My research interests include algebraic topology and general topology. More specifically, I am interested in homotopy groups of locally complicated spaces using topological algebra and generalizations of covering space theory.

Topology is one of the major areas of modern mathematics. Despite its foundational importance in the math world, if you ask a random person on the street what topology is, they may first think you said "topography" and then after realizing that you're describing an area of mathematics will admit to never hearing of it before. The reason for this is probably because topology is largely an abstract subject that is usually only studied by graduate students or undergraduate students taking senior level mathematics or physics courses.

Topology is a beautiful subject that is used by nearly all other areas of mathematics. If you are unfamiliar with topology but are curious about it, here are a few simple ways to understand what it is all about.

A *space* is a set of points and some extra information that tells you how the points are related to
each other. For instance, a *metric space* is a set X of points where a positive distance d(x,y) is assigned to each pair of
points x and y in X and the distance assignment has to follow some rules. By adding
a notion of "closeness" between points in X, you've given your set some kind of "shape."
It is no longer just a formless collection of points. Adding a *topology* to a set is doing just this - giving a formless set some kind of shape. **Topology is a theoretical field of mathematics, which is the study of space and shape
and how to tell when two spaces are equivalent or not. **

In classical geometry, you use numerical values like distance, angle, area, volume, etc. as characteristics that describe some property of a figure. Objects are considered to be rigid. Two objects are only geometrically equivalent if there is a rigid transformation (like a rotation or translation) taking one to the other. A large circle is different than a small circle simply because the radii are different. A square and a circle are different because a circle contains no right angles. In topology, you loosen the rigidity that is inherent to classical geometry. You become less specific, imagining that your objects are made out of some flexible material, and you begin to look at general characteristics of the object - a small circle and large circle are each just circles so they topologically equivalent. Similarly, a square (without interior) and a circle are topologically the same because what really matters is that you have a one-dimensional curve with a single hole in it.

To a topologist, a donut (solid torus) and a coffee cup are the equivalent because each is a 3-dimensional solid with a single hole (the donut hole and the hole in the mug handle). If you see a topologist struggling at breakfast, this may explain the issue. Kindly remind them their breakfast is in Euclidean space.

Why is a circle different from a solid disk? That is, why are they non-equivalent topological spaces? Easy, one has a hole in it and the other does not. This may seem like a trivial observation but to actually have mathematics which rigorously detects the difference between the two is not so simple. It's important to remember that intuition is not the same thing as a mathematiccal argument and that sometimes our intuition is wrong. Topology is the area of mathematics which helps us rigorously classify spaces and shapes.

**What does a topologist actually do?** Think of it this way. When biologists study organisms, they keep track of the observed
differences between the organisms. The general differences can be used to place organisms
into broad classification groups such as the taxonomic rank: species, genus, family,
order, class, phylum, kingdom. If the DNA sequence of an organism could be fully decoded,
we could use it to uniquely characterize that individual. In a similar way, topologists
want to know how to classify spaces. We want to understand what kinds of spaces and
shapes exist (even abstractly) and how to distinguish between them. By doing this,
we're unraveling the limits of the human ability to apply logic to understand our
universe. Topologists are like shape-biologists; we answer questions about topological
spaces so that we may formally distinguish between them and characterize them at various
levels of classification - from very general characteristics to decoding the "DNA
of the space" (called the homeomorphism type of the space). Occasionally, we find
beautiful results that completely and perfectly characterize a space with a single
sentence.

The idea of *continuity* is pervasive in mathematics. A function from one space X to another Y is continuous
if small differences of input lead to small differences of output, that is, if you
don't tear apart your domain X in any way as you map it into Y. Anywhere that continuity
is used, even in applied mathematics, topology is involved in some form or another.
It may be hiding in the background (e.g. in the form of convergence), but some bit
of topology is probably being taken advantage of. For example, the proof of the Extreme
Value Theorem (every continuous function on a closed interval has a maximum and minimum)
in Calculus is often glossed over in undergraduate classes. The reason the EVT and
its higher dimensional analogues are true in the first place hinges on the topological
concepts of *compactness* and *linearly ordered spaces*.

The objects studied in topology are called *topological spaces*. Each space can be thought of as its own world, with it's own set of points and data
about how close the points are to each other. Some of these worlds may seem quite
strange to us. The way in which we study how topological spaces are related is by
using the notion of a *continuous function*. Often, we can think of a continuous function from one space X to another Y as a
way of mapping the first into the second in a way that does not violate the closeness
rules of the spaces - nearby points in X must be sent to nearby points in Y.

With this in mind, two topological spaces are equivalent if one of the spaces can
be continuously deformed (by a bijection) into the other and if the deformation can
be inverted continuously as well. If you had a donut made out of playdough you could
mold it (without tearing or puncturing the dough) into a coffee cup - *I've done it... although the coffee cup looked a little rough*. You could also start with the playdough coffee cup and turn it back into the donut.
So the two are equivalent.

Now imagine smashing your playdough donut into a solid ball. That operation is continuous because you didn't have to tear it at all - just smash it into a ball. On the other hand, try to start with a ball and turn it into a donut. To do this, you must puncture it at some point to get the hole in the middle. When you do this, some points that were very close to each other in the ball are now far apart on opposite sides of the hole. This violates continuity. So it is not possible to continuously turn a ball into a donut - hence the two shapes are different as topological spaces.

The word "topology" is used to describe the entire field of study, however, a "topology" is a thing, a mathematical object that we can study.

Start with a set of points X. This could be a finite set or an infinite set.

We want to think of X as a space - as it's own universe whose points (or elements) are the elements of the set X. But a set is an unstructured thing. It's just an unordered/unarranged collection of points. We need to add more structure to the set to know how close points are to each other within this universe. Different "closeness structures" may describe different universes!

A *topology* on X is this data of "closeness". It contains the information that tells us how points
are related in X. In particular, a topology T on X is a set of subsets of X - these
subsets, elements of the topology T, are called *open sets*. These open subsets in T need to follow some rules: the intersection of two open
sets must be open and an arbitrary union of open sets must be open. For logical purposes,
we also insist that the empty set and X itself are open. ,

A *topological space* is an ordered pair (X,T) consisting of X with some topology T on X. We can now think
of a topological space as a universe where two points x and y may or may not be close
to each other depending on how the topology T tells us they relate to each other.

This set-theoretic definition may seem weird and abstract at first, but after studying topology for a while you will find that it is, in fact, very well-motivated.

There may be many different topologies on a given space X. You could have two topologies on the same set X and the two resulting spaces may be completely different. The question in topology is then: how can we tell when spaces are the same or different?

Coming soon

- T. Banakh, J. Brazas,
*Realizing spaces as path component spaces*, Submitted. 2018. ArXiv - J. Brazas, H. Fischer,
*Test map characterizations of local properties of fundamental groups.*To Appear in Journal of Topology and Analysis. 2018. arXiv - J. Brazas,
*On the discontinuity of the pi_1-action*, Topology Appl. 247 (2018) 29-40. ArXiv - J. Brazas,
*Generalized covering space theories*, Theory and Appl. of Categories 30 (2015) 1132-1162. Open Access - J. Brazas, P. Fabel,
*On fundamental groups with the quotient topology*, J. Homotopy and Related Structures 10 (2015) 71-91. arXiv - J. Brazas, P. Fabel,
*Strongly pseudoradial spaces*, Topology Proc. 46 (2015) 255-276. arXiv - J. Brazas, P. Fabel,
*Thick Spanier groups and the first shape group*, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 44 (2014) 1415-1444. arXiv - J. Brazas,
*Open subgroups of free topological groups*, Fundamenta Mathematicae 226 (2014) 17-40. arXiv - J. Brazas,
*Semicoverings, coverings, overlays and open subgroups of the quasitopological fundamental group*, Topology Proc. 44 (2014) 285-313. - J. Brazas,
*The fundamental group as a topological group*, Topology Appl. 160 (2013) 170-188. arXiv - J. Brazas,
*Semicoverings: a generalization of covering space theory*, Homology Homotopy Appl. 14 (2012) 33-63. Open Access - J. Brazas,
*The topological fundamental group and free topological groups*, Topology Appl. 158 (2011) 779-802. arXiv

- J. Brazas, The topology of path component spaces. Unpublished Notes. 2012.
- J. Brazas, Regular semicoverings and Spanier Groups. Unpublished Notes. 2011. (See Semicoverings, coverings, overlays and open subgroups of the quasitopological fundamental group for an expanded version of these notes)

- Using the Hawaiian earring to detect local properties of fundamental groups. Arches Topology Conference. Invited talk. May, 11, 2018. Slides
- A characterization of the unique path lifting property for the whisker topology, Joint Meeting of the German and Polish Mathematical Societies (DMV-PTM), Invited talk in Wild Algebraic & Geometric Topology session, Poznan, Poland, September 18, 2014. Slides
- Topological fundamental groups and open subgroup theorems, Lloyd Roeling Lafayette Mathematics Conference, Invited talk, UL Lafayette, November 9, 2013.
- Quasitopological fundamental groups and the first shape map, 28th Summer Conference on Topology and Its Applications, Invited talk in Continuum Theory Session, Nippissing University, July 26, 2013. Slides
- Open subgroups of free topological groups, 47th Spring Topology and Dynamics Conference, Central Connecticut State University, March 24, 2013. Slides

- Sean Keeler, Georgia State University, 2016-2017.
- Title: Finite Topological Spaces from a Categorical Perspective.

- Luis Matos, Georgia State University, 2014-2015.
- Title: The coarse Hawaiian earring: a countable space with uncountable fundamental group.
- Publication: J. Brazas, L. Matos,
*A countable space with an uncountable fundamental group*, 2017. Submitted.