The Fundamental Group of the Wedge Sum
Let be the wedge sum of two circles (two circles glued at a single point). What is the fundamental group ?
Now here is the conceptual puzzle: both and have fundamental group (which is abelian). Yet is non-abelian. How can gluing two spaces with abelian fundamental groups produce a non-abelian group?
Compute and exhibit a concrete pair of loops that do not commute.
Answer: Fundamental Group of S¹ ∨ S¹ Is Non-Abelian
Key Idea / Intuition
The wedge sum looks like the letter "∞" — two loops sharing a basepoint. A loop in this space is a word made of "go around the first circle" and "go around the second circle" in any order. There is no reason these two generators should commute: going around then traces a genuinely different path than then , and there is no homotopy in the space that could swap them. Van Kampen's theorem makes this precise: when two open sets meet in a simply-connected overlap, the fundamental group is the free product (not direct product) of their fundamental groups.
Formal Proof / Solution
Setup. Let be the wedge (base) point. Write the two circles as and with .
Applying the Seifert–Van Kampen Theorem.
Choose open sets:
Then:
- , so , generated by (loop around ).
- , so , generated by (loop around ).
- a small cross-shaped neighborhood of , which is contractible, so .
Van Kampen's theorem states:
Since the amalgamation is trivial (over the trivial group), the result is the free product, i.e., the free group on two generators.
The result: the free group on generators and .
Explicit non-commuting loops.
Let be the loop that goes once around circle , and the loop that goes once around circle (both based at ).
- The loop : first traverse , then traverse .
- The loop : first traverse , then traverse .
These are not homotopic: in , the word . Topologically, no continuous deformation can swap the order, because any homotopy would need to "slide" one loop past the other, but they are only connected at the single point — there is no room to slide.
Why does abelianness fail despite each piece being abelian?
The free product is abelian only if one of is trivial. Even though is abelian, the free product has elements like . The abelianization of is (the direct product), which corresponds to — but homology loses the non-commutativity that captures.
Moral: The free product glues generators with no relations between the two groups. The direct product would impose for all — but Van Kampen only introduces relations coming from , and when that is trivial, no such relations are forced.
Source: Munkres, Topology, Chapter 9 (Seifert–Van Kampen Theorem); also Lee, Introduction to Topological Manifolds