]. While this application involves only maps between algebraic curves, the curves in question are singular and non-proper, and it turns out to be not much harder to consider the general case. This is treated in Section 1.
The proof uses some basic properties of open and universally open morphisms, some of which I did not find in the literature. These are worked out in Section 2.
Various forms of path lifting are studied in Section 3. The answer is most complete for arc lifting (Definition 30) which is equivalent to openness of the morphism in the Euclidean topology and universal openness in the Zariski topology; see Theorem 31.
While the main applications are to schemes of finite type, the discussions in Sections 1–2 are formulated for arbitrary Noetherian schemes.
1. Maps between fundamental groups
Definition 1**.**
Let be a connected scheme and a geometric point. The fundamental group of with base point is denoted by . Working with schemes, we use the algebraic fundamental group.
Let be a morphism of connected schemes. Fix a base point and its -image . We get a natural group homomorphism .
- (1)
We say that is -surjective if is surjective.
Using the correspondence between quotients of the fundamental group and finite, étale covers we get the following equivalent form.
- (2)
is -surjective iff for every connected, finite, étale cover , the fiber product is also connected.
The latter formulation shows that the base point can be ignored in this definition. More generally, choosing a different , the image of is a conjugate of the image of .
One of the main aims is to show that connectedness of the fiber product also holds if is proper and universally open, see Theorem 2.5. We discuss open and universally open morphisms in Section 2.
Theorem 2**.**
Let be connected schemes and a proper and universally open morphism. The following are equivalent.
- (1)
* is -surjective.* 2. (2)
* is connected.* 3. (3)
* ( copies of ) is connected for some .* 4. (4)
The number of connected components of is bounded, independent of the number of factors. 5. (5)
For every connected scheme and proper, universally open morphism , the fiber product is connected. 6. (6)
For every connected scheme and proper, universally open morphism , the second projection is -surjective.
The following example shows that in (2.5–6) we need to be universally open. It would not be enough to assume only that is finite and open.
Example 3**.**
Let be a projective, nodal rational curve over an algebraically closed field with normalization and a smooth point. Note that . Let be its unique degree , connected, étale cover. For set . The maps glue to . Then
- (1)
is -surjective iff , 2. (2)
is finite, open and surjective, yet 3. (3)
is the disjoint union of and of copies of . Thus it is disconnected iff .
We start the proof of Theorem 2 with a series of remarks and lemmas that establish various special cases, and then use them to settle the general case.
Remark 4** (Stein factorization).**
Let be a proper morphism such that . Then is connected if is connected. Since commutes with any flat base change, (1.2) shows that is an isomorphism.
Applying this to the Stein factorization shows that Theorem 2 holds for proper morphisms iff it holds for finite morphisms.
Lemma 5** (2.2 2.5).**
Let be connected schemes and finite, universally open morphisms. Assume that is connected. Then is also connected.
Proof. Fix a geometric point and then choose such that . Let be the connected component that contains . Since is finite and universally open, so is the projection . Thus is surjective by (16.3). In particular, there is a point for some . Consider now the 2 projections for . Note that
[TABLE]
Since is connected, this shows that are in the same connected component of .
Let be the connected components. Projection to is universally open, so the projections are surjective by (16.3). All preimages of are in the same connected component by the above argument, hence has only 1 connected component. ∎
Using (1.2) this implies the following.
Corollary 6** (2.2 2.1).**
Let be connected schemes and a finite, universally open morphism. Assume that is connected. Then is surjective. ∎
Lemma 7**.**
Let be a universally open morphism of finite type. Assume that the diagonal is a connected component of . Then uniquely factors as where is a universal homeomorphism and is étale.
Proof. Such a factorization is unique, so it is enough to construct it étale locally on . By Corollary 21, after an étale base change we may assume that is of the form where each restriction is finite, local and is purely inseparable. Thus is connected, since all of its irreducible components contain the 1-pointed scheme . Thus , so is also purely inseparable for every . Hence is a universal homeomorphism by [Gro71, I.3.7–8]. Thus the factorization is . ∎
Lemma 8**.**
Let be a connected scheme and a finite, universally open morphism. Then uniquely factors as where is finite, étale and is connected.
Proof. Let denote the connected component of in . It is a finite equivalence relation on and the geometric quotient exists by [Kol12, Lem.17]. The natural map is a universal homeomorphism onto , thus is connected. We apply Lemma 7 to to get where is a universal homeomorphism and is étale. ∎
Combining Lemma 8 and Corollary 6 we get the finite case of following. For proper morphisms we also use Remark 4.
Corollary 9**.**
Let be a proper, universally open morphism of connected schemes. Let be a geometric point and its image. Then has finite index in . ∎
The normalization of the nodal plane cubic shows that the conclusion does not hold if is only assumed finite and open.
10****Proof of Theorem 2.
As we noted in Remark 4, it is enough to prove the special case when and are both finite.
We already proved that 2.1 2.2 and that they imply 2.5. Setting shows that 2.5 2.2 and we get 2.3 by induction on the number of factors.
We use the shorthand for the fiber product with factors. The coordinate projection is surjective, thus 2.3 2.2.
Since every connected component of dominates , if has at least connected components then has at least connected components. Thus (2.3) (2.4).
If is not -surjective then by Lemma 8 it factors as where is finite, étale and of degree . Setting shows that (2.6) (2.1).
Conversely, assume (2.1) and fix . We already know that is connected. If is not -surjective then by (1.2) there is a nontrivial, finite étale cover such that is not connected. Applying (2.5) to we get that is connected, a contradiction. Thus (2.1) (2.6). ∎
Next we consider 3 variants of -surjectivity.
11****Topological fundamental group.
Let be a connected -scheme of finite type and a point. We then have the topological fundamental group \pi^{\rm top}\bigl{(}X({\mathbb{C}}),x\bigr{)}. A morphism between connected -schemes of finite type is -surjective if is surjective.
Although the natural map can have infinite kernel, as a consequence of Lemma 39 we see that if is proper and universally open then the index of \operatorname{im}\bigl{[}\pi^{\rm top}(X)\to\pi^{\rm top}(Y)\bigr{]} in equals the index of \operatorname{im}\bigl{[}\pi(X)\to\pi(Y)\bigr{]} in . In particular, is -surjective iff it is -surjective. Thus Theorem 2 holds for the topological fundamental group as well.
12****First homology group.
Let be a connected scheme and a geometric point. The first homology group, denoted by , is defined as the abelianization of ; it is independent of the base point. Since we start with the algebraic fundamental group, is a module, where is the profinite completion of . If then is the profinite completion of H_{1}\bigl{(}X({\mathbb{C}}),{\mathbb{Z}}\bigr{)}.
We say that is -surjective if is surjective. Note that -surjective implies -surjective.
In [Kol19] we needed to understand whether -surjectivity is preserved by base change as in Theorem 2.6. The following example shows that it is not.
Let be a simply connected manifold (or variety over ) on which acts freely. Assume that is odd. Let be a point stabilizer and a subgroup generated by an -cycle. We get a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
which is a fiber product square. Here is -surjective but is not.
This is the reason why, although in [Kol19] the main interest is in -surjectivity, we needed to understand the base change behaviour of -surjectivity.
13****Tame fundamental group.
Let be a -scheme and . Let denote the largest prime to quotient of , that is, the inverse limit of all quotients where . We say that is -surjective modulo if is surjective.
The diagram (12.1) also shows that -surjectivity modulo is not preserved by base change.
2. Open and universally open maps
We discuss properties of universally open maps that were used in the proofs of Theorems 2 and 31. We aim to treat these in their natural generality and also establish various results that are of independent interest.
Definition 14**.**
A morphism is open at if for every open , its image contains an open neighborhood of . A morphism is open (resp. open along ) if is open at every (resp. ).
A morphism is universally open at (resp. along ) if is open along (resp. ) for every where is the first projection. We say that is universally open if it is universally open at every . (Note that the Zariski topology on the product of 2 varieties is not the product topology, this is why open does not imply universally open.)
The following examples are good to keep in mind.
- (1)
Let be a morphism of finite type -schemes. We see in Theorem 31 that is universally open iff is open in the Euclidean topology. Thus universal openness should be viewed as the more geometric notion. 2. (2)
If is open then every irreducible component of dominates an irreducible component of . See Lemma 28 for a partial converse statement. 3. (3)
Let be a quasi-finite morphism of purely 1-dimensional -schemes. If is irreducible then is open since every dense, constructible subset of is open. 4. (4)
Let be a finite, birational morphism. Then is universally open iff it is a bijection on geometric points. 5. (5)
As a consequence we see that if is an irreducible curve with nodes then the normalization is open but not universally open. 6. (6)
Let be a finite, birational morphism. Assume that every irreducible component of has dimension . Then is open is universally open is a bijection on geometric points.
Thus the difference between open and universally open appears mostly for 1-dimensional targets. Nonethless, many proofs involve localization and induction on the dimension, so the difference between the 2 notions can be significant.
Example 15** (Openness is not an open property).**
The following examples show that openness of a morphism at a point is not an open property. I assume this is why this notion is not defined in [Sta15, Tag 004E]. Nonetheless, I think that the notion is natural and has several useful properties.
(15.1) Set , and the coordinate projection. Then is universally open at all points of the plane but not open at the points of the punctured line . It truns out to be a general feature that openness along a fiber says a lot about the maximal dimensional irreducible components of but very little about the lower dimensional ones; see Theorem 26.
(15.2) Let be the pinch point and its normalization. Here is given by . Note that is universally open at (see (17.3) for a more general claim). However it is not open at any other point of the -axis.
Furthermore, although all fibers of have dimension 0, it does not have pure relative dimension 0. Indeed, the fiber product has 2 irreducible components; one is and the other is isomorphic to lying over the -axis.
See Example 40 for other properties of this surface.
16****Basic properties.
The following are some obvious properties.
- (1)
Let be a morphism and a locally closed subscheme. If is open at then is open at . 2. (2)
Let and be morphisms, .
- (a)
If is open at and is open at then is open at . 2. (b)
If is open at then is open at . 3. (3)
Let be proper and open. Let be a connected component. Then is closed and open in , hence a connected component. 4. (4)
If is open at then is also open at for every subvariety . 5. (5)
Let be morphism and the irreducible components. Set . By restriction we get . Then is open (resp. universally open) at iff is open (resp. universally open) at whenever . 6. (6)
A flat morphism of finite presentation is universally open [Sta15, Tag 01UA]. This is probably easiest to see using (17.3). 7. (7)
[Sta15, Tag 04R3] Being universally open is étale local on source and target. That is, if we have a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
where are étale, then is universally open at iff is universally open at . 8. (8)
Let be a proper morphism with Stein factorization . By (2.b), if is open then so is . The following example shows that need not be open. Take 2 copies of and and glue them along the points for some to get . The Stein factorization of the first coordinate projection is
[TABLE]
Note that and are universally open but is not open.
17****Valuative and base change criteria.
The simplest non-open morphism is the embedding of a closed point into an irreducible curve . It turns out that this example is quite typical. If there is an irreducible, positive dimensional subvariety such that then, by (16.4), shows that is not open at , giving a necessary openness criterion.
We claim that if is of finite type, then the criterion is also sufficient, after a small change.
(17.1) Let be a morphism of finite type, a point and . Then is not open at iff there is an open subset and an irreducible subscheme such that has codimension 1 in and the generic point of is not contained in . In particular,
[TABLE]
shows that is not open at .
Proof. Choose such that does not contain any open neighborhood of . Since is constructible, is constructible and its closure contains . There is thus an irreducible component whose closure contains . Note that is a nowhere dense constructible subset. Take any irreducible subscheme that is not contained in the closure of . ∎
Since is dominated by a valuation ring, we can restate (17.1) in the following variant forms.
(17.2) A finite type morphism is open at if is open along for every 1-dimensional, irreducible subscheme where . ∎
(17.3) [Sta15, Tag 01TZ]. A finite type morphism is universally open at if is open along for every where is the spectrum of a valuation ring and maps its closed point to . ∎
(17.4) Let be a morphism. Assume that there is a closed subscheme such that is finite, dominant, and is purely inseparable. Then is universally open at .
Proof. Let be open. Then is closed, hence so is , which does not contain . So
[TABLE]
shows that is open at . The assumptions are preserved by base change, so is universally open at . ∎
(17.5) Let be a morphism of finite type. Assume that are integral, is open along . Then .
Proof. We need to prove that the generic fiber also has dimension . This is clear after base change to as in (17.3), where maps the closed point to and the generic point of to the generic point of . ∎
(17.6) We prove in Theorem 19 that a finite type morphism is universally open along iff is open along for every étale .
18****Openness and pure dimensional morphisms.
Let be a morphism of finite type.
(18.1) Set and .
By the upper semicontinuity of the fiber dimension [Sta15, Tag 02FZ], is open in and is closed in and locally closed in .
(18.2) Let be a morphism of finite type. Then is open (resp. universally open) along iff is open (resp. universally open) along for every .
Proof. As we noted, is open in , thus we may as well assume that all fibers have dimension . The formation of commutes with base change, and over a 1-dimensional base the claims are clear. ∎
Note that the punctual version does not hold. As an example, set and . The coordinate projection is open at the origin yet is not open at the origin. A much worse example is given in Example 25.
(18.3) Let be a morphism of finite type whose fibers have pure dimension . Let be a relative complete intersection. Then is open (resp. universally open) at iff is open (resp. universally open) at .
Proof. Assume that is open at and let be open. Then is open and shows that is open at .
Conversely, assume that is not open at . By (17.1–2) it is enough to check the claim when is a spectrum of a local ring of dimension 1. Thus, after replacing with an open neighborhood of we may asume that ; this follows from (17.1). Since and , we conclude that . Thus is an irreducible component of , hence is not open. ∎
(18.4) Let be a morphism of finite type. If has pure relative dimension (that is, has pure dimension for every local morphism from an integral scheme to ) then is also universally open. This follows from (17.3). Note, however, that the local version of this is not true; see (15.2).
Next we show that it is enough to use étale base changes in the definition of universal openness.
Theorem 19**.**
Let be a morphism of finite type. Then is universally open along iff is open along for every étale base change diagram as in (16.7).
Proof. If is universally open at then it is open after every base change.
Conversely, pick and assume that is open at after every étale base change. Set . By (18.2) is also open at after every étale base change and by (18.3) the same holds for every relative complete intersection of codimension . Then is quasi-finite. Take an étale base change as in Proposition 20 to get
[TABLE]
By construction every is finite and is purely inseparable. Furthermore, is open by assumption, hence dominant. Thus is universally open by (17.4) and so is . Thus is universally open by (18.3) and (18.2). ∎
We used some results on étale localization of quasi-finite morphisms; see [Sta15, Tag 04HF] for proofs and further generalizations.
Proposition 20**.**
Let be a quasi-finite morphism and . Then there is an étale morphism such that
[TABLE]
where, does not have any points lying over and, for every , the morphism is finite, and is purely inseparable. ∎
Corollary 21**.**
Let be a quasi-finite morphism. Then there is a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
where are étale, finite, and is purely inseparable. ∎
We refer to (21.1) as an étale base change diagram of .
Corollary 22**.**
[Sta15, Tag 02LO]** Let be a finite morphism. Then there is an étale morphism such that
[TABLE]
where, for every , the morphism is finite, and is purely inseparable. ∎
Geometrically unibranch schemes
Definition 23**.**
A local scheme is called geometrically unibranch if for every étale morphism , the local scheme is irreducible. See [Sta15, Tag 06DT] for other definitions and basic properties.
Openness is very well behaved for geometrically unibranch targets; cf. [Sta15, Tag 0F32]
Proposition 24**.**
Let be a finite type morphism. Assume that is irreducible and is geometrically unibranch at . The following are equivalent.
- (1)
. 2. (2)
* is open along .* 3. (3)
* is universally open along .*
Proof. Note that (3) implies (2) by definition, and (2) implies (1) by (17.5). It remains to show that (1) (3).
Note that for every , thus is pure dimensional.
Let be a relative complete intersection of codimension . By (18.3) it is enough to show that is universally open at . Thus we may assume that is quasi-finite. Apply Proposition 20 to get an étale morphism and a decomposition
[TABLE]
where the are purely inseparable and the projections are finite. The are also dominant by assumption, hence universally open at by (17.4). Thus is universally open along , and so is universally open along . ∎
Example 25**.**
It seems natural to hope that the equivalence (24.2) (24.3) holds pointwise. This is, however, not the case. To see this, we construct below a projective morphism of surfaces such that is normal and is open at , yet is not universally open at .
Let be a normal surface singularity with a (non-minimal) resolution and exceptional curves . Assume that
- (1)
for every there is a morphism that contracts only the curve , 2. (2)
is normal and is projective, 3. (3)
if an algebraic curve is disjoint from then it is also disjoint from .
Let be obtained from the surfaces by identifying the points . The morphisms glue to a projective morphism .
Claim 25.4. is open but not universally open at .
Proof. Let be an algebraic curve that meets transversally at a general point . Then shows that is not universally open at .
Assume to the contrary that is not open. Then, by (17.1), there is a curve such that the closure of the preimage of does not pass through . Note that is the union of the birational transforms and these in turn are the images of . Thus is disjoint from . By (3) then is also disjoint from , which contradicts . ∎
In order to construct such an , we start with and 3 general lines . Let be a general quartic curve. We obtain by blowing up the 12 intersection points of with the lines. The birational transforms of the become . Contracting them we get . Pick next a very general point and let denote the blow-up. The birational transforms of the give and is the exceptional curve of .
Each is a rational curve with negative self-intersection, so it can be contracted projectively. (This is essentially due to Castelnuovo; the proof in [Har77, V.5.7] is easy to modify.) It remains to check assumption (3). Slightly stronger, we claim that an algebraic curve can not intersect only at . To see this note that is finitely generated (in fact, isomorphic to ), hence the image of the restriction map
[TABLE]
is finitely generated. Thus, for a very general point , the intersection of with the image is the trivial element .
As a concrete example, we can take to be the projectivisation of the affine surface
[TABLE]
If is reducible and is universally open along then, as shown by Example 41.2, we can say very little about the lower dimensional irreducible components of . The next result shows that the maximal dimensional irreducible components behave better.
Theorem 26**.**
Let a finite type morphism that is universally open along . Set and let be the union of all those irreducible components of that dominate some irreducible component of and have nonempty intersection with .
Then is universally open along .
Proof. The conclusions can be checked after an étale base change, hence, using Lemma 27, we may assume that every irreducible component of is unibranch. Then, by (16.7), we may also assume that is irreducible, hence unibranch.
Let be an irreducible component. By assumption dominates and the generic fiber of has dimension since . Thus and so is universally open along by Proposition 24. ∎
Lemma 27**.**
[Sta15, Tag 0CB4]** Let be a local scheme. Then there is an étale morphism such that every irreducible component is geometrically unibranch. ∎
The following is a partial converse to (14.3).
Lemma 28**.**
Let be a connected scheme and a dominant morphism of finite type whose fibers have pure dimension . The following are equivalent.
- (1)
* is universally open,* 2. (2)
* is open,* 3. (3)
Every irreducible component of dominates an irreducible component of and every irreducible component of dominates an irreducible component of .
Proof. If is universaly open then so is , hence also their composite . Thus (1) (2) and (2) (3) is clear.
It remains to show that if (3) holds then is universally open along for every . Using Lemma 27, after an étale base change we may assume that every irreducible component is geometrically unibranch.
Set . By (16.7) it is enough to show that each is universaly open along . If this does not hold, then, by Proposition 24, there is an irreducible component that does not dominate . By assumption there is an irreducible component that contains and this dominates some irreducible component . By assumption .
Let be an irreducible component that does dominate . Then is an union of irreducible components of that lie over , hence they do not dominate any irreducible component of . This is impossible by (3), ∎
Example 29**.**
This example shows that the equidimensionality assumption in the previous Lemma 28 is necessary. Set
[TABLE]
with projection . The central fiber has dimension 2, so is not open. The fiber product
[TABLE]
is given by 2 equations, hence its irreducible components have dimension . The central fiber of has dimension 4, so it can not be an irreducible component. Thus is irreducible.
Note also that if is not pure dimensional then the fiber product of more than copies of always has a non-dominant irreducible component.
3. Path lifting in the Euclidean topology
Let be a morphism of -schemes of finite type. In this section we compare scheme-theoretic properties of with properties of in the Euclidean topology.
It is easy to see that universal openness in the Zariski topology (Definition 14) is equivalent to openness in the Euclidean topology; see Lemma 32. Next we study 3 versions of the path lifting property. We see in Theorems 31 and 35 that 2 of them have very satisfactory scheme-theretic descriptions.
Definition 30** (Arc and path lifting).**
Let be a continuous map of topological spaces and a path. A lift of with starting point m\in h^{-1}\bigl{(}\gamma(0)\bigr{)} is a continuous map such that and .
- (1)
We say that has the path lifting property if a lift exists for every and m\in h^{-1}\bigl{(}\gamma(0)\bigr{)}. We do not require to be unique. If this holds then every path also lifts. 2. (2)
We say that has the arc lifting (or local path lifting) property if the lift exists over some subinterval , where may depend on m\in h^{-1}\bigl{(}\gamma(0)\bigr{)}. 3. (3)
We say that has the 2-point path lifting property if given and for , there is a lifting such that and . The basic example is a fiber bundle with path-connected fiber .
Note also that if is path-connected, and has the path lifting property then is surjective.
Lifting constant paths shows that if has the 2-point path lifting property then all fibers of are path-connected.
The concept of path lifting occurs most frequently in the topological literature, but the next result shows that, from the scheme-theoretic point of view, arc lifting is the most natural property.
Theorem 31**.**
Let be a morphism of -schemes of finite type. The following are equivalent.
- (1)
* is universally open (Definition 14).* 2. (2)
* is open in the Euclidean topology.* 3. (3)
* has the arc lifting property (30.2).*
Proof. The equivalence of (31.1) and (31.2) is established in Lemma 32.
Assume next that is not universally open at . By Theorem 19, after a suitable étale base change, it is not open at . An étale base change is a local homeomorphism in the Euclidean topology, thus it does not alter the liftability of arcs.
Thus, by (17.2) there is a curve such that . Choosing a path in this curve shows that (31.3) (31.2). Thus it remains to prove that (31.2) (31.3). This done in 3 steps.
If is finite, arc lifting is proved in Lemmas 33–34. If has pure dimension at , then we take a relative complete intersection of codimension . Then is quasi-finite at and open by (18.3). An étale base change as in Proposition 20 reduces this to the already discussed finite case. Thus an arc has a lift . This is also a lift to .
Finally, in general set . By (18.2) the restriction of to is universally open. The fibers of have pure dimension , thus has the arc lifting property and so does . ∎
Lemma 32**.**
* be a morphism between -schemes of finite type. Then is universally open at in the Zariski topology iff is open at in the Euclidean topology.*
Proof. Assume that is open at in the Euclidean topology and let be a Zariski open neighborhood. Then is also Euclidean open, hence contains a Euclidean open neighborhood of . Since is also constructible, it also contains a Zariski open neighborhood of . Thus is open at in the Zariski topology. An étale base change is a local homeomorphism in the Euclidean topology, hence is also universally open at in the Zariski topology by Theorem 19.
Conversely, assume that is not universally open at . By Theorem 19, after a suitable étale base change, it is not open at . Thus, by (17.1) this means that there is a curve such that . This shows that is not open at in the Euclidean topology either. ∎
Lemma 33**.**
Let be a finite morphisms of -schemes of finite type. Then one can choose triangulations on them such that is simplicial.
Proof. Set , and . If is already defined then let be the largest smooth, open subset of pure dimension such that is étale. Set and .
Triangulate by starting with , extending it to a triangulation of (possibly adding new vertices), then extending it to a triangulation of (possibly after a refinement) and so on. At the end we get a triangulation of such that the interior of every simplex lies in some . Thus the preimages of the simplices give a triangulation of and is simplicial. ∎
Lemma 34**.**
Let be connected simplicial complexes and a proper, open, simplicial map with finite fibers. Then has the path lifting property.
Proof. We are given a path and a lifting . Choose a maximal lifting . (At the begining we allow .) First we define . Set and let be the preimages of . Choose an open neighborhood such that is a disjoint union of connected neighborhoods of the . Then is contained in one of them, say , and setting is the unique continuous extension of to .
In order to extend beyond , we may as well assume that is a vertex. Then is also a vertex. We can choose the neighborhood to be a cone over the link . Then is also a cone over its link and is finite, open and simplicial. If maps to then we define on as follows. If then set . The complement of this set, denoted by , is a countable union of open intervals and maps to
[TABLE]
Correspondingly we can write where maps to . Since is simplicial, by induction on the dimension, lifts to . (As we noted in (30.1), open paths also lift.) Then set .∎
Next we consider the scheme-theretic description of the 2-point path lifting property.
Theorem 35**.**
Let be a morphism of -schemes of finite type. The following are equivalent.
- (1)
* is universally open, surjective and has connected fibers.* 2. (2)
* is open in the Euclidean topology, surjective and has connected fibers.* 3. (3)
* is surjective, has connected fibers and satisfies the arc lifting property (30.2).* 4. (4)
* has the 2-point path lifting property (30.3).*
Proof. The equivalence of (1), (2) and (3) follows from Theorem 31, once we note that a -scheme of finite type is connected in the Zariski topology iff it is connected in the Euclidean topology. (This is usually proved using Chow’s theorem, but one can use Bertini’s hyperplane section theorem to reduce it to the 1-dimensional case, which was known to Riemann.)
We noted at the end of Definition 30 that if (4) holds then is surjective and has connected fibers. Thus (4) implies (1–3) and it remains to show that (1–3) imply (4).
We have and liftings of and of . Assume that we already have a lifting defined on . By (3) we have a lifting such that . The concatenation of on with defines on .
Assume next that we have defined on . We do not claim that it extends to , but we show that the restriction of to extends to for some . Moreover, if then we can also arrange that . For other values of pick any lifting of . Applying (3) gives a lifting
- (5)
such that .
Starting from , we get a stratification of as in (36.1). Applying Lemma 34 to we get a triangulation of with as a vertex. Let be the smallest subcomplex that contains \gamma\bigl{(}(c-\delta,c)\bigr{)} for some and let be a maximal dimensional simplex with interior . Then is open in and its closure contains . In particular, we see that
- (a)
there is a homeomorphism that commutes with projection to for some and 2. (b)
there are such that maps to .
As we noted in (30.3), the restriction of to has a lifting such that
[TABLE]
Thus the concatenation of on , on and on defines a lifting of over . ∎
36****Stratification of maps.
Let be a morphism of varieties over . As in [GM88, Sec.I.1.7], has a stratification by closed subvarieties
[TABLE]
where has pure dimension and each
[TABLE]
is a topologically locally trivial fiber bundle. (There may be different fibers over different connected components.) Thus path lifting could fail only at points where a path moves from one stratum to another.
Let be a quasi-finite, universally open morphism. Using Lemma 34 we see that has the path lifting property iff is proper. However, as shown by Example 41, the path lifting property does not seem to have an equivalent scheme-theoretic version for morphisms with positive dimensional fibers. Nonetheless, the following sufficient condition is quite natural and useful.
Theorem 37**.**
Let be a proper, universally open, pure dimensional morphism of -schemes of finite type. Then has the path lifting property
Proof. As (16.8) shows, we can not use Stein factorization to reduce Theorem 37 directly to Theorem 35, but a suitable modification of the proof will work.
We follow the proof of (35.3) (35.4), but we need to make a different choice of in (35.5). Note that \gamma^{\prime}\bigl{(}[c-\eta_{1},c-\eta_{2}]\bigr{)} is contained in a connected component , and everything works as before if we can ensure that \gamma^{\prime\prime}_{c}\bigl{(}[c-\eta_{1},c-\eta_{2}]\bigr{)} is also contained in .
To do this, let be the Stein factorization. The choice of the connected component defines a section . By Lemma 38, after an étale base change we may assume to have a relative complete intersection such that the induced map is finite and surjective. In particular, there is an such that g_{1}(m_{z})=\sigma\bigl{(}\gamma(c-\eta_{2})\bigr{)}. Since is finite and open, it satisfies the path lifting property by Lemma 34. Thus the restriction of to has a lifting such that . By construction and are in the same commected component of the fiber and the rest of the proof now works as before. ∎
Lemma 38**.**
Let be a proper, universally open morphism of finite type and of relative dimension . Let denote its Stein factorization. Let be a point and a finite subset that has nonempty intersection with every irreducible component of . Let be a relative complete intersection of codimension . Then there is an étale neighborhood such that the induced morphism is finite and surjective.
Proof. By construction is quasi-finite, hence there is an étale neighborhood such that is finite. Thus is also finite. We need to prove that it is surjective.
Let be the disjoint union of the irreducible components of . By base change we get , \tilde{P}^{\prime}_{1}\subset\bigl{(}\tilde{X}^{\prime}_{1})_{y^{\prime}} and . An irreducible component of \bigl{(}\tilde{X}^{\prime}_{1})_{y^{\prime}} has pure dimension , thus its image in is an irreducible component. Thus has nonempty intersection with every irreducible component of \bigl{(}\tilde{X}^{\prime}_{1})_{y^{\prime}}. Thus dominates and hence dominates . Since is finite, this implies that it is surjective. ∎
Next we establish the Euclidean version of Corollary 9.
Corollary 39**.**
Let be a proper, universally open morphism of pointed, connected -schemes. Then \operatorname{im}[\pi_{1}\bigl{(}X({\mathbb{C}}),x\bigr{)}\to\pi_{1}\bigl{(}Y({\mathbb{C}}),y\bigr{)}] has finite index in \pi_{1}\bigl{(}Y({\mathbb{C}}),y\bigr{)}.
Proof. Let denote the maximal fiber dimension. Then is also proper and universally open by (18.2). We may choose and then factors as
[TABLE]
Thus it is enough to show that \operatorname{im}[\pi_{1}\bigl{(}X^{(n)}({\mathbb{C}}),x\bigr{)}\to\pi_{1}\bigl{(}Y({\mathbb{C}}),y\bigr{)}] has finite index in \pi_{1}\bigl{(}Y({\mathbb{C}}),y\bigr{)}. The advantage is that has the path lifting property by Theorem 37. The rest follows from (39.1).
Claim 39.1. Let be a continuous map of path-connected topological spaces that has the path lifting property. Assume that has finitely many path-connected components for some . Then the image of has finite index in .
Proof. Every loop starting and ending in lifts to a path that starts at and ends in . If 2 loops end at the same path-connected component then lifts to a loop on . This shows that the index of the image of is bounded by the number of path-connected components of the fiber. ∎
Examples
The first example shows that Theorem 35 does not have a pointwise version.
Example 40**.**
Let be the pinch point as in Example 15.1 with normalization . We saw that is universally open at the origin. However, it does not have the arc lifting property at the origin.
To see this consider the real curves \gamma^{\pm}:t\mapsto\bigl{(}t,\pm t^{2}\sin(t^{-1})\bigr{)}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{2}. Note that and intersect at the points . Thus the arc
[TABLE]
has no lifting.
Example 41** (Path lifting and properness).**
It is natural to hope that arc lifting plus properness should imply path lifting, but this is not the case.
(41.1) Let be obtained from and of by identifying the exceptional divisor of the blow-up with . The projection is universally open, and so is , but is not even open. The path
[TABLE]
does not lift to . Thus is universally open and proper, it has the arc lifting property but not the path lifting property.
In the next 2 variants of the above construction, gluing of 2 irreducible components has the opposite effect on path lifting.
(41.2) Set . Note that is a section of . Thus every path starting in can be lifted to but does not have the path lifting property.
Let be obtained from and of by identifying the fibers over the origin. Then has the path lifting property.
(41.3) Let be obtained from by blowing up . The projection to factors as , thus not all paths starting in can be lifted to . Let be obtained from and of by identifying the fibers over the origin. Thus is universally open and proper, it has the arc lifting property but not the path lifting property.
Acknowledgments**.**
Partial financial support was provided by the NSF under grant numbers DMS-1362960 and DMS-1440140 while the author was in residence at MSRI during the Spring 2019 semester.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[GM 88] Mark Goresky and Robert Mac Pherson, Stratified Morse theory , Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3), vol. 14, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988. MR 932724 (90d:57039)
- 2[Gro 71] Alexander Grothendieck, Éléments de géométrie algébrique. I. , Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 1971.
- 3[Har 77] Robin Hartshorne, Algebraic geometry , Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 52. MR 0463157 (57 #3116)
- 4[Kol 12] János Kollár, Quotients by finite equivalence relations , Current developments in algebraic geometry, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., vol. 59, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2012, With an appendix by Claudiu Raicu, pp. 227–256. MR 2931872
- 5[Kol 19] by same author, Pell surfaces , ar Xiv:1906.08818.
- 6[Sta 15] The Stacks Project Authors, Stacks Project , http://stacks.math.columbia.edu, 2015.
