Definition
Let X be a topological space, and let x0 be a point of X. We are interested in the following set of continuous functions called loops with base point x0.
Now the fundamental group of X with base point x is this set modulo homotopy
equipped with the group multiplication defined by (f ∗ g)(t) := f(2t) if 0 ≤ t ≤ 1/2 and (f ∗ g)(t) := g(2t − 1) if 1/2 ≤ t ≤ 1. Thus the loop f ∗ g first follows the loop f with "twice the speed" and then follows g with twice the speed. The product of two homotopy classes of loops and is then defined as, and it can be shown that this product does not depend on the choice of representatives.
With the above product, the set of all homotopy classes of loops with base point x0 forms the fundamental group of X at the point x0 and is denoted
or simply π(X, x0). The identity element is the constant map at the basepoint, and the inverse of a loop f is the loop g defined by g(t) = f(1 − t). That is, g follows f backwards.
Although the fundamental group in general depends on the choice of base point, it turns out that, up to isomorphism (actually, even up to inner isomorphism), this choice makes no difference as long as the space X is path-connected. For path-connected spaces, therefore, we can write π1(X) instead of π1(X, x0) without ambiguity whenever we care about the isomorphism class only.
Read more about this topic: Fundamental Group
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“It is very hard to give a just definition of love. The most we can say of it is this: that in the soul, it is a desire to rule; in the spirit, it is a sympathy; and in the body, it is but a hidden and subtle desire to possessafter many mysterieswhat one loves.”
—François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld (16131680)
“Was man made stupid to see his own stupidity?
Is God by definition indifferent, beyond us all?
Is the eternal truth mans fighting soul
Wherein the Beast ravens in its own avidity?”
—Richard Eberhart (b. 1904)
“Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
—Walter Pater (18391894)