in this paper we construct a generalized universal cover for a very large class of uniform spaces called _ coverable _ spaces , which includes all geodesic metric spaces ( corollary [ inner ] ) , connected and locally pathwise connected compact topological spaces ( corollary [ 0628new ] ) , and in particular peano continua ( corollary [ peano ] ) .
coverable spaces also include some more pathological spaces like the topologist s sine curve ( see below ) and totally disconnected spaces ( @xcite ) .
associated with this generalized universal cover is a functorial uniform space invariant called the _ deck group _ , which is related to the classical fundamental group by a natural homomorphism .
three types of uniform spaces are of greatest importance : topological groups , compact topologial spaces and metric spaces .
topological groups were considered in @xcite and @xcite ; the relationship to the present paper may be found in section [ topsec ] , along with a correction to bptg . for compact topological spaces , which have a unique uniform structure compatible with the topology , the deck group is a topological invariant that coincides with the fundamental group in the setting of what we will call poincar spaces ( i.e. , connected , locally pathwise connected , semilocally simply connected spaces ) .
the special case of metric spaces is of particular interest .
in addition to more classical examples such as the hawaiian earring and related spaces ( @xcite , @xcite , de , @xcite , @xcite , @xcite ) , generalized universal covers and fundamental groups have recently been studied in connection with gromov - hausdorff limits of riemannian manifolds ( @xcite and @xcite ) .
such limits are always geodesic spaces , and hence coverable .
a recent example of menguy shows that limits of riemannian manifolds with positive ricci curvature can have bad local topology ( @xcite)precisely the sort of metric spaces at which the present work is aimed .
we will consider metric spaces in more detail in an upcoming paper .
one of the main impediments to generalizing the classical construction of the universal cover is the traditional definition of covering map , the most important property of which is the ability to lift curves and homotopies .
however , this lifting property is traditionally gained at the expense of requiring that a space and its cover be locally homeomorphic in a fairly strong way , and consequently traditional universal ( or simply connected ) covers exist _ only _ for poincar spaces .
earlier work concerning systems coverings of uniform spaces ( cf .
@xcite , @xcite ) was also limited by considering only traditional covers , and therefore a universal object is impossible to obtain even for basic examples such as the countable product of circles or the hawaiian earring .    one may take a hint from topological groups for how to proceed . in this category , a traditional covering map is a quotient homomophism with discrete kernel .
the action by the kernel is not only properly discontinuous , it is uniformly so .
moreover , as we showed in @xcite , one can exploit this more uniform kind of action to define generalized covers as quotients with central kernels that are ( complete and ) prodiscrete , i.e. are inverse limits of discrete groups .
these generalized covers have the lifting properties of traditional covers , but are not in general local homeomorphisms .
this allows one to abandon assumptions concerning ( semi-)local simple connectivity . the kernel of the generalized universal cover is a kind of generalized fundamental group .
the key to generalizing the results of @xcite is to build a group action right into the definition of generalized cover .
actually doing so is , unfortunately , somewhat technical , and this was carried out by the second author in @xcite .
the basic idea is to consider a kind of uniformly  properly discontinuous action called a _
discrete action _  on a uniform space .
inverse systems of discrete actions define _ prodiscrete actions _  that generalize the notion of the action on a topological group via a prodiscrete , central subgroup .
the action by a subgroup also preserves the uniform structure ( as long as one matches the left or right action to the left or right uniformity ) ; this property is generalized by something called an isomorphic  action on a uniform structure , which also broadens the notion of an isometric action on a metric space . a generalized _ cover _ of uniform spaces
is defined in @xcite to be a quotient via a prodiscrete , isomorphic action . at the beginning of @xcite
is a review of basic definitions and properties of uniform spaces that are used for the construction ; we will use the same notation in this paper ( see @xcite for a more in - depth discussion ) .
what follows is a sketch of our construction and main results .
all of these constructions involve a choice of basepoint(s ) , but basepoint choice has an impact in this setting similar to that in the traditional setting for pathwise connected spaces , and for simplicity we will save detailed discussion of basepoints for the body of the paper . for now , all functions are simply assumed to preserve some chosen basepoints ( this is particularly important for the uniqueness statements , which are only true up to choice of basepoint ) .    for each uniform space @xmath0
there is an inverse system @xmath1 indexed on the collection of entourages of @xmath0 partially ordered by reverse inclusion , called the _
fundamental inverse system _ of @xmath0 .
@xmath2 consists of equivalence classes of finite @xmath3-chains starting at a fixed basepoint .
an @xmath3-_chain _ between points @xmath4 is an ordered set of points @xmath5 such that for all @xmath6 , @xmath7 .
an @xmath3__-loop _ _ is an @xmath3-chain that starts and ends at the same point .
two @xmath3-chains from @xmath8 to @xmath9 are equivalent if one can be obtained from the other through finitely many steps , each of which involves removing or adding a point , always leaving the endpoints fixed and keeping an @xmath3-chain at each stage .
the collection of all equivalence classes of @xmath3-loops at the basepoint forms a group @xmath10 with respect to concatenation .
this group is finitely generated when @xmath0 is compact ( theorem [ compact ] ) .
when @xmath2 is provided with a natural lifted  uniformity , @xmath10 acts discretely on @xmath11 by concatenating an @xmath3-loop at the beginning of an @xmath3-chain . in a sense @xmath12
detects holes  in @xmath0 that are , roughly speaking , larger than @xmath3 .
the restriction @xmath13 of the bonding map @xmath14 to @xmath15 preserves concatenation and produces another inverse system @xmath16 of groups and homomorphisms ; in fact these two systems form an inverse system of actions as defined in @xcite .
the inverse limit of the group system consists of a group @xmath17 , called the _ deck group _ of @xmath0 , which acts prodiscretely and isomorphically on @xmath18 .
observe that @xmath19 is actually a ( prodiscrete ) topological group and the homomorphisms induced on the deck group are continuous homomorphisms .
however , we do not know of examples of spaces having deck groups that are abstractly , but not continuously , isomorphic .
in general the projection @xmath20 may not be surjective , and hence not a cover .
in fact @xmath21 may be only a single point even when @xmath0 is not .
the next definition , which is central to the paper , deals with this issue .
[ coverdef]let @xmath0 be a uniform space .
an entourage @xmath3 such that the projection @xmath22 is surjective is called a covering entourage .
a uniform space @xmath0 is called coverable if there is a uniformity base of covering entourages including @xmath23 .
the collection of all such entourages is called the covering base @xmath24 .
if @xmath0 is coverable then each @xmath25 is a covering map ( in the sense of @xcite ) and we refer to the projection @xmath20 as the _ universal cover of _ @xmath0 .
the next theorem combines results of theorems [ 73 ] and [ 101 ] .
( induced mapping ) let @xmath26 be coverable spaces with universal covers @xmath27 and @xmath28 . if @xmath29 is uniformly continuous then there is a unique uniformly continuous function @xmath30 such that @xmath31 . moreover ,    1 .
if @xmath32 is a cover then @xmath33 is a uniform homeomorphism .
if @xmath34 is a coverable space and @xmath35 is uniformly continuous then @xmath36 .
the restriction of @xmath33 to @xmath19 in the above theorem is a homomorphism @xmath37 ( theorem [ 73 ] ) .
therefore the deck group is a functorial invariant of uniform structures . in the case of compact spaces
the deck group is a topological invariant ; if @xmath0 is a compact poincar space then the deck group is naturally isomorphic to the fundamental group ( corollary 0518equiv ) . for non - compact spaces
the deck group need not be a topological invariant ; for example the surface of revolution @xmath38 obtained by rotating the graph of @xmath39 about the @xmath40-axis has trivial deck group even though it is homeomorphic to a standard cylinder  the deck group of which is @xmath41 .
the problem is that a generator of @xmath42 may be represented by a path that extends down the cusp arbitrarily far , wraps around the small cusp , and then travels back to the basepoint .
this generator will therefore not be detected by any of the groups @xmath43 , where @xmath44 is the metric entourage of size @xmath45 .
the deck group does indicate that the standard cylinder and @xmath38 are not _ uniformly _ homeomorphic and that @xmath38 is not uniformly semilocally simply connected .
the next theorem follows from corollary [ partialstep ] and theorem [ 101 ] .
( universal property ) if @xmath0 and @xmath46 are coverable and @xmath47 is a cover then there is a unique cover @xmath48 such that @xmath49 , where @xmath50 is the universal cover of @xmath46 .    with regard to the universal property
it should be pointed out that , in contrast to the situation for coverable topological groups , we do not know whether the composition of covers between coverable spaces ( or uniform spaces in general ) is a cover .
( the situation for topological groups is significantly simpler because the deck group is actually a central subgroup of the universal cover and covers are simply quotient homomorphisms , making their composition easier to understand . )
recall that the composition of traditional covering maps between connected topological spaces need not be a traditional cover ( @xcite ) .
we resolve this problem in the same way that it is resolved for topological spaces ( see @xcite ) : define a category whose objects are covers @xmath51 between coverable uniform spaces and whose morphisms are commutative diagrams @xmath52where @xmath53 and @xmath54 are covers and @xmath32 is uniformly continuous .
it is an immediate consequence of the preceding theorem that the universal cover @xmath55 is a universal object in this category .
[ universaldef]a uniform space @xmath0 is called universal if there is a base @xmath56 for the uniformity such that for any @xmath57 , @xmath58 is a uniform homeomorphism .
the collection of all such uniformities is called the universal base of @xmath0 ( which always contains @xmath23 ) .
if @xmath0 is coverable then @xmath21 is universal ( theorem [ xic ] ) and every universal space is coverable ( corollary [ uic ] ) .
moreover , a coverable space @xmath46 is universal if and only if @xmath19 is trivial , or equivalently every @xmath3-loop is @xmath3-homotopic to the trivial loop for entourages @xmath3 in a particular basis ( corollary [ uit ] ) , a condition that is reminiscent of simply connected .
the next theorem follows from theorem [ 76 ] .
( lifting ) let @xmath0 be universal , @xmath46 be coverable and @xmath47 be uniformly continuous .
then there exists a unique uniformly continuous function @xmath59 such that @xmath60 , where @xmath50 is the universal cover of @xmath46 .
any connected , uniformly locally pathwise connected ( see definition unidef ) , simply connected uniform space is universal  in particular any compact , connected , locally pathwise connected , simply connected topological space is universal ( theorem [ 0627simply ] and corollary [ compactu ] ) .
therefore we may apply the lifting theorem to paths and homotopies of paths .
this allows one to define a natural mapping @xmath61 , for any coverable space @xmath0 , by lifting a loop that represents an element of the fundamental group and taking the deck transformation that takes the basepoint to the endpoint of the loop . even though the action is not discrete this mapping is well defined , and a homomorphism .
there is a satisfying relationship between the two most basic algebraic properties of the map @xmath62 and topological properties of @xmath63 when @xmath0 is pathwise connected : ( 1 ) @xmath62 is injective if and only if @xmath21 is simply connected ( proposition [ inj ] ) , and ( 2 ) @xmath64 is surjective if and only if @xmath21 is pathwise connected .
more precisely , for arbitrary coverable @xmath0 , the image of @xmath64 is the stabilizer in the deck group @xmath19 of the pathwise connected component of @xmath21 that contains the basepoint ( theorem [ nat ] ) . hence if @xmath21 is both pathwise connected and simply connected then the deck group and the fundamental group are isomorphic .
this is true as mentioned earlier when @xmath0 is a compact poincar space  and also when @xmath0 is a locally compact , pathwise connected topological group ( cf .
if @xmath0 is connected and uniformly locally pathwise connected then the pathwise connected component of @xmath65 is dense in @xmath21 ( proposition [ dense ] ) and therefore @xmath21 is connected . in this case
it is also true that @xmath66 is dense in @xmath19 .
note that , in the case of the surface @xmath38 described above , @xmath38 is itself universal .
@xmath38 is pathwise connected but not simply connected and correspondingly @xmath67 is surjective but not injective .    as another example , consider the ( closed ) topologist s sine curve @xmath68 , illustrated in figure [ tsc ] with its universal cover .
the deck group of @xmath69 is @xmath41 ; the action shifts the universal cover in a way similar to the action of @xmath41 on @xmath70 .
note that arbitrarily fine chains may wrap around @xmath68 , while no path does .
hence the deck group indicates topology where the fundamental group , which is trivial in this case , does not .
finally , @xmath71 is simply connected but not pathwise connected , and correspondingly @xmath72 is injective but not surjective ( and the image of @xmath62 need not be dense in the deck group because @xmath68 is not locally pathwise connected ) .
we show that if @xmath0 is coverable with uniform dimension @xmath73 in a sense due to isbell ( @xcite ) then @xmath21 has the same property ( theorem [ dimthm ] ) , and we conjecture that the the uniform dimensions of @xmath0 and @xmath65 are the same .
when @xmath0 has dimension @xmath74 , we show that @xmath65 is simply connected and contains no topological circles . as a consequence
the function @xmath62 is injective .
we prove some results concerning dimension and coverable spaces , although it seems much more may be said .
further progress may require additional work extending theorems concerning covering dimension to theorems about uniform dimension . however , this partial result is particularly useful when @xmath75 because then @xmath21 is forced to be at most one dimensional  and if @xmath0 contains any non - trivial curve then the uniform dimension of @xmath76 must be exactly @xmath74 .
one - dimensional metric spaces are of interest since they include , for example , planar fractals and metrized cayley graphs , as well as many familiar pathalogical examples .
it is known that the fundamental group of a compact , connected , @xmath74-dimensional metrizable space embeds in an inverse limit of free groups .
given this fact , it seems very likely that for appropriate choice of @xmath3 , the groups @xmath77 are finitely generated free groups when @xmath0 is compact , connected , and @xmath74-dimensional .
we have verified this in some special cases ( see section [ pssec ] ) .
it would be very interesting to know whether for suitable choice of @xmath3 , @xmath78 is free when @xmath0 is coverable ( or just connected ? ) of uniform dimension @xmath74 .    in this paper
we show that , if @xmath0 is coverable of uniform dimension @xmath79 then @xmath21 has no topological circles ( proposition [ circle ] ) .
it follows that @xmath21 is simply connected and hence ( assuming @xmath0 is pathwise connected ) @xmath80 is an embedding . in general , @xmath21 may not be pathwise connected and hence @xmath62 may not be surjective , but at least in the case when @xmath0 is uniformly locally pathwise connected we know that the ( isomorphic ) image of the fundamental group is dense in the deck group . in other words , @xmath0 is a quotient via a free action of its fundamental group on a connected , simply connected , uniformly one dimensional space .
we conclude with a general result about metric spaces . given a metric space @xmath81 , @xmath21 is metrizable ( proposition [ metrizable ] ) , and if @xmath0 is coverable then by definition of cover the action of @xmath19 on @xmath65 is isomorphic in the sense that there is a uniformity base for @xmath21 that is invariant with respect to @xmath19 .
it is natural to ask whether there is a metric on @xmath21 with respect to which the action of @xmath19 is isometric and such that the metric on @xmath21 is the quotient metric .
( since @xmath19 is complete and acts prodiscretely , the orbits of @xmath19 are closed and hence if @xmath21 has an invariant metric there is a well defined quotient metric on @xmath0 , namely the distance between the corresponding orbits in @xmath21see @xcite , 4.4 for details on quotient metrics . ) we do not know the answer to this question in general . however , if one examines the proof in @xcite that a uniform space with a countable base possesses a compatible pseudometric , it is clear that the explicitly constructed pseudometric is invariant with respect to the action of a group @xmath82 if the entourages used in the construction are invariant . in other words ,
if @xmath0 is a coverable metric space then we may put a metric on @xmath21 that is invariant with respect to the action of @xmath19 . although the quotient metric on @xmath0 may not be the original , it is still uniformly equivalent to the original .
this proves :    if @xmath0 is a coverable metric space then @xmath0 is uniformly homeomorphic to the metric quotient @xmath83 of a universal metric space @xmath46 with respect to the isometric prodiscrete action of a group @xmath82 isomorphic to @xmath19 .
note that for any entourage @xmath3,@xmath84that is , @xmath85 is the set of all pairs of points joined by an @xmath3-chain of length @xmath86 .
a uniform space @xmath0 is called _ chain connected _ ( sometimes called uniformly connected ) if every uniformly continuous function from @xmath0 into a discrete uniform space is constant .
[ consume]the following are equivalent :    1 .
@xmath0 is chain connected 2 .   for any entourage @xmath3 , @xmath87 .
3 .   for any entourage @xmath3
, every pair of points in @xmath0 is joined by an @xmath3-chain .
4 .   for any entourage @xmath3 and @xmath88 , @xmath89 .
the equivalence of the first two conditions is proved in @xcite , 9.34the statement of 9.34 is wrong but the proof is right ! the last three are equivalent by formula ( [ ton ] ) .
if @xmath0 is chain connected and @xmath47 is a uniformly continuous surjection then @xmath46 is chain connected .    for a topological group @xmath82 ,
chain connected is equivalent to @xmath82 being locally generated ( generated by every neighborhood of the identity ) , and @xmath3-chains are the same as what we called @xmath90-chains in @xcite . if one fixes a single point @xmath8 and entourage @xmath3 in an arbitrary uniform space @xmath0 then if @xmath91 is the set of all points that can be joined to @xmath8 by a @xmath3-chain , it is easy to check that @xmath92 is both open and closed
. therefore every connected uniform space is chain connected . on the other hand , the rational numbers are chain connected and totally disconnected ( see @xcite for related topics ) .
[ 315system]let @xmath93 be an inverse system of sets such that each of the projections @xmath94 is surjective .
then for any subsets @xmath95 of @xmath96 , @xmath97 . in particular for any @xmath86 , @xmath98 .
we have @xmath99 if and only if there exists some @xmath100 such that @xmath101 and @xmath102 . since @xmath103 is surjective this is equivalent to : for some @xmath104 , @xmath105 and @xmath106 . but
this is equivalent to @xmath107 .
[ 41]let @xmath108 be an inverse system of chain connected uniform spaces .
if each of the projections @xmath109 is surjective then @xmath110 is chain connected .    for any entourage @xmath111 in @xmath0 and @xmath112
we have @xmath113 for some @xmath86
. then @xmath114 .
an @xmath3-extension of a @xmath3-chain @xmath115 is an @xmath3-chain @xmath116 , where @xmath117 .
two @xmath3-chains from @xmath118 to @xmath119 are said to be @xmath3-related if one is a @xmath3-extension of the other .
an @xmath3-homotopy between @xmath3-chains @xmath120 and @xmath121 is a sequence @xmath122 of @xmath3-chains such that @xmath123 is @xmath3-related to @xmath124 for all @xmath125 .
the number @xmath126 is called the _ length _ of the homotopy .
we denote the @xmath3-homotopy class of an @xmath3-chain @xmath127 by @xmath128_{e}$ ] .
now fix a basepoint @xmath129 .
let @xmath2 denote the set of all @xmath3-homotopy classes of @xmath3-chains in @xmath0 starting at @xmath130 and define a function ( the endpoint map ) @xmath58 by @xmath131)=x_{n}$ ] .
the proof of the next lemma is immediate .
[ lemsur5]if @xmath0 is a uniform space and @xmath3 is an entourage then @xmath132 is surjective if and only if every pair in @xmath0 is joined by an @xmath3-chain ; in particular @xmath133 is surjective if @xmath0 is chain connected .
the next lemma will often be used without reference .
the proof is straightforward but tedious .
[ lemsur2]let @xmath134 and @xmath135 be @xmath3-chains for some entourage @xmath3 in a uniform space @xmath0
. then @xmath136 and @xmath137 are @xmath3-homotopic if and only if the @xmath3-loop @xmath138 is @xmath3-homotopic to the trivial chain @xmath139 .
let @xmath0 be a uniform space with entourage @xmath3 .
for any entourage @xmath140 , define @xmath141 as follows : let @xmath142_{e},[\beta ] _ { e})\in d^{\ast } $ ] if and only if @xmath143_{e},[\beta ] _
{ e})=([\ast = x_{0}, ...
,x_{n},y]_{e},[\ast = x_{0}, ... ,x_{n},z]_{e})\text { with } ( y , z)\in d\text{.}\ ] ]    [ technical]let @xmath0 be a uniform space with entourage @xmath3 .
for any entourages @xmath144 , @xmath142_{e},[\beta ] _
{ e})\in d^{\ast } f^{\ast } $ ] if and only if for some @xmath145_{e}=[\ast = x_{0}, ... ,x_{n}]_{e}$ ] we have @xmath146_{e}=[\ast = x_{0}, ... ,x_{n},y]_{e}\]]@xmath147_{e}=[\ast = x_{0}, ... ,x_{n},z]_{e}\]]for some @xmath148 such that @xmath149 and @xmath150 .
in particular , @xmath151_{e},[\beta ] _ { e}\in b([\gamma ] _ { e},\left ( d^{\ast } \right )
^{2})$ ] if and only if these conditions hold with @xmath152 .
the reverse implication is obvious .
conversely , if @xmath142_{e},[\beta ] _ { e})\in d^{\ast } f^{\ast } $ ] then we may take @xmath153 , @xmath154 , @xmath155 and @xmath156 where @xmath157 is @xmath3-homotopic to @xmath127 and @xmath150 and @xmath149 .
now @xmath137 is @xmath3-related to @xmath158 and the latter is @xmath3-homotopic to @xmath159 using the @xmath3-homotopy from @xmath127 to @xmath160 .
finally , @xmath136 is @xmath3-related to @xmath161 .
[ xee]let @xmath0 be a chain connected uniform space with entourage @xmath3 , and @xmath162 be the endpoint map
. then    1 .
@xmath133 is injective when restricted to any @xmath163-ball .
2 .   for any entourage @xmath140 and @xmath151_{e}\in x_{e}$ ] , @xmath164_{e},d^{\ast } ) ) = b(\phi _ { xe}([\alpha ] _ { e}),d)\]]and @xmath165 .
3 .   the collection of all @xmath141 such that @xmath140 is a base for a uniformity of @xmath2 .
4 .   @xmath133 is a bi - uniformly continuous surjection with respect to this uniformity . in particular the restriction of @xmath133 to any @xmath166-ball
is a uniform homeomorphism onto the corresponding @xmath167-ball .
if @xmath151_{e}$ ] and @xmath168_{e}$ ] are in @xmath169_{e},e^{\ast } ) $ ] and @xmath170_{e})=\phi _ { xe}([\beta ]
_ { e})$ ] then by definition of @xmath163 , @xmath136 and @xmath137 are @xmath3-homotopic .
this proves the first part .    for part
( 2 ) let @xmath171 ; it is obvious from the definition of @xmath133 and @xmath141 that @xmath164_{e},d^{\ast } ) ) \subset b(\phi _ { xe}([\alpha ] _
{ e}),d)=b(x , d)\text{.}\]]now suppose @xmath172 and let @xmath173 . since @xmath136 is @xmath3-homotopic to @xmath174 , we have that @xmath142_{e},[\beta ] _ { e})\in d^{\ast } $ ] and @xmath175_{e},[\beta ] _
{ e}))=(x , y)\text{.}\]]this implies that @xmath165 .
we will now check the conditions for a uniformity base .
clearly , for entourages @xmath3 and @xmath176 we have @xmath177 ( and in fact they are equal but it is not necessary to prove this ) .
since @xmath167 is symmetric , so is @xmath141 .
next , let @xmath176 be an entourage such that @xmath178 .
suppose that @xmath142_{e},[\beta ] _
{ e})\in ( f^{\ast } ) ^{2}$ ] .
then for some @xmath145_{e}$ ] , @xmath179_{e},[\beta ] _ { e}\in b([\gamma ] _ { e},f^{\ast } ) $ ] . applying lemma
technical we may write @xmath151_{e}=[\ast = x_{0}, ... ,x_{n},y]_{e}$ ] and @xmath180_{e}=[\ast = x_{0}, ... ,x_{n},z]_{e}$ ] with @xmath181 and hence @xmath182 . by definition @xmath142_{e},[\beta ] _ { e})\in d^{\ast }
recall from @xcite that @xmath133 is bi - uniformly continuous by definition if the image or inverse image of any entourage with respect to @xmath133 is again an entourage .
part ( 4 ) is now an immediate consequence of parts ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) .
we can now see precisely how the choice of basepoints affect things .
let @xmath183 and @xmath184 be @xmath185-chains for some entourage @xmath3 in a uniform space @xmath0 .
define the concatenation of @xmath136 to @xmath137 by@xmath186    [ basepoint]let @xmath0 be a chain connected uniform space , @xmath187 , and @xmath3 be an entourage .
let @xmath188 denote the space of @xmath3-homotopy classes of @xmath3-chains based at @xmath189 .
let @xmath127 be any @xmath3-chain from @xmath54 to @xmath53 .
there is a natural map from @xmath190 to @xmath191 defined by taking @xmath151_{e}$ ] to @xmath192_{e}$ ] , where @xmath193 is the @xmath3-chain obtained by concatenating @xmath194 to the end of @xmath127 .
it is easy to check that this function is a bijection with inverse @xmath195 . for any entourage @xmath176 in @xmath0 ,
there are corresponding entourages @xmath196 in @xmath197 and @xmath198 in @xmath199 . now
@xmath200 if and only if @xmath201 and in particular , @xmath190 and @xmath199 are uniformly homeomophic . therefore , as in the case of traditional covering space theory , the choice of basepoint  @xmath130 plays only a minor and predictable role .    given a basepoint @xmath130 in @xmath0 , we will always take @xmath202_{e}$ ] for the basepoint in @xmath2 . in general
, for any function @xmath47 we will always suppose that @xmath32 is pointedin the sense that @xmath203 .
for each chain @xmath204 in @xmath0 we denote the chain @xmath205 by @xmath206 , with similar notation for any finite sequence of chains .
we will always take the uniform structure on @xmath2 to be the one given by proposition [ xee ] .    if @xmath95 are entourages of @xmath26 , respectively , such that @xmath207 and @xmath127 is an @xmath3-chain then @xmath206 is an @xmath176-chain in @xmath46 .
note that if @xmath208 is an @xmath3-homotopy between @xmath3-chains @xmath136 and @xmath127 then @xmath209 is an @xmath176-homotopy between @xmath210 and @xmath206 .
in particular the function in the following definition is well defined ( and pointed ) .
[ induced]given @xmath47 is a function between uniform spaces such that for entourages @xmath95 of @xmath26 , respectively , @xmath207 , we define @xmath211 by @xmath212_{e})=[f(\gamma ) ] _ { f}$ ] .    for any entourages @xmath140 in a uniform space @xmath0 , define @xmath213 by @xmath214_{d})=[\alpha ] _ { e}$ ] .
note that by definition @xmath215 , where @xmath216 is the identity , and @xmath217    for any entourages @xmath140 in a uniform space @xmath0 , @xmath218 is uniformly continuous .
let @xmath219 be an entourage in @xmath2 and @xmath220 be an entourage in @xmath0 .
we will need to distinguish between @xmath221 , which we will refer to as @xmath222 and @xmath223 , which we will refer to as @xmath224 . if @xmath225_{d},[\beta ] _
{ d})\in g_{d}^{\ast } $ ] then by definition we can take @xmath226 and @xmath227 with @xmath228 .
now @xmath229_{d},[\beta ] _ { d}))=([\alpha ] _ { e},[\beta ] _ { e})\]]and by definition @xmath142_{e},[\beta ] _ { e})\in g_{e}^{\ast }
that is , @xmath230 .
[ identify]let @xmath0 be a uniform space and @xmath140 be entourages . then @xmath231is a uniform homeomorphism such that the following diagram commutes:@xmath232moreover , for any entourage @xmath233 in @xmath0
, we have @xmath234 .    for simplicity
denote @xmath235 by @xmath236 .
let @xmath237_{e}=[\alpha _
... ,[\alpha _ { n}]_{e}\}$ ] be a @xmath166-chain in @xmath2 , where each @xmath238 ends at a point @xmath239 .
then @xmath240_{d^{\ast } } ) = [ \phi _ { xe}([\ast ] _
{ e}), ... ,\phi _ { xe}([\alpha _ { n}]_{e})]_{d}=[z_{0}=\ast , z_{1}, ... ,z_{n}]_{d}\text{. } \label{identifyfor}\ ] ]    since @xmath241_{e},[\alpha _ { 1}]_{e})\in d^{\ast }
$ ] , @xmath242_{e}=[z_{0}=\ast , z_{1}]_{e}\text{.}\]]proceeding inductively , for all @xmath6 we have that @xmath243_{e}=[z_{0}=\ast , z_{1}, ...
,z_{i}]_{e } \label{0621sequence}\]]which implies that @xmath236 is injective .
given any @xmath167-chain @xmath244 we can let @xmath245 for all @xmath246 . since @xmath247 is a @xmath167-chain , @xmath248_{d}, ... ,[\alpha _ { n}]_{d}\}$ ] is a @xmath141-chain and @xmath249_{e}=[\alpha _ { 0}]_{e}, ... ,[\alpha _ { n}]_{e}]_{d^{\ast } } ) = [ z_{0}=\ast , z_{1}, ... ,z_{n}]_{d}\]]which shows that @xmath236 is surjective .    by definition , @xmath250_{d^{\ast } } )
\right ) = [ z_{0}=\ast , z_{1}, ... ,z_{n}]_{e}\text{.}\]]that is , the upper triangle of the diagram commutes , and we already know that the bottom triangle does . finally , suppose that @xmath251_{e}=[\alpha _
{ 0}]_{e}, ... ,[\alpha _ { n}]_{e}]_{d^{\ast } } , [ [ \ast ] _
{ e}=[\beta _ { 0}]_{e}, ... ,[\beta _ { m}]_{e}]_{d^{\ast } } ) \in ( f^{\ast } ) ^{\ast } \]]where , according to formula [ 0621sequence ] we can suppose that for some @xmath252 , @xmath253 and @xmath254 for all @xmath6 . by definition this means that we can suppose that @xmath255 and @xmath256_{e},[\beta _ { n}]_{e})\in f^{\ast } $ ] .
this in turn is equivalent to @xmath257 , which is equivalent to @xmath258_{e}=[\alpha _ { 0}]_{e}, ... ,[\alpha _ { n}]_{e}]_{d^{\ast } } , [ [ \ast ] _ { e}=[\beta _ { 0}]_{e}, ... ,[\beta _ { m}]_{e}]_{d^{\ast } } ) ) \in f^{\ast } \text{.}\ ] ]    the preceding somewhat technical - looking proposition in fact has a very nice interpretation .
essentially it identifies @xmath259 with @xmath260 by taking a @xmath141-chain of @xmath3-chains to the @xmath167-chain of their endpoints .
in other words , @xmath2 and @xmath0 are locally the same ; @xmath141 and @xmath163 are really just copies of @xmath167 and @xmath3 inside @xmath261 . dealing with @xmath260 rather than @xmath262 means we are dealing with chains rather than chains of chains . at the same time , proposition [ identify ] identifies the mapping @xmath263 with the more easily understood mapping @xmath264 . with such identifications we can express the proposition as @xmath265 .
this proposition is very useful because it will allow us to immediately apply results proved for @xmath133 to the more general functions @xmath266 .
the next lemma illustrates this .
[ chainhom]suppose that @xmath0 is a uniform space and @xmath3 is an entourage in @xmath0 such that @xmath2 is chain connected
. then for any entourage @xmath176 and @xmath185-chain @xmath127 in @xmath0 , @xmath127 is @xmath3-homotopic to an @xmath176-chain .    without loss of generality
we can suppose that @xmath267 . since @xmath2 is chain connected , @xmath268 is surjective by lemma [ lemsur5 ] . but
this means that if @xmath127 is an @xmath3-chain in @xmath0 there is some @xmath176-chain @xmath136 in @xmath0 such that @xmath151_{e}=\phi _ { ef}([\alpha ] _ { f})=[\gamma ] _ { e}$ ] .
given entourages @xmath269 in @xmath0 , we have functions @xmath213 and @xmath270 with @xmath271_{d}))=[x_{0}=\ast , ... , x_{n}]_{f}=\phi _ { fd}([x_{0}=\ast , ... , x_{n}]_{d})\text{.}\]]in other words , @xmath272 and @xmath273 forms an inverse system of uniformly continuous functions having as its indexing set the set of all entourages of @xmath0 partially ordered by reverse inclusion .
we will call the inverse system @xmath274 the fundamental inverse system of @xmath0 and let @xmath21 denote the inverse limit of this inverse system with the inverse limit uniformity .
we will let @xmath275 be the projection ; we simply denote @xmath276 by @xmath50 .
we will always choose for our basepoint @xmath130 in @xmath65 the element having as each of its coordinates the basepoint @xmath277_{e}$ ] in @xmath2 .    since a uniform space is metrizable if and only if it has a countable base for its uniformity ( @xcite ) , if @xmath0 is metrizable then each @xmath2 is metrizable .
we may index the fundamental system with this countable base and conclude :    [ metrizable]if @xmath0 is metrizable then @xmath21 is metrizable .
[ 60]let @xmath0 and @xmath46 be uniform spaces , @xmath47 be uniformly continuous , and @xmath95 be entourages in @xmath26 , respectively , such that @xmath278 .
then @xmath279 is uniformly continuous and satisfies @xmath280moreover , if @xmath2 is chain connected then @xmath279 is the unique uniformly continuous function satisfying ( [ commute1 ] ) such that @xmath281_{e})=[f(\ast ) ] _ { f}$ ] .
to prove @xmath279 is uniformly continuous we need only consider entourages of the form @xmath141 in @xmath282 , where @xmath283 is an entourage in @xmath46 . since @xmath32 is uniformly continuous there exists some entourage @xmath284 such that @xmath285 .
let @xmath286 and @xmath287 be such that @xmath143_{e},[\beta ] _
{ e})\in g^{\ast } \text{,}\]]which means by definition @xmath228 . then @xmath288and therefore @xmath289_{e},[\beta ] _ { f})=([\ast = f(x_{0}), ...
,f(x_{n}),f(y)]_{f},[\ast = f(x_{0}), ... ,f(x_{n}),f(z)]_{f})\in d^{\ast } \text{.}\]]this shows that @xmath279 is uniformly continuous .
that @xmath290 is an immediate consequence of the definition .    to prove the last statement
suppose @xmath2 is chain connected and @xmath291 is a uniformly continuous function such that @xmath292 and @xmath293_{e})=[f(\ast ) ] _ { f}$ ] .
let @xmath82 be an entourage in @xmath0 such that @xmath294 . by way of lemma chainhom
it is sufficient to show that if @xmath295 is a @xmath296-chain then @xmath297_{e})=f_{ef}([\beta ] _ { f})$ ]
. we will prove it by induction on @xmath86 .
the case @xmath298 is given ; suppose the statement is true for @xmath299 and consider @xmath300 with @xmath301 .
suppose that @xmath302_{e}):=[f(\ast ) = z_{0}, ... ,z_{m}]_{f}$ ] ; then @xmath303_{e})=\phi _ { yf}\circ f^{\prime } ( [ \ast = x_{0}, ...
,x_{n+1}]_{e})=z_{m}\text{.}\]]by the inductive hypothesis , @xmath304_{e})=f_{ef}([\alpha ] _ { e})$ ] and by definition of @xmath296 we have @xmath305_{e}),f^{\prime } ( [ \beta ] _ { e}))=(f^{\prime } ( [ \alpha ] _ { e}),f^{\prime } ( [ \beta ] _ { e}))\in f^{\ast } \]]and @xmath305_{e}),f_{ef}([\beta ] _ { e}))\in f^{\ast } \text{.}\]]in other words , both @xmath306_{e})$ ] and @xmath302_{e}))$ ] lie in @xmath307_{e},f^{\ast } ) $ ] and by proposition [ xee ] @xmath308 is injective on this ball .
the fact that @xmath309_{e})=f^{\prime } ( [ \beta ] _
{ e})$ ] now follows from @xmath310_{e})=f(\phi _ { xe}([\beta ] _
{ e}))=\phi _ { yf}(f^{\prime } ( [ \beta ] _ { e}))\text{.}\ ] ]    if @xmath0 is a uniform space and @xmath267 are entourages in @xmath0 such that @xmath311 is chain connected then @xmath14 is the unique uniformly continuous function such that @xmath312_{f})=[\ast ] _ { e}$ ] and @xmath313 .
the proof of the next lemma is virtually identical to the proof of lemma 65 in @xcite ; one need only replace statements like @xmath314 with @xmath315 .
let @xmath26 be uniform spaces , @xmath47 be a uniformly continuous surjection , @xmath176 be an entourage in @xmath46 and @xmath316 .
let @xmath317 be an @xmath3-chain in @xmath0 and @xmath208 be an @xmath176-homotopy from the @xmath176-chain @xmath318 to another @xmath176-chain @xmath319 .
then @xmath208 lifts to an @xmath3-homotopy from @xmath320 to an @xmath3-chain @xmath321 .
that is , there exist an @xmath3-chain @xmath322 and an @xmath3-homotopy @xmath323 between @xmath317 and @xmath321 such that @xmath324 .
[ 66]let @xmath26 be uniform spaces , @xmath47 be a uniformly continuous surjection , @xmath176 be an entourage in @xmath46 and @xmath316 . if @xmath58 is surjective and there exists a uniformly continuous function @xmath325 such that the following diagram commutes @xmath326then @xmath133 is a uniform homeomorphism .
we need only show that @xmath133 is injective .
equivalently we need only show that if @xmath327 is an @xmath3-loop in @xmath0 then @xmath317 is @xmath3-homotopic to the trivial loop @xmath139 .
let @xmath318 , which is an @xmath176-loop in @xmath46 and @xmath328_{e}):=[h]_{f}$ ] ; by the commutativity of the diagram @xmath329_{f})=f(\phi _ { xe}([c]_{e})=f(\ast ) $ ] . in particular , @xmath330 is a loop in @xmath46 .
moreover , @xmath331_{f}=\psi ( \phi _ { xe}([c]_{e}))=\psi ( \ast ) $ ] . on the other hand , @xmath332_{f}=f_{ef}([\ast ] _ { e})=\psi ( \phi _ { xe}([\ast ] _ { e}))=\psi ( \ast ) \text{. } \]]that is , @xmath331_{f}=[f(\ast ) ] _ { f}$ ] and therefore @xmath330 is @xmath176-homotopic to the trivial loop @xmath333 .
now by definition , @xmath334_{f}=f_{ef}([c]_{e})=[f(x_{0}), ... ,f(x_{n})]_{f}=[f(c)]_{f}=[d]_{f}\]]and therefore @xmath335 is also @xmath176-homotopic to @xmath336_{f}$ ] .
the chain lifting lemma now finishes the proof .
[ 67]let @xmath0 and @xmath46 be uniform spaces with @xmath0 chain connected , @xmath29 be a surjective uniformly continuous map , @xmath176 be an entourage in @xmath46 and @xmath316 . if @xmath337 is bijective then @xmath162 is a uniform homeomorphism .
note that since @xmath0 is chain connected , @xmath133 is surjective .
let @xmath338 , which is uniformly continuous since @xmath339 is bi - uniformly continuous .
certainly @xmath340 and @xmath341since @xmath342 is bijective we conclude that @xmath343 and the conditions of proposition [ 66 ] are satisfied , completing the proof .
[ coverchain]if @xmath0 is a coverable uniform space and @xmath3 is a covering entourage in @xmath0 then @xmath2 is coverable and hence chain connected .
if @xmath3 is a covering entourage then we may index the fundamental inverse system of @xmath2 using the set of all entourages @xmath219 where @xmath344 is a covering entourage in @xmath0 .
then @xmath345 is surjective for all such @xmath176 .
but @xmath346 is naturally identified with @xmath347 by proposition [ identify ] and therefore @xmath348 is also surjective .
therefore the collection of all such @xmath219 is a covering basis for @xmath2 .
it is straightforward but tedious to check that if @xmath151_{e}=[\alpha ^{\prime } ] _ { e}$ ] and @xmath168_{e}=[\beta ^{\prime } ] _ { e}$ ] then @xmath349_{e}=[\alpha ^{\prime } \ast \beta ^{\prime } ] _ { e}$ ] .    for an entourage @xmath3 in a uniform space @xmath0 ,
we define @xmath77 to be the group of all @xmath3-homotopy classes of @xmath3-loops at @xmath130 with the group operation induced by concatenation .
we will call this the @xmath3-deck group of @xmath0 .
that is , given @xmath3-loops @xmath136 and @xmath137 based at @xmath130 , we let @xmath146_{e}\ast \lbrack \beta ] _ { e}:=[\alpha \ast \beta ] _ { e}\text{.% } \]]note that the identity chain is @xmath202_{e}$ ] and if @xmath350 then @xmath151_{e}^{-1}=[\alpha ^{-1}]_{e}$ ] where @xmath351 .
it is easy to check that @xmath78 is in fact a group .
[ compact]if @xmath0 is a compact uniform space and @xmath3 is an entourage in @xmath81 such that @xmath2 is chain connected then @xmath77 is finitely generated .
let @xmath176 be an entourage in @xmath0 such that @xmath352 . since @xmath0 is compact there exists some finite @xmath176-dense set , i.e. , a set @xmath353 such that for every @xmath88 there exists some @xmath354 such that @xmath355 .
we will first show that if @xmath356 is any @xmath3-chain with @xmath357 then @xmath358 is @xmath3-homotopic to an @xmath3-chain @xmath359 such that @xmath360 for all @xmath6 . by lemma [ chainhom ]
we may assume that @xmath136 is in fact an @xmath176-chain .
now for each @xmath361 , @xmath362 , there is some @xmath239 such that @xmath363 .
we may now proceed iteratively , removing each @xmath361 and then replacing it by @xmath239 .
for example , since @xmath364 , we may remove @xmath365 and still have an @xmath3-chain . since @xmath366 and @xmath367 , @xmath368 .
similarly @xmath369 , so we may add @xmath370 . likewise
, @xmath371 , so we may remove @xmath372 , and then @xmath373 and @xmath374 , so we may add @xmath375 .
after finitely many steps we have the desired @xmath3-chain .
we may suppose that @xmath376 .
we now claim that @xmath77 is generated by elements of the form @xmath377_{e}\]]where @xmath378 for all @xmath6 , and for @xmath379 we have @xmath380 .
we will call elements of this form minimal elements .
that is , a minimal element is represented by a loop that consists of a chain made of distinct points of @xmath381 , followed by a loop ( which may be empty ) of additional distinct points of @xmath381 , followed by the initial chain in reverse order .
if we prove this claim then the proof of the theorem is finished because @xmath381 , and hence the set of minimal elements , is finite .
let @xmath382 be an arbitrary @xmath3-loop .
we will show by induction on @xmath383 that @xmath145_{e}$ ] is a product of minimal elements .
for @xmath384 the proof is trivial ; suppose it is true for @xmath385 .
if all of the points @xmath239 @xmath386 are distinct then @xmath145_{e}$ ] is already a minimal element . otherwise , let @xmath387 be the smallest index such that for some @xmath388 , @xmath389 .
let @xmath390we may apply the inductive hypothesis to conclude that @xmath391 _ { e}$ ] is the product of minimal elements . on the other hand ,
let @xmath392by construction , @xmath136 is minimal and since @xmath393 _
{ e}=% \left [ \alpha \ast \beta \right ]
_ { e}$ ] , the proof is finished .
the following mapping is certainly well - defined .
let @xmath0 be a uniform space and @xmath3 be an entourage
. for each @xmath394_{e}\in \delta _ { e}(x)$ ] , define a mapping @xmath395 by @xmath396_{e})=[\lambda \ast \alpha ] _ { e}$ ] .
before proceeding we will recall some notation and definitions from @xcite .
let @xmath0 be a uniform space .
we denote by @xmath397 the topological group of uniform homeomorphisms of @xmath0 with composition as the operation .
suppose @xmath82 is a subgroup of @xmath397 .
an entourage @xmath3 is called @xmath82__-invariant _ _ if @xmath398 for every @xmath399 .
if @xmath0 has a uniformity base consisting of @xmath400-invariant entourages we say that @xmath82 acts isomorphically .
the action of @xmath82 is said to be _ discrete _ provided there exists some entourage @xmath3 such that if @xmath401 for some @xmath88 and @xmath402 then @xmath403 must be the identity .
if @xmath82 acts discretely and isomorphically on @xmath0 then the natural mapping @xmath404 is called a discrete cover .
[ discrete]let @xmath0 be a uniform space and @xmath3 be an entourage .    1 .
for any @xmath405 we have @xmath406 and @xmath78 is naturally isomorphic to a subgroup of @xmath407 .
2 .   @xmath77 acts discretely and isomorphically on @xmath2 .
3 .   if @xmath133 is surjective ( in particular if @xmath0 is chain connected ) then @xmath162 is a discrete cover with covering group @xmath77 .
we have @xmath408_{e})=[\lambda _ { 1}\ast \lambda _ { 2}\ast \alpha ] _ { e}=\overline{\lambda _ { 1}\ast \lambda
_ { 2}}([\alpha ] _
{ e})\text{.}\]]this implies that each @xmath409 is a bijection and therefore is an element of @xmath407 , while the inclusion @xmath410 is a homomorphism . if @xmath411_{e})=[\alpha ] _ { e}$ ] for some @xmath136 , then @xmath412_{e}=[\lambda \ast \alpha ] _ { e}\ast \lbrack \alpha _ { e}]^{-1}=[\lambda \ast \alpha \ast \alpha ^{-1}]_{e}=[\lambda ] _
{ e}\text{.}\]]this implies both that @xmath413 is injective and the action is free .
the action of @xmath77 is free . by the very definition , for any entourage @xmath267 and all @xmath414 , @xmath415 and
therefore the action is isomorphic .
now suppose that @xmath416 for some @xmath417 .
then @xmath418 and since @xmath133 is injective on every @xmath163-ball by proposition [ xee ] , @xmath419 .
since we have shown the action is free , it follows that @xmath409 is the identity and we have shown that the action is discrete .    for the third part note that by theorem 11 ( see also remark 13 ) , @xcite , we need only check first that @xmath133 is bi - uniformly continuous ( which we already know ) and second that if @xmath88 and @xmath420 are such that @xmath421 , then the preimage @xmath422 is precisely the orbit @xmath423 . for any @xmath88 ,
@xmath424_{e}\}\text{.}\]]now there is some @xmath3-chain @xmath425 since @xmath426 is surjective .
moreover , for any @xmath62 , the endpoint of @xmath427_{e})$ ] is still @xmath40 and hence @xmath428_{e})\in \phi _ { xe}^{-1}(x)$ ] .
that is , the orbit @xmath429_{e}$ ] is contained in @xmath422 .
on the other hand , if @xmath137 is any other @xmath3-chain to @xmath40 and we let @xmath430 then @xmath431_{e}\in \delta _ { e}(x)$ ] and @xmath428_{e})=[\beta ] _ { e}$ ] and therefore @xmath422 is contained in the orbit @xmath432_{e}$ ] .    from proposition [ identify ]
we have :    [ 0530cov]if @xmath0 is a uniform space then for any entourages @xmath95 in @xmath0 with @xmath267 such that @xmath433 is surjective ( in particular when @xmath2 is chain connected ) , @xmath14 is a discrete cover with covering group @xmath434 . in particular
@xmath435 is a uniform homeomorphism if and only if @xmath434 is trivial .
let @xmath0 be a uniform space and @xmath436 denote the restriction of @xmath14 to @xmath437 .
the collection @xmath438 forms an inverse system .
we denote @xmath439 by @xmath19 and call it the deck group of @xmath0 .
[ chainhom2]if @xmath0 is a uniform space and @xmath3 is an entourage such that @xmath2 is chain connected then for any entourage @xmath267 , @xmath440 is surjective .
according to lemma [ chainhom ] , if @xmath127 is an @xmath3-loop in @xmath0 , @xmath441 is @xmath3-homotopic to an @xmath176-chain @xmath136 .
but since @xmath3-homotopy preserves endpoints , @xmath136 must also be an @xmath176-loop and by construction @xmath442_{f})=[\alpha ] _ { e}=[\gamma ] _ { e}$ ] .
[ coin]let @xmath0 be a uniform space
. then    1 .   for any entourage @xmath3 ,
the group @xmath77 is discrete with respect to both the topology of uniform convergence and the topology induced by the inclusion of @xmath77 in @xmath2 .
2 .   the group @xmath19 is prodiscrete with respect to the inverse limit topology , which is the same as the topology induced by the inclusion in @xmath21 .    since @xmath77 acts discretely ( theorem [ discrete ] ) it follows from corollary 32 of @xcite that @xmath77 is discrete with respect to the topology of uniform convergence . on the other hand , since @xmath133 is injective on @xmath443 and @xmath444 , @xmath445 , which shows that @xmath77 is a discrete subset of @xmath133 .
the second part now follows from the definitions .
before we consider coverable spaces in more detail we need to revisit the issue of basepoints .
note that the construction of @xmath21 is dependent on the initial choice of basepoint , and in fact @xmath21 itself may depend on the choice of the basepoint .
for example , if one takes @xmath446 $ ] with the subspace metric then one can check that @xmath65 based at @xmath447 will consist of a single point , while @xmath65 based at any point in @xmath448 $ ] will be @xmath448 $ ] .
the following lemma clears up this issue :    [ baseok]suppose that @xmath0 is a uniform space such that for some choice of basepoint @xmath130 , the projection @xmath20 is surjective .
then @xmath0 is chain connected .
moreover , if @xmath0 satisfies the definition of coverable for @xmath130 then    1 .
for any two basepoints there is a natural system of uniform homeomorphisms between the fundamental inverse systems of @xmath0 with respect to the two basepoints .
in particular the spaces @xmath21 constructed with each basepoint are naturally uniformly homeomorphic .
2 .   @xmath0 satisfies the definition of coverable for any choice of basepoint .
if @xmath20 is surjective then since @xmath449 , @xmath133 is surjective .
it now follows from lemma [ lemsur5 ] that @xmath0 is chain connected .
the first statement now follows from the observations in remark [ basepoint ] .
the second statement follows from the first ; essentially the two inverse systems are the same and so the projections are surjective in one if and only if they are surjective in the other .
[ maincov]let @xmath0 be coverable and @xmath450 .
then @xmath451 and @xmath452 comprise an inverse system of discrete covers and @xmath55 is a cover with covering group @xmath453 .
since @xmath0 is coverable we may take @xmath454 for our indexing set .
if @xmath64 is an @xmath176-loop and @xmath136 is an @xmath176-chain then @xmath455_{f}([\alpha ] _ { f}))=\phi _ { ef}([\lambda \ast \alpha ] _ { f})=[\lambda \ast \alpha ]
_ { e}\]]@xmath456_{e}([\alpha ] _ { e})=\theta _ { ef}([\lambda ]
_ { f})(\phi _ { ef}([\alpha ] _ { f})\text{.}\]]that is , the system is compatible in the sense of @xcite .
since each @xmath457 is surjective , so is each @xmath14 and according to corollary 0530cov , each @xmath14 is a discrete cover .
the proof is now finished by @xcite , theorem 44 .
when @xmath0 is coverable we will refer to the projection @xmath458 as the universal covering map of @xmath0 .
we will always take @xmath19 to have the ( prodiscrete ) inverse limit topology , with respect to which @xmath19 is complete and hausdorff .
@xmath459 is also prodiscrete with respect to the topology of uniform convergence since @xmath50 is a cover ( see @xcite ) .
it may be that the topology of uniform convergence is the the same as the induced topology , but we have no need for such a statement in this paper .
[ 0607uniform]let @xmath0 be a uniform space and @xmath56 be a uniformity base . the following are equivalent for a fixed basepoint @xmath130 :    1 .
@xmath56 is universal . 2 .
@xmath460 and for any @xmath267 with @xmath461 , @xmath14 is a uniform homeomorphism .
3 .   @xmath460 and for any @xmath57 , @xmath462 is a uniform homeomorphism .
suppose that @xmath56 is universal and @xmath267 are entourages in @xmath463 .
then @xmath433 satisfies @xmath464 and is therefore a uniform homeomorphism . since @xmath23 lies in any universal base , 1)@xmath4652 ) .
if 2 ) holds then we may use @xmath56 as our indexing set for the fundamental inverse system of @xmath0 and since each of the bonding maps is a uniform homeomorphism the inverse system is in fact trivial .
therefore each @xmath466 is a uniform homeomorphism and 3 ) follows . if 3 ) is given then note that for any @xmath57 we have that @xmath467 is a uniform homeomorphism and we see that @xmath56 is universal
.    definition [ universaldef ] implicitly involves the choice of a basepoint for the construction of the spaces @xmath2 .
however , as the next corollary ( the proof of which is immediate from the proposition [ 0607uniform ] and lemma [ baseok ] ) shows that the definition is independent of basepoint .
[ uic]any universal space is coverable , hence chain connected . in particular ,
if @xmath0 is universal with respect to one basepoint then @xmath0 is universal with respect to any basepoint .
[ 0518u]if @xmath0 is universal and @xmath3 is an entourage such that @xmath2 is chain connected then @xmath162 is a uniform homeomorphism .
let @xmath267 be an entourage in the universal base . since @xmath2 is chain connected
, @xmath433 is surjective .
since @xmath468 is bijective and @xmath469 , @xmath14 must also be injective .
since @xmath2 is chain connected , lemma [ lemsur5 ] implies that @xmath14 is surjective , hence a uniform homeomorphism because @xmath14 is bi - uniformly continuous .
therefore @xmath470 is a uniform homeomorphism .
[ xic]if @xmath0 is coverable then @xmath21 is universal .    applying proposition [ coverchain ] and lemma [ 41 ] we have that @xmath65 is chain connected .
a basis element for the uniformity of @xmath65 is of the form @xmath471 , where @xmath267 are entourages in @xmath0 .
let @xmath167 be a covering entourage contained in @xmath472 .
then @xmath473 is surjective and @xmath474@xmath475 in other words , @xmath476 and we may take for our basis elements of @xmath21 entourages of the form @xmath477
. we will now apply corollary [ 67 ] , taking @xmath32 to be the surjective map @xmath478 .
we have the following diagram : @xmath479according to proposition [ identify ] the function @xmath480 is a uniform homeomorphism and we may conclude that @xmath481 is also a uniform homeomorphism .
the collection of all such @xmath82 is therefore a universal base for @xmath76 .
[ uit]the following are equivalent for a coverable space @xmath0 .    1 .
@xmath0 is universal . 2 .   for every entourage @xmath3 such that @xmath2 is chain connected
, @xmath482 is trivial ( i.e. , every @xmath3-loop based at @xmath130 is @xmath3-homotopic to the trivial loop ) .
@xmath19 is trivial .
the implication ( 1)@xmath465(2 ) follows from corollary [ 0518u ] .
if ( 2 ) holds then for any coverable entourage @xmath3 , @xmath483 is a uniformly contionuous surjection and hence @xmath2 is chain connected .
therefore each @xmath77 is trivial and the inverse limit @xmath19 is trivial . finally , if @xmath19 is trivial then the universal covering map is a uniform homeomorphism and since @xmath21 is universal , so is @xmath0 .
we will see later ( theorem [ 0627simply ] ) that @xmath70 is universal .
consider the entourage @xmath3 consisting of all @xmath484 such that @xmath485 , where @xmath486 .
it is not hard to see that @xmath487 is an @xmath3-loop based at @xmath488 that is not @xmath3-homotopic to the trivial loop . at the same time it is true that @xmath489 is uniformly homeomorphic to @xmath490 , where @xmath41 has the discrete uniformity , and hence @xmath489 is not chain connected ( see example 48 in @xcite for more details )
this shows that one can not expect @xmath78 to be trivial for every choice of @xmath3 when @xmath0 is universal .    if @xmath47 is a uniformly continuous bijection between coverable spaces @xmath0 and @xmath46 and @xmath46 is universal then @xmath0 is universal .
suppose @xmath46 is universal and let @xmath176 be an entourage in the universal base for @xmath46 .
then @xmath337 is a uniform homeomorphism and by corollary [ 67 ] @xmath162 is a uniform homeomorphism , where @xmath316 .
[ disccover]let @xmath491 be a discrete cover , where @xmath0 is chain connected .
for any sufficiently small @xmath82-invariant entourage @xmath3 and @xmath492 , the function @xmath211 is a uniform homeomorphism .
since @xmath32 is a discrete cover , there exists an entourage @xmath167 such that if @xmath493 satisfies @xmath494 for some @xmath88 then @xmath495 .
suppose that @xmath3 is any invariant entourage such that @xmath496 . since @xmath32 is a quotient mapping
, @xmath497 is an entourage in @xmath46 .
we will first show that @xmath498 is injective . by lemma [ lemsur2 ]
we may equivalently prove that if @xmath499 is an @xmath3-chain in @xmath0 such that @xmath500 for some @xmath402 and the @xmath176-loop @xmath206 is @xmath176-homotopic to the trivial loop @xmath501 then @xmath495 ( so @xmath127 is an @xmath3-loop ) and @xmath127 is @xmath3-homotopic to the trivial loop @xmath502 .
let @xmath503 .
we will prove the statement by induction on the minimal length @xmath126 of an @xmath176-homotopy between @xmath206 and @xmath504 . if @xmath505 then @xmath206 is already trivial and so is @xmath441 , and the proof is finished .
suppose we have proved it for some @xmath506 , and there is some @xmath176-homotopy of @xmath206 to @xmath504 of length @xmath126 .
suppose that the first step in the @xmath176-homotopy is to add a point : @xmath206 is @xmath176-related to @xmath507 .
that is , @xmath508 .
now there exists @xmath509 such that @xmath510 and @xmath511 , and therefore some @xmath402 such that @xmath512 .
since @xmath3 is invariant , we have that if @xmath513 then @xmath514 and @xmath515 .
likewise there is some @xmath516 such that @xmath517 and @xmath518 . since @xmath519 , @xmath520 , and @xmath518
, it follows that @xmath521 .
but since @xmath522 , @xmath523 for some @xmath524 and by choice of @xmath167 , it must be that @xmath525 and @xmath526 .
the inductive hypothesis now finishes the proof .
now suppose that the first step in the homotopy is to remove a point : @xmath206 is @xmath176-related to @xmath527 ; that is , @xmath528 .
as in the preceding argument there is some @xmath493 such that @xmath529 .
but @xmath530 , so @xmath531 , and we conclude that @xmath532 .
therefore @xmath533 and we may again apply the inductive hypothesis .    to see why @xmath279 is surjective , let @xmath534 be an @xmath176-chain in @xmath46 .
we will prove the statement by induction in @xmath86 . if @xmath298 then the proof is obvious since @xmath535 by assumption .
suppose we have proved it for @xmath536
. then we can find some @xmath3-chain @xmath537 such that @xmath538 for all @xmath6 .
since @xmath539 , and @xmath540 , we may again use the invariance of @xmath3 to see that there exists some @xmath541 such that @xmath542 and @xmath543 .
then @xmath115 is an @xmath3-chain such that @xmath544 .
to finish the proof of the proposition , let @xmath141 be an entourage in @xmath545 , where @xmath140 is an invariant entourage in @xmath0 ( @xmath167 exists since @xmath82 acts isomorphically ) . since @xmath0 is chain connected , @xmath546 by proposition [ xee ] , and @xmath547 is an entourage in @xmath548 .
the proof will be complete if we show that @xmath549 , which makes @xmath550 an entourage .
let @xmath142_{f},[\beta ] _ { f})\in k^{\ast } $ ] which means @xmath143_{f},[\beta ] _ { f})=([\ast = y_{0}, ... ,y_{n},y]_{f},[\ast = y_{0}, ...
,y_{n},z]_{f})\]]with @xmath551 . using the invariance of @xmath3 and @xmath167 and proceeding inductively as we have done above
, we can find @xmath3-chains @xmath552 and @xmath553 such that @xmath554 and @xmath555 , and @xmath556 . by definition , @xmath557_{e},[\beta ^{\prime } ] _ { e})\in d^{\ast } $ ] and @xmath558_{e}),f_{ef}([\alpha ^{\prime } ] _ { e})\right ) = ( [ \alpha ] _ { f},[\beta ] _ { f})$ ] .
[ base2]we give one final comment about basepoints and lifts of functions following lemma [ baseok ] .
the lifting theorems below are true for any choice of basepoints such that the functions involved are basepoint - preserving .
for example , in the proposition below we may start with a basepoint @xmath130 in @xmath0 , choose @xmath535 in @xmath46 , use any basepoint @xmath559 to construct @xmath560 and then choose another basepoint @xmath130 in @xmath560 so that @xmath561 .
[ liftlem]let @xmath0 be universal , @xmath46 be uniform and @xmath47 be uniformly continuous
. then    1 .   for any entourage @xmath3 in @xmath46
there is a unique uniformly continuous function @xmath562 such that @xmath563 and @xmath564 .
there is a unique uniformly continuous function @xmath565 such that @xmath566 and @xmath567 , where @xmath568 is the projection .
define @xmath562 as follows .
let @xmath176 be an entourage in the universal base of @xmath0 such that @xmath569 and @xmath570 be the unique uniformly continuous function given by theorem [ 60 ] ( @xmath571 is a uniform homeomorphism and therefore @xmath311 is chain connected ) .
define @xmath572 .
if @xmath573 were any such function then it follows from the uniqueness of @xmath574 that @xmath575 and hence that @xmath576 .
note that by uniqueness , if @xmath577 are entourages in @xmath46 we have that @xmath578 and by the universal property of the inverse limit there is a unique function @xmath59 such that @xmath579 for every entourage @xmath3 and @xmath580 .
suppose that @xmath581 is uniformly continuous such that @xmath582 and @xmath583 .
note that for any entourage @xmath3 in @xmath46 we have @xmath584and therefore by uniqueness in part ( 1 ) , @xmath585 . since @xmath586 is also induced by the functions @xmath587 , @xmath588 .    the functions @xmath589 and @xmath590 will both be referred to as lifts  of @xmath32
[ 76]let @xmath0 and @xmath46 be uniform , @xmath47 be a cover , @xmath34 be universal , and @xmath591 be uniformly continuous .
then there exists a unique uniformly continuous function @xmath592 such that @xmath593 and @xmath594 .
suppose first that @xmath32 is a discrete cover .
according to proposition disccover there is an entourage @xmath3 in @xmath0 such that if @xmath492 then @xmath595 is a uniform homeomorphism and @xmath290 .
define @xmath592 by @xmath596 ( where @xmath597 is the lift of @xmath403 given by proposition [ liftlem ] ) .
then @xmath594 and @xmath598@xmath599to prove uniqueness , suppose that @xmath600 is any such function .
consider the lift @xmath601 .
we have @xmath602by uniqueness of lifts ( proposition [ liftlem ] ) , @xmath603 .
but then @xmath604 and @xmath605    now suppose that @xmath32 is an arbitrary cover . by theorem 48 in @xcite there exists an inverse system @xmath606 such that @xmath607 is a discrete cover and @xmath608 and @xmath609 for some minimal element @xmath74 .
according to what we proved above , for each @xmath136 there is a unique uniformly continuous function @xmath610 such that @xmath611 and @xmath612 . if @xmath613 we have that @xmath614and by uniqueness @xmath615 . by the universal property of inverse limits
there is a unique uniformly continuous function @xmath616 such that for all @xmath136 , @xmath617 and @xmath594 .
now suppose @xmath618 is any uniformly continuous function such that @xmath619 and @xmath620 .
define @xmath621 .
we have that @xmath622 and @xmath623by the uniqueness of @xmath624 , @xmath625 and therefore @xmath626 .
if @xmath46 is coverable then by theorem [ xic ] , @xmath560 is universal and we obtain :    [ partialstep]let @xmath47 be a cover where @xmath0 is uniform and @xmath46 is coverable , and @xmath568 be the projection .
then there exists a unique uniformly continuous function @xmath627 such that @xmath628 and @xmath629 .
[ quick]if @xmath47 is a bi - uniformly continuous surjection where @xmath0 is universal and @xmath46 is uniform then @xmath46 is coverable .
let @xmath56 be a universal base for @xmath0 . since @xmath32 is a bi - uniformly continuous surjection , the set @xmath630 of all @xmath631 such that @xmath632 is a base for the uniformity of @xmath46 .
we may index the fundamental system for @xmath46 using @xmath630 , and for each @xmath633 in @xmath634 we may use @xmath176 in the construction of the lift @xmath589 . since @xmath635 we will be finished by the definition of coverable if we can show that each @xmath589 is surjective .
let @xmath636 be an @xmath3-chain in @xmath46 .
we will show by induction on @xmath86 that there is an @xmath176-chain @xmath637 such that @xmath638 and , by definition of @xmath589 , this completes the proof .
for @xmath298 the proof is obvious .
now suppose we have an @xmath176-chain @xmath639 such that @xmath640 . since @xmath641 there is some ordered pair @xmath642 such that @xmath643 .
the @xmath176-chain @xmath644 now satisfies @xmath645 .
[ bi]if @xmath0 is coverable and @xmath47 is a bi - uniformly continuous surjection then @xmath46 is coverable . in particular , any quotient by an equiuniform action , hence by an isomorphic action , on a coverable uniform space is coverable .
since the universal cover @xmath20 is a bi - uniformly continuous surjection , so is @xmath646 .
the proof is finished by corollary [ quick ] and theorem [ xic ] .
[ 73]let @xmath26 be coverable spaces , @xmath47 be uniformly continuous , and @xmath20 and @xmath647 be the projections .
then there is a unique uniformly continuous function @xmath30 , such that @xmath648 and @xmath649 .
moreover ,    1 .   for any @xmath650 and @xmath651 , @xmath652 .
2 .   the restriction @xmath653 of @xmath33 to @xmath19 is a homomorphism into @xmath654 .
if @xmath32 is a discrete cover then @xmath33 is a uniform homeomorphism .
4 .   if @xmath34 is uniform and @xmath35 is uniformly continuous then @xmath655 ( and in particular @xmath656 ) .    for the main statement , define @xmath657 .
if @xmath658 is a uniformly continuous function with @xmath659 then by definition @xmath403 is a lift of @xmath660 and so @xmath661 .    for part ( 1 ) , note that if @xmath662 then @xmath663 and @xmath664therefore @xmath665 . for any entourage @xmath176 in @xmath46
let @xmath3 be an entourage in @xmath0 such that @xmath207 .
now @xmath666 and @xmath667 are both lifts of @xmath660 to @xmath282 and therefore @xmath668 ( see proposition [ liftlem ] ) .
now let @xmath669 and @xmath650 with @xmath670 _ { e}$ ] and @xmath671
_ { e}$ ] . by definition of the action of the inverse limit group @xmath82 on the inverse limit space @xmath21,@xmath672 _ { e}\right )
\text{.}\]]the latter quantity , by definition of @xmath279 , is equal to@xmath673 _ { f}=\left [ f(\gamma _ { e})\ast f(\alpha _ { e})\right ] _
{ f}=\left [ f(\gamma _ { e})\right ] _ { f}\ast \left [ f(\alpha _ { e})\right ] _ { f}\text{.}\]]as a special case when the @xmath403 is the identity , @xmath674_{f}\right ) \text{.}\]]if @xmath675 then @xmath676
_ { f}\text{.}\]]combining these we obtain @xmath677when @xmath662 , we have@xmath678which gives the second statement .
if @xmath491 is a discrete cover then @xmath32 is bi - uniformly continuous and we may index the fundamental system of @xmath46 using entourages of the form @xmath679 where @xmath3 is an invariant entourage in @xmath0 . then by uniqueness , @xmath33 is induced by the functions @xmath279 .
proposition [ disccover ] implies that the functions @xmath279 are all uniform homeomorphisms and hence @xmath33 must be a uniform homeomorphism .
the last part follows from uniqueness of @xmath680 .
[ 101]if @xmath0 and @xmath46 are coverable spaces and @xmath47 is a cover then @xmath30 is a uniform homeomorphism .
if @xmath0 is coverable then @xmath681 is a cover with covering group @xmath682 .
let @xmath20 and @xmath28 be the projections .
we will show that the lift @xmath683 given by corollary [ partialstep ] and proposition [ liftlem ] is an inverse to @xmath33 .
first note that @xmath684that is , @xmath685 is the unique lift of the identity on @xmath46 and hence must be the identity on @xmath560 .    now according to theorem [ 76 ]
, @xmath50 is the unique lift of the function @xmath660 ; that is , the unique uniformly continuous function @xmath686 such that such that @xmath687 and @xmath688 .
but we also have that @xmath689 in other words , @xmath690 .
we now have @xmath691and @xmath692 must be the unique lift of the identity on @xmath0 , hence the identity on @xmath21 .
we have shown that both @xmath693 and @xmath33 are uniform homeomorphisms and inverses of one another .
for the second part note that since @xmath0 is coverable , @xmath50 is bi - uniformly continuous and since @xmath694 , @xmath695 is bi - uniformly continuous .
now @xmath696 for @xmath697 if and only @xmath698 , or equivalently , letting @xmath699 and @xmath700 there is some @xmath651 such that @xmath701 .
but this is equivalent to @xmath702(the second equality comes from theorem [ 73 ] ( 1 ) ) .
that is , the orbits of @xmath703 are precisely the preimages of points with respect to @xmath695 . according to @xcite
this means that @xmath695 is the quotient with respect to the action of @xmath703 .
finally , since @xmath704 , which acts prodiscretely and isomorphically , so does @xmath703 and @xmath705 is a cover with covering group @xmath703 ( see remark 13 in @xcite ) .
since a universal space is uniformly homeomorphic to its own universal cover by proposition [ 0607uniform ] , we obtain :    the universal cover of a coverable space is unique up to uniform homeomorphism .
more precisely , if @xmath0 is coverable , @xmath46 is universal , @xmath706 is a cover and @xmath20 is the universal cover then @xmath707 is a uniform homeomorphism .
we will say that a topological space @xmath0 is simply connected if every loop in @xmath0 is null - homotopic , regardless of whether @xmath0 is pathwise connected . recall that @xmath0 is called locally connected ( resp .
locally pathwise connected ) if for every @xmath88 and open set @xmath90 containing @xmath40 there is a connected ( resp .
pathwise connected ) open set @xmath708 with @xmath709 .
@xmath0 is semilocally simply connected if each @xmath88 is contained in an open set @xmath90 such that every loop in @xmath90 based at @xmath40 is null - homotopic in @xmath0 ( see @xcite ) . in a uniform space
it is natural to consider the situation when these local conditions are true uniformly .
[ unidef]a uniform space @xmath0 is called uniformly locally connected ( resp .
uniformly locally pathwise connected ) if for each entourage @xmath3 there is an entourage @xmath267 such that all @xmath176-balls are open and connected ( resp .
open and pathwise connected ) .
@xmath0 is called uniformly semilocally simply connected if there exists an entourage @xmath3 such that any loop in @xmath710 based at @xmath88 is null - homotopic in @xmath0
.    note that given any @xmath3 as in the above definition , any entourage @xmath711 has the same property .
a uniform space @xmath0 is uniformly locally connected ( resp .
uniformly locally pathwise connected ) if and only if for every entourage @xmath3 there exists an entourage @xmath176 with open balls such that for every @xmath88 there exists some open set @xmath712 such that @xmath713 and @xmath712 is connected ( resp .
@xmath90 is pathwise connected ) .
necessity is trivial ; take an entourage @xmath176 with open balls and let @xmath714 . to prove the converse ,
let @xmath3 be any entourage in @xmath0 and @xmath715 be an entourage such that @xmath716 .
let @xmath167 be an entourage such that for each @xmath88 there exists an open set @xmath712 that is connected ( resp .
pathwise connected ) , such that @xmath717 .
define @xmath718 by @xmath719@xmath176 is symmetric by definition and certainly contains the diagonal .
now @xmath720which , being the union of connected ( resp . pathwise connected ) open sets @xmath721 containing @xmath40 , is open and connected ( resp .
pathwise connected ) .
@xmath176 is an entourage since by definition @xmath283 . finally , if @xmath722 then @xmath723 and @xmath724 for some @xmath725 containing @xmath40 . since @xmath726 , @xmath727 .
[ 428unif]let @xmath0 be a locally connected ( resp .
locally pathwise connected ) compact topological space .
then @xmath0 , with the unique uniformity compatible with its topology , is uniformly locally connected ( resp .
uniformly locally pathwise connected ) .
if @xmath0 is both locally pathwise connected and semilocally simply connected then @xmath0 is uniformly semilocally simply connected .
recall that the unique compatible uniformity on @xmath0 has as a basis all symmetric open subsets of @xmath23 that contain the diagonal .
let @xmath3 be any entourage in @xmath0 and for any @xmath88 let @xmath712 be an open and connected ( resp .
pathwise connected ) neighborhood of @xmath40 such that @xmath728 .
let @xmath267 be the union of all sets @xmath729 .
then @xmath176 is open and symmetric , hence an entourage . if @xmath730 then @xmath731 for some @xmath732 , and therefore @xmath733 and @xmath734 both lie in @xmath735 .
that is , @xmath736 is the union of all sets @xmath737 such that @xmath738 . since each @xmath735 is connected ( resp .
pathwise connected ) , so is @xmath736 .
if @xmath0 is both locally pathwise connected and semilocally simply connected then by what we proved above , for every @xmath88 there is an arbitrarily small entourage @xmath739 such that the ball @xmath740 is open and pathwise connected . by choosing @xmath739
small enough we may assume that every loop in @xmath740 based at @xmath40 is null - homotopic in @xmath0 .
for each @xmath40 let @xmath741 be an entourage with open balls such that @xmath742 .
let @xmath743 be a finite open cover of @xmath0 , and let @xmath744 .
for any @xmath88 there is some @xmath745 such that @xmath746 . if @xmath723 then @xmath747 and @xmath748 .
that is , @xmath749 . given any loop @xmath127 in @xmath736 based at @xmath40 ,
join it to @xmath745 by a path in @xmath750 from @xmath40 to @xmath745 .
the resulting loop based at @xmath745 is null - homotopic in @xmath0 , and hence so is @xmath127 .
[ 315conn]let @xmath0 be a chain connected uniform space . if there is an entourage @xmath3 of @xmath0 such that the @xmath3-balls of @xmath0 are connected ( resp .
pathwise connected ) then @xmath0 is connected ( resp .
pathwise connected ) .
it will follow from  proposition [ consume ] and a standard theorem from topology if we show by induction that all @xmath85-balls are connected .
the @xmath751 case is given .
suppose that @xmath85-balls and @xmath3-balls are all conneced for some @xmath86 .
let @xmath752 . by definition of @xmath753
there is some @xmath732 such that @xmath754 and @xmath755 .
each of these balls is connected and they intersect in @xmath732 , hence their union is connected set .
we have shown that every element of @xmath756 is contained in a connected subset of @xmath756 containing @xmath40 , and so @xmath753 is connected .
if the @xmath3-balls are all pathwise connected then by what we have just proved @xmath0 is connected and locally pathwise connected , hence pathwise connected .    if @xmath0 is chain connected and uniformly locally connected ( resp .
uniformly locally pathwise connected ) then @xmath0 is connected ( resp .
pathwise connected ) .
[ 52]let @xmath0 be a uniform space and @xmath3 be an entourage in @xmath0 such that the @xmath3-balls have one of the following properties : chain connected , connected , pathwise connected .
then @xmath2 has the same property .
suppose that the @xmath3-balls of @xmath0 are chain connected .
let @xmath267 be an entourage and @xmath637 be an @xmath3-chain .
since the @xmath3-balls are chain connected we may suppose up to @xmath3-homotopy that @xmath194 is an @xmath176-chain .
for example , we may join @xmath118 and @xmath757 by an @xmath176-chain @xmath758 that lies entirely in @xmath759 .
we may remove the points @xmath760 one at a time in order to obtain an @xmath3-homotopy from @xmath761 to @xmath136 . then letting @xmath762 we have that @xmath763_{e},[\alpha _
{ i+1}]_{e})\in f^{\ast } $ ] for all @xmath6 . in particular , @xmath764_{e}, ... ,[\alpha _ { n}]_{e}=[\alpha ]
_ { e}\}$ ] is an @xmath219-chain to @xmath202_{e}$ ] .
this shows that @xmath2 is chain connected .
now if @xmath185 has connected ( resp .
pathwise connected ) balls then these balls are chain connected and therefore @xmath2 is chain connected by what we just proved . according to proposition [ xee ] , the @xmath163-balls in @xmath2 are connected ( resp .
pathwise connected ) , and lemma [ 315conn ] now shows that @xmath2 is connected ( resp .
pathwise connected ) .
[ 0627simply]if @xmath0 is a uniformly locally pathwise connected , connected and simply connected uniform space then @xmath0 is universal .
let @xmath3 be an entourage with pathwise connected open balls .
then @xmath2 is pathwise connected by proposition [ 52 ] .
moreover , by corollary 34 of @xcite , the action of @xmath77 on @xmath2 is properly discontinuous . since @xmath0 is a poincar space
, @xmath765 is a traditional cover ( cf .
@xcite ) and since @xmath0 is simply connected , @xmath133 must be a trivial cover , hence bijective .
this means that the bi - uniformly continuous mapping @xmath133 is a uniform homeomorphism .
[ compactu]every compact , connected , locally pathwise connected , simply connected topological space is universal .
proposition [ liftlem ] now implies :    [ pathlift]if @xmath766\rightarrow x$ ] is a ( continuous ) path , where @xmath0 is uniform , with @xmath767 , then there is a unique lift @xmath768\rightarrow \widetilde{x}$ ] such that @xmath769 and @xmath770 , where @xmath20 is the projection .
a similar statement holds for homotopies .    if @xmath766\rightarrow x$ ] is a path from @xmath130 to @xmath88 then @xmath771 .
we have :    [ pathsur]if @xmath0 is a uniform space with projection @xmath458 then the pathwise connected component of @xmath0 at @xmath130 is contained in @xmath772 , where @xmath773 is the pathwise connected component of @xmath774 in @xmath21 .
[ 0628new]if @xmath0 is a connected , uniformly locally pathwise connected uniform space then @xmath0 is coverable . in particular
, every compact , connected , locally pathwise connected topological space is coverable .
we may index the fundamental system of @xmath0 using entourages having pathwise connected balls .
but for each such @xmath3 , @xmath2 is pathwise connected by proposition [ 52 ] and therefore each @xmath775 is surjective by the previous corollary .
[ 0518simp]suppose @xmath0 is a uniformly locally pathwise connected uniform space having an entourage @xmath3 such that for all @xmath88 every loop in @xmath776 is null - homotopic in @xmath0 and an entourage @xmath176 having pathwise connected balls such that @xmath777 . then @xmath347 is pathwise connected , uniformly locally pathwise connected and simply connected , hence universal .    according to proposition [ 52 ]
, @xmath347 is pathwise connected , and the @xmath778-balls , which are uniformly homeomorphic to the @xmath176-balls , are pathwise connected . by proposition
[ identify ] the function @xmath779 is a uniform homeomorphism .
this implies that every @xmath219-loop in @xmath347 is @xmath219-homotopic to the trivial loop .
now let @xmath766\rightarrow x_{f}$ ] be a loop based at @xmath130 . since @xmath317 is uniformly continuous
there is some @xmath219-loop @xmath780 such that each @xmath781 for some @xmath6 and @xmath782)\subset b(x_{i},f^{\ast } ) $ ] for all @xmath6 .
we may use any @xmath219-homotopy from @xmath441 to @xmath130 to construct a null - homotopy from @xmath317 to the trivial loop as follows .
suppose that @xmath783 for some @xmath784 .
we may join @xmath745 to @xmath734 and @xmath734 to @xmath785 by paths @xmath786 and @xmath787 in @xmath788 .
let @xmath789 be the restriction of @xmath317 to @xmath790 $ ] .
then we have a loop @xmath791 , each segment of which lies in the @xmath219-ball centered at its endpoint .
now let @xmath792 , which is a loop consisting of three segments , each of which lies in the @xmath176-ball centered at its endpoint . since @xmath777 , @xmath793 lies entirely in the @xmath3-ball centered at a point , and hence is null - homotopic in @xmath0 . according to theorem [ 76 ] any null - homotopy of @xmath794 lifts to a null - homotopy of @xmath137 .
in other words , the path @xmath317 is homotopic to a path @xmath795 obtained by replacing @xmath789 by @xmath786 concatenated by @xmath787 .
we may carry out a similar process when removing any point in @xmath127 to form a new @xmath219-chain as part of an @xmath219-homotopy of @xmath127 .
finitely many such steps show that @xmath317 is null - homotopic .
since the @xmath176-balls of @xmath0 , and hence the @xmath219-balls of @xmath347 , are pathwise connected , @xmath347 is uniformly locally pathwise connected and pathwise connected , hence universal by theorem 0627simply .
let @xmath766\rightarrow x$ ] be a path in a coverable space @xmath0 such that @xmath797 . since @xmath798 , @xmath799 , where @xmath50 is the universal covering map of @xmath0 and @xmath800 is the lift given by proposition [ liftlem ]
that is , @xmath801 .
define a function @xmath80 by @xmath802)=c_{l}(1)$ ] , where @xmath803 $ ] is the homotopy equivalence class of a loop @xmath317 based at @xmath130 .
this function is well defined .
in fact , suppose @xmath317 and @xmath335 are loops based at @xmath130 that are homotopic via a homotopy @xmath804\times \lbrack 0,1]\rightarrow x$ ] , with @xmath805 and @xmath806 .
then @xmath807 is a path joining @xmath808 to @xmath809 , both of which lie in @xmath810 .
but @xmath811 is a prodiscrete group ( hence totally disconnected ) with respect to the subspace topology
. therefore @xmath812 .
[ lifter]let @xmath0 be coverable , @xmath803\in \pi _ { 1}(x)$ ] , where @xmath813\rightarrow x$ ] is based at @xmath130 , and @xmath3 be an entourage in @xmath0 . if @xmath814 are such that for every @xmath6 , @xmath815 for all @xmath816 $ ] then @xmath817))=[\ast = c(t_{0}), ... ,c(t_{n})]_{e}$ ] .
( such values @xmath818 always exist since @xmath317 is uniformly continuous . )
note that by definition,@xmath819))=\theta _ { e}(c_{l}(1))=c_{e}(1)\]]where @xmath820 is the lift given by proposition [ liftlem ] .
let @xmath821 , where the points @xmath818 satisfy the conditions of the proposition .
we will show by induction on @xmath6 that @xmath822_{e}$ ] for all @xmath246 .
the case @xmath823 is trivial .
suppose that we have proved the statement for some @xmath6 , @xmath117 . by definition , @xmath824_{e},[c(t_{0}),c(t_{1}), ...
,c(t_{i}),c(t_{i+1})]_{e})\in e^{\ast } \]]and @xmath825_{e})=c(t_{i+1})$ ] .
recall from proposition [ xee ] that @xmath133 is a uniform homeomorphism when restricted to any @xmath163-ball of @xmath2 , and since we also have @xmath826 we will be finished if we can show @xmath824_{e},c_{e}(t_{i+1}))\in e^{\ast } \text{.}\]]but the unique lift @xmath827 of @xmath828}$ ] to @xmath2 starting at @xmath829 must be @xmath830}$ ] , where @xmath208 is the inverse of @xmath133 restricted to @xmath831_{e},e^{\ast } ) $ ] .
since @xmath832}$ ] also satisfies the conditions for this lift , we must have that @xmath833_{e},e^{\ast } ) \text{.}\ ] ]    [ nat]if @xmath0 is coverable then the natural mapping @xmath834 is a homomorphism , the image of which is the normal subgroup @xmath835 of @xmath19 that leaves invariant the pathwise connected component of @xmath21 containing @xmath130 . in particular , @xmath62 is surjective if and only if @xmath21 is pathwise connected .    to see why @xmath62 is a homomorphism note that @xmath836)\circ d_{l}\right ) ) = c\ast d$ ] ( here @xmath837)\circ d_{l}$ ] is the translate  via the uniform homeomorphism @xmath837)$ ] of @xmath838 to the endpoint of @xmath800 and @xmath839 is the universal covering map of @xmath0 ) and therefore by uniqueness , @xmath840)\circ
d_{l}\right ) = \left ( c\ast d\right ) _ { l}$ ] .
but the endpoint of @xmath841)\circ d_{l}$ ] is @xmath842)\lambda ( [ d])$ ] .
if @xmath651 stabilizes the pathwise connected component of @xmath21 containing @xmath774 then @xmath130 and @xmath843 are joined by an path @xmath136 , and @xmath844 is a loop based at @xmath130 with @xmath845)=g$ ] . on the other hand ,
if @xmath403 lies in the image of @xmath62 then @xmath130 and @xmath846 are joined by an path ( namely the lift of a loop , the image of whose equivalence class is @xmath403 ) .
now suppose @xmath40 lies in the pathwise connected component of @xmath21 containing @xmath130 .
we may join @xmath40 to @xmath130 by an path @xmath317 .
but then @xmath847 joins @xmath848 and @xmath843 , and we have already observed that the latter is joined to @xmath130 by an path .
the kernel of @xmath62 , by definition , consists of those @xmath803 $ ] such that @xmath849 lifts to a loop in @xmath21 , or equivalently the lift of @xmath317 to each @xmath2 is a loop .
it is of obvious interest when @xmath850 is trivial .
this can be checked in some special cases .
for example , in the case of the hawaiian earring , a problem that essentially amounts to the injectivity of @xmath62 occupied several papers ( @xcite , @xcite , d ) and was simply stated in @xcite ( along with an incorrect statement that amounts to surjectivity of @xmath851 .    [ inj]let @xmath0 be coverable
. then    1 .
if @xmath21 is simply connected then @xmath834 is injective .
2 .   if @xmath0 is pathwise connected and @xmath61 is injective then @xmath21 is simply connected .
if @xmath21 is simply connected and @xmath803\in \ker \lambda $ ] then @xmath317 lifts to a loop @xmath800 in @xmath21 based at @xmath130 , which is then null - homotopic .
the image of any null - homotopy of @xmath800 via the universal covering map @xmath50 is a null - homotopy of @xmath317 .
now suppose that @xmath0 is pathwise connected and @xmath834 is injective .
let @xmath766\rightarrow   \widetilde{x}$ ] be a loop based at some point @xmath40 .
then @xmath852 is a loop in @xmath0 , where @xmath50 is the universal covering map of @xmath0 .
let @xmath853\rightarrow x$ ] be the concatenation of a path @xmath136 from @xmath130 to @xmath854 , followed by @xmath855 , parameterized so that the restriction to @xmath856 $ ] is @xmath852 .
so @xmath335 represents an element of @xmath857 .
let @xmath651 be such that @xmath858 ( such a @xmath403 exists since @xmath859 ) .
now the composition of @xmath403 with @xmath860}$ ] is simply @xmath317 and therefore @xmath861}$ ] is a loop .
but then @xmath862)=0 $ ] and since @xmath62 is injective , @xmath335 must be null - homotopic .
but then any null - homotopy of @xmath335 lifts to one of @xmath838 , and the composition of the lifted homotopy with @xmath403 gives rise to a null - homotopy of @xmath317 .
[ dense]if @xmath0 is a uniformly locally pathwise connected , connected uniform space then the pathwise connected component of @xmath21 is dense in @xmath21 and @xmath863 is dense in @xmath453 .
these two statements follow from the following general result concerning induced functions on inverse limits : let @xmath864 be an inverse system of topological spaces with continuous bonding maps and @xmath865 .
let @xmath866 be a collection of continuous surjections from a topological space @xmath46 such that @xmath867 for all @xmath613 .
then the induced mapping @xmath868 has dense image in @xmath0 .
we do not have a reference for this exact statement but the proof is straightforward and similar to the proof of iii.7.3 proposition 2 in @xcite .
now if @xmath3 has pathwise connected balls then @xmath2 is pathwise connected and by corollary [ pathsur ] the restriction @xmath793 of @xmath25 to the pathwise connected component @xmath773 of @xmath21 is surjective onto @xmath2 and the proof of the first part is finished by the above general statement .    on the other hand , if @xmath869 then there is some path @xmath136 from @xmath130 to @xmath40 , and @xmath870 is a loop @xmath127 in @xmath0 based at @xmath130 such that the unique lift @xmath871 has @xmath40 as its endpoint .
but then @xmath872)=x$ ] .
in other words , @xmath873 is surjective , and the proof is finished by the above general statement .
note that the above proof really only requires that there be a basis for the uniformity of @xmath0 such that for each @xmath3 in the basis , @xmath2 is pathwise connected . since the closure of a connected set
is connected we have :    if @xmath0 is a uniformly locally pathwise connected , connected uniform space then @xmath21 is connected .
[ newquotient]if @xmath0 is a locally pathwise connected and connected space and @xmath773 is the pathwise connected component of @xmath21 containing @xmath130 then @xmath0 is the quotient of @xmath773 by the free isomorphic action of @xmath874 .
we already know that @xmath863 acts freely and isomorphically on @xmath773 since @xmath19 does . we need to check that the restriction @xmath794 of @xmath50 to @xmath773 is bi - uniformly continuous and that for any @xmath875
, @xmath876 is precisely the orbit @xmath877 of @xmath40 ( see remark 13 of @xcite ) .
we know that @xmath793 is uniformly continuous .
let @xmath878 be an entourage in @xmath773 ; we may assume that the @xmath3-balls are pathwise connected , hence @xmath2 is pathwise connected , hence the restriction @xmath879 of @xmath25 to @xmath773 is surjective by corollary [ pathsur ] . since @xmath879 is surjective , @xmath880now @xmath881which is an entourage since @xmath133 is bi - uniformly continuous .
this shows that @xmath793 is bi - uniformly continuous .
the statement about the orbits simply follows from the fact that the orbits of @xmath793 are precisely the orbits of @xmath50 intersected with @xmath773 and that @xmath882 for any @xmath883 .
note that when @xmath62 is injective , the action in the above proposition is in fact an action by @xmath884 . on the other hand , when @xmath62 is not surjective one has the disadvantage that @xmath773 is not complete with the uniformity induced by @xmath21 .
a uniform space @xmath0 is called strongly coverable if @xmath0 is chain connected and for some entourage @xmath3 , @xmath2 is universal , hence the universal cover of @xmath0 .
it is clear from the discussion in the introduction that the topologist s sine curve is strongly coverable .
[ strong]if @xmath0 is strongly coverable and uniformly locally pathwise connected then @xmath80 is surjective .
let @xmath3 be an entourage such that @xmath2 is universal and @xmath267 be an entourage having pathwise connected balls .
then @xmath347 is pathwise connected and @xmath219 is in the universal base of @xmath2 by corollary [ 0518u ] .
hence @xmath2 and @xmath347 are uniformly homeomorphic and therefore @xmath885 is also pathwise connected .
the proof is finished by theorem [ nat ] .    from theorem [ 0518simp ] , lemma
[ strong ] , and proposition [ inj ] we obtain :    every connected , uniformly locally pathwise connected and uniformly semi - locally simply connected uniform space @xmath0 is strongly coverable with pathwise connected , simply connected universal cover and @xmath886 .
[ 0518equiv]if @xmath0 is a compact poincar space then @xmath21 is the traditional universal cover of @xmath0 and @xmath834 is an isomorphism .
we refer the reader to @xcite for more background on dimension and uniform spaces .
suppose that @xmath0 has uniform dimension @xmath73 , which we denote by @xmath887 .
this means that any uniform open cover @xmath888 of @xmath0 has a refinement by a uniform open cover of order @xmath889 ( a uniform open cover is an open cover that is refined by the cover of @xmath0 by @xmath176-balls for some fixed entourage @xmath176 ) .
note that this particular notion of dimension is called large dimension  in @xcite , and is denoted by @xmath890 .
we will use theorems from @xcite concerning another dimension , called uniform dimension  in @xcite and denoted by @xmath891 .
this particular notion of dimension uses finite covers and is somewhat more difficult to work with in the present situation .
however , it is always true that @xmath892 ( theorem v.5 in @xcite  in fact the dimensions are equal if @xmath890 is finite ) and therefore if we know that @xmath893 then we may use theorems from @xcite that require @xmath894 . if @xmath0 is compact then both of these dimensions are equal to covering dimension , which we denote by @xmath895 .
[ dimprop]if @xmath0 is a uniform space with @xmath893 then for any entourage @xmath3 , @xmath896 .
every uniform open cover of @xmath2 is refined by the cover of @xmath2 by @xmath778-balls for some entourage @xmath176 such that @xmath777 and therefore we need only consider the open cover of @xmath2 by @xmath219-balls for such @xmath176 . by definition of uniform dimension , the cover of @xmath0 by @xmath176-balls has a refinement by a uniform open cover @xmath888 such that every @xmath88 is contained in at most @xmath889 sets in @xmath888 .
let @xmath897 .
then @xmath898 for some @xmath88 .
let @xmath899 be the collection of all sets of the form @xmath900 where @xmath901 and @xmath902 .
first , @xmath903 is a cover .
in fact , if @xmath904 , @xmath905 for some @xmath906 , with @xmath898 .
but @xmath133 restricted to @xmath907 is a uniform homeomorphism onto @xmath908 , which contains @xmath909 since @xmath777 .
therefore there is some @xmath910 .
but @xmath911 and @xmath912 ; therefore @xmath913 .
that is , @xmath914 . since @xmath888 is a uniform cover
, so is @xmath903 .
in fact , if the @xmath167-ball cover of @xmath0 refines @xmath915 for some @xmath283 then the @xmath141-ball cover refines @xmath916 . by definition
, @xmath903 refines the @xmath219-ball cover of @xmath2 .
finally , to check that the order of @xmath903 is at most @xmath889 , we need only check that if @xmath917 are distinct and @xmath918 then @xmath919 \cap \left [ \phi _ { xe}^{-1}(a)\cap b(z , f^{\ast } ) \right ] = \varnothing \text{.}\]]but @xmath788 and @xmath920 are already disjoint , because otherwise for any @xmath921 we would have @xmath922 , which contradicts the fact that @xmath133 is injective on @xmath163-balls .    in @xcite , theorem iv.32
it is shown that the inverse limit of spaces with uniform dimension at most @xmath86 must have uniform dimension at most @xmath86 .
therefore by proposition [ dimprop ] :    [ dimthm]if @xmath0 is a coverable uniform space with @xmath893 then @xmath923 .
note that essentially the same argument shows that if @xmath0 and @xmath46 are uniform spaces , @xmath47 is a cover , and @xmath924 then @xmath887 . we conjecture that in this situation @xmath0 and @xmath46 have exactly the same dimension .
[ circle ] if @xmath0 is coverable uniform space with @xmath925 then @xmath926 contains no simple closed curve ( i.e. topological circle ) .
suppose that there is a topological embedding @xmath927 with the inverse homeomorphism @xmath928 . by theorem [ dimthm ]
we have @xmath929 and therefore by theorem v.13 of @xcite there is an extension of @xmath403 to a uniformly continuous function @xmath930 .
choose any point @xmath130 as the basepoint in both @xmath38 and @xmath21 , and choose @xmath843 as the basepoint in @xmath931 ( see remark [ base2 ] ) .
let @xmath932 be the traditional universal cover of @xmath931 also with some choice of basepoint @xmath130 in @xmath933 which is also the universal cover in the sense of the present paper by corollary 0518equiv .
since @xmath934 is universal by theorem [ xic ] , proposition [ liftlem ] ( 2 ) implies that there is a unique lift @xmath935 such that @xmath936 and @xmath937 thus we get that @xmath938this implies that @xmath939 is a topological embedding of @xmath931 into @xmath940 , which is impossible .
[ laminj]if @xmath0 is coverable uniform space with @xmath941 ( in particular if @xmath0 is compact with covering dimension @xmath942 ) , then @xmath65 is simply connected and if @xmath0 is pathwise connected the homomorphism @xmath943 is injective .    by proposition [ inj ] , it is enough to prove that @xmath934 is simply connected .
suppose that @xmath766\rightarrow \tilde{x}$ ] is a loop in @xmath944 .
then its image @xmath945 is a peano continuum that contains no simple closed curves by proposition [ circle ] . by the hahn - muzurkiewicz theorem
, @xmath945 is locally connected , hence a dendrite ( see section 51 , vi in @xcite )
. then @xmath946 is contractible by corollary 7 in section 54 , vii of @xcite .
therefore @xmath945 has trivial fundamental group .
this means that any loop at any basepoint in @xmath945 ( including the loop @xmath317 ) is null - homotopic in @xmath945 hence in @xmath65 .    combining the above theorem with proposition [ newquotient ] we have the following :
let @xmath0 be a pathwise connected , uniformly locally pathwise connected uniform space with @xmath947
. then @xmath0 is the quotient of a one - dimensional pathwise connected , simply connected uniform space via a free isomorphic action of @xmath884 .
[ tcc]let @xmath0 be a uniform space .
we define an entourage @xmath3 to be chain connected if every @xmath3-ball in @xmath0 is chain connected .
we say @xmath0 is totally chain connected if @xmath0 has a uniformity base that includes @xmath948 such that each entourage in the base is chain connected .    from proposition
[ 52 ] we immediately have :    [ 315totally]if @xmath0 is a totally chain connected uniform space and @xmath3 is a chain connected entourage then @xmath2 is totally chain connected .
if moreover @xmath0 is uniformly locally connected ( resp .
uniformly locally pathwise connected ) then @xmath2 has the same property .    in the proof of theorem 9 , @xcite
, it was shown that the character group of @xmath949 is not coverable .
but this group is known to be connected and locally connected , hence totally chain connected .
every totally chain connected pseudometric space @xmath0 is coverable .    since @xmath0 is a pseudometric space we can find a countable sequence @xmath950 of chain connected entourages forming a base for the uniformity of @xmath0 ( hence cofinal in the set of all entourages of @xmath0 ) .
therefore @xmath951 .
each of the spaces @xmath952 is chain connected by lemma [ 315totally ] and when @xmath953 we may identify @xmath954 with @xmath955 by proposition [ identify ] . therefore , lemma [ lemsur5 ] implies that each bonding map @xmath956 is surjective .
since the inverse system is countable it follows that the projections @xmath957 are all surjective .
since connected sets are chain connected , we have the following two corollaries :    [ pseu]every connected , uniformly locally connected pseudometric space is coverable .    recall that a peano continuum is a hausdorff topological space that is the continuous image of an interval .
equivalently ( by the hahn - mazurkiewicz theorem ) , a peano continuum is a compact , connected , locally ( pathwise ) connected metrizable space .
[ peano]every peano continuum @xmath0 is coverable .
moreover , there is a compact subset @xmath38 of the pathwise connected component of @xmath21 such that the restriction of the universal covering map @xmath50 to @xmath38 is surjective .
the first statement follows from corollary [ 0628new ] .
let @xmath813\rightarrow x$ ] be a continuous surjection .
then @xmath958)$ ] has the desired properties .
[ metnote]to simplify matters , when @xmath0 is a metric space we refer to an @xmath44-loop , where @xmath44 is the metric entourage having open @xmath45-balls as @xmath44-balls , as an @xmath959-loop ( @xmath960 ) , @xmath44-homotopies as @xmath959-homotopies , etc
. we will denote @xmath961 by @xmath962 , @xmath963 by @xmath964 , @xmath965 by @xmath966 , and @xmath967 by @xmath968 .
note that for a metric space @xmath0 and @xmath960 , the cover @xmath969 is a broadening of the notion of @xmath45-cover , something that goes back at least to spanier s book ( @xcite ) , and has been used in @xcite and @xcite to study universal covers of limits of riemannian manifolds .
however , the construction of @xmath45-covers uses paths and standard homotopies rather than chains .
it is not hard to construct examples of uniformly locally pathwise connected metric spaces having metric balls that are not necessarily pathwise connected , and so that the metric entourages are not covering entourages . recall that an _ inner metric space _ is a metric space such that the distance between any two points is the infimum of lengths of curves joining them .
a _ geodesic _
space further has the property that the distance is realized as the length of some curve , called a minimal geodesic
. the metric balls of any inner metric space are pathwise connected and therefore the metric entourages are covering entourages .
we have :    [ inner]every inner metric space @xmath0 is coverable .
moreover , @xmath970 , where @xmath971 is any sequence of positive values decreasing to @xmath488 .    from lemma [ 315totally ] and corollary [ uit ]
we have :    an inner metric space @xmath0 is universal if and only if for any @xmath972 , every @xmath45-loop based at some point is @xmath45-homotopic to the trivial loop .
note that the topologist s sine curve , discussed in the introduction , is coverable but not totally chain connected because at some points every small neighborhood contains pairs of points that can not be joined by an arbitrarily fine chain that stays inside the neighborhood .
we next give a unified calculation of the deck groups @xmath19 of the hawaiian earring @xmath973 , the sierpinski gasket @xmath974 , and sierpinski carpet @xmath975 .
this unified calculation is possible because each of these spaces admits a description as a countable intersection @xmath976    let us begin with the case @xmath977 define @xmath978 as the closed disc @xmath979 of diameter 1 , lying in the upper euclidean half - plane @xmath980 and tangent to the @xmath40-axis at the origin @xmath981 .
let @xmath982 be its boundary circle .
denote by @xmath983 the @xmath136-homothety of euclidean plane @xmath984 with the center @xmath985 we omit @xmath317 in the notation if @xmath986 now define @xmath987 , @xmath988 iteratively by the formulas @xmath989then @xmath973 is defined by formulas ( [ ind1 ] ) and ( [ inters ] ) .    for @xmath974 let @xmath990 be the isosceles triangle of diameter 1 in the euclidean quarter - plane @xmath991 , with one side on the @xmath40-axis and one vertex @xmath992 ; denote the other vertices by @xmath993 .
now define @xmath987 iteratively by the formulas @xmath994then @xmath974 is defined by formulas ( [ ind2 ] ) and ( [ inters ] ) .
for @xmath975 let @xmath995 be the square of diameter 1 in the euclidean quarter - plane @xmath991 with one side on each of the coordinate axes . denote by @xmath996 its vertices and @xmath997 the midpoints of its sides .
now define @xmath987 iteratively by the formulas @xmath998then @xmath975 is defined by formulas ( [ ind3 ] ) and ( [ inters ] ) .
denote by @xmath999 the number @xmath1000 in the cases @xmath1001 and @xmath974 and the number @xmath1002 in the case @xmath975 .
moreover , by our choice of @xmath1003 , @xmath1004 ( see notation [ metnote ] ) is the universal cover of @xmath987 , which means that the projection @xmath1005 is an isomorphism .
one can easily see that in all cases @xmath987 is a compact poincar space and @xmath1006 is isomorphic to @xmath1007 via the map @xmath1008 defined in definition [ induced ] , where @xmath1009 is the inclusion . according to corollary [ 0518equiv ]
, @xmath1010 is an isomorphism .
therefore for any fixed @xmath86 , the function @xmath1011 is an isomorphism .
according to proposition [ lifter ] , the image with respect to @xmath1012 of an equivalence class of a loop @xmath317 based at @xmath130 is the @xmath3-homotopy class of any sufficiently fine @xmath3-chain of the form @xmath1013 . therefore ,
if @xmath1014 we have the following commutative diagram:@xmath1015where @xmath1016 is inclusion and @xmath1017 with @xmath1018 being the inclusion - induced mapping given by definition [ induced ] .
but @xmath987 is homotopic to a wedge product of @xmath1019 circles , where @xmath1020 for @xmath973 , @xmath1021 for @xmath974 , and @xmath1022 for @xmath1023 so , in any case , @xmath1024 where @xmath1025 is the free group with @xmath9 generators .
note that @xmath1026 and for all three examples the inverse sequence @xmath1027 is a cofinal sequence in the inverse system @xmath1028 where @xmath1029 is the unique surjective homomorphism that kills one extra generator .
although all three spaces have the same deck group , the spaces @xmath1030 and @xmath1031 are mutually non - homeomorphic one - dimensional peano continua .
in fact , the last two spaces are not semi - locally simply connected at any point , while @xmath1032 has unique point ( @xmath1033 ) , at which it is not semi - locally simply connected .
the spaces @xmath1034 and @xmath1031 are not homeomorphic , because the first space have a countable subset @xmath1035 such that @xmath1036 is null - homotopic in itself , while the second one has no such subset .
we can take @xmath1037where @xmath126 is the midpoint of the segment @xmath1038,$ ] and @xmath1039for every subset @xmath1040    since @xmath1034 and @xmath1031 are non - homeomorphic one - dimensional peano continua that are not semi - locally simply connected at any point , then by a result of @xcite , @xmath1041 and @xmath1042 are not isomorphic as abstract groups .
thus it follows from this and the above result @xmath1043 that the homomorphism @xmath1044 can not be a bijection for all three examples . finally , note that the conditions of proposition dense are satisfied and hence the image of the fundamental group with respect to @xmath62 is dense in @xmath19 in each case .
a similar discussion may be applied to the sierpinski sponge @xmath1045 ( also known as the universal sierpinski curve ) which is formed by successively removing middle cores  from the unit cube , implying that @xmath1046 is also the inverse limit of finitely generated free groups .
it is well - known that every @xmath74-dimensional locally connected metrizable continuum can be topologically embedded in @xmath1047 . by a result of curtis and fort ( @xcite ) , these embeddings induce inclusions of the fundamental group , and it follows that the fundamental group of any such continuum embeds in an inverse limit of finitely generated free groups .
this fact has been previously established by various authors , most recently @xcite .
the construction , in @xcite , of the group @xmath1048 for a ( hausdorff ) topological group @xmath82 is the same as the construction that we use in the present paper .
however , the construction in the prior paper includes a compatible group structure on each group in the fundamental inverse system , which induces a group structure on @xmath1048 so that the natural homomorphism @xmath1049 is a quotient map with closed , central , prodiscrete kernel .
( there are also several results in @xcite that have no analogs for uniform spaces in general , such as results concerning extensions of local homomorphisms . ) for a topological group @xmath82 , the condition that we call universal  in this paper is equivalent to what was called locally defined  in @xcite , by proposition 61 of @xcite .
a coverable group  was defined to be the quotient of a locally defined group via a closed normal subgroup . according to corollary [ bi ] in the present paper ,
such a group is a coverable uniform space .
the converse of this statement involves theorem 90 in @xcite , which requrires a correction .
in fact , professor helge glckner of t. u. darmstadt has pointed out that the proof of lemma 42 in @xcite has a gap , and we do not know whether this lemma is true .
the only direct reference to lemma 42 is theorem 90 , and in light of this gap part ( 2 ) of theorem 90 should be restated as the following stronger condition : ( 2@xmath1050 ) @xmath82 has a basis for its topology at @xmath1051 consisting of locally generated symmetric neighborhoods , and @xmath1052 is surjective for all @xmath90 in this basis .
the proof may be modified to show ( 1 ) implies ( 2@xmath1053 ) as follows . in the first part of the proof
it is shown that @xmath50 is surjective and that @xmath1054 is coverable . the same argument
may then be applied to show that @xmath1052 is surjective , proving ( 2@xmath1053 ) . in the proof of ( 2)@xmath465(3 ) , lemma 42 is only used to prove that all of the homomorphisms @xmath1052 are surjective , and so ( 2@xmath1053 ) eliminates the need for lemma 42 .
note that ( 2@xmath1053 ) is actually a stronger condition than the definition of coverable in the present paper , which now completes the proof that a topological group is coverable in the sense of @xcite if and only if it is coverable in the present sense .
we know of no example of a uniform space @xmath0 ( let alone topological group ) that is not coverable and @xmath20 is surjective , hence it is still possible that theorem 90 ( or its generalization to uniform spaces ) is true as stated .
however , the revised version is sufficient for all applications in @xcite and @xcite except for three .
the first is corollary 91 of @xcite , which is not used elsewhere .
the second exception is that the alternate hypothesis in theorem 15 or @xmath1049 is surjective  needs to be taken out ( or replaced by a stronger assumption related to the new condition ( 2@xmath1053 ) ) .
the third exception is corollary 107 , which is nt used elsewhere .    in the interest of completeness
we will now address every reference to theorem 90 both in @xcite and @xcite to show that the new version is sufficient . since ( 2@xmath1053 ) is stronger than ( 2 ) , there is no problem with any statement that does nt involve ( 2)@xmath465(1 ) or ( 2)@xmath1055(3 ) .
theorem 90 is used this way in proofs of the following statements in @xcite : theorem 4 , theorem 5 , proposition 10 , example 99 , theorem 92 ( necessity ) , theorem 101 , and theorem 15 ( second reference ) .    now consider the remaining references : in theorem 92 ( sufficiency ) of bptg , all of the projections are surjective and therefore ( 2@xmath1053 ) holds . in @xcite ,
theorem 24 is simply a restatement of theorem 90 ( with an additional statement about metric spaces added ) and therefore ( 2 ) must be replaced by ( 2@xmath1053 ) .
theorem 24 is only used in the proof of theorem 7 , and the only problematic usage is that theorem 24 , ( 2)@xmath1055(3 ) , is used to prove theorem 7 , ( 6)@xmath465(1 ) .
however , it is well - known that an pathwise connected , locally compact group is locally pathwise connected .
therefore for any pathwise connected symmetric open set @xmath90 containing the origin , @xmath1054 is pathwise connected and hence @xmath1056 is surjective .
that is , the conditions for ( 2@xmath1053 ) are satisfied .
the relationship between covers in the present sense and covers in the sense of @xcite is considered in @xcite .
note that our paper partially answers problem 152 in @xcite , which asks whether the generalized fundamental group in that paper , which is the same as the deck group in the present paper , is a topological invariant .
from the present paper we know that the deck group is in fact an invariant of uniform structures and for compact groups a topological invariant .
there are several other theorems from @xcite that likely can be generalized to the more setting of uniform spaces , and these will be considered in a future paper .
some of the questions of that paper have analogs for uniform spaces , most notably :