arXiv reader

Characterizing Lipschitz images of injective metric spaces

Judyta Bąk, Taras Banakh, Joanna Garbulińska-Węgrzyn, Magdalena Nowak and Michał Popławski

arXiv
2405.01860v2 · PDF · 27 May 2024
Categories
math.GN
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

A metric space X is injective if every non-expanding map f:B\to X defined on a subspace B of a metric space A can be extended to a non-expanding map \bar f:A\to X. We prove that a metric space X is a Lipschitz image of an injective metric space if and only if X is Lipschitz connected in the sense that for every points x,y\in X, there exists a Lipschitz map f:[0,1]\to X such that f(0)=x and f(1)=y. In this case the metric space X carries a well-defined intrinsic metric. A metric space X is a Lipschitz image of a compact injective metric space if and only if X is compact, Lipschitz connected and its intrinsic metric is totally bounded. A metric space X is a Lipschitz image of a separable injective metric space if and only if X is a Lipschitz image of the Urysohn universal metric space if and only if X is analytic, Lipschitz connected and its intrinsic metric is separable.

Items 32

Theorem

Theorem 1.1

7UR8

For a metric space X, the following conditions are equivalent:

  1. (1) X is an injective metric space;

  2. (2) X is 1-Lipschitz Absolute Retract, which means that for every metric space Y containing X, there exists a 1-Lipschitz map f:Y\to X such that f(x)=x for all x\in X;

  3. (3) X is hyperconvex in the sense that for any indexed family of closed balls \big(B[x_i,r_i]\big)_{i\in I} in X with d_X(x_i,x_j)\le r_i+r_j for all i,j\in I, the intersection \bigcap_{i\in I}B[x_i,r_i] is not empty.

  4. (4) X is metrically convex (for every a,b\in X and t\in[0,1] there exists x\in X such that d_X(a,x)=t\cdot d_X(a,b) and d_X(x,b)=(1-t)\cdot d_X(a,b)) and has a binary intersection property (every collection of mutually intersecting closed balls in X has a common point).

  5. (5) for every metric space Y containing X and for every metric space Z, every Lipschitz map X\to Z has an extension Y\to Z with the same Lipschitz constant.

Proof of Theorem 1.1

The implications (5)\Leftrightarrow(1)\Leftrightarrow(2) are proved in [BL, Proposition 1.2]; (3)\Rightarrow(2) in [AP, Theorem 8], and (2)\Leftrightarrow(4) in [BL, Proposition 1.4]. To see that (4)\Rightarrow(3), take any indexed family \big(B[x_i,r_i]\big)_{i\in I} of closed balls in X such that d_X(x_i,x_j)\leq r_i+r_j for every i,j\in I. The metric convexity of X ensures that for any distinct indices i,j\in I, the closed balls B[x_i,r_i] and B[x_j,r_j] have a common point. The binary intersection property guarantees that \bigcap_{i\in I}B[x_i,r_i]\neq\emptyset.

Theorem

Theorem 1.2

IAQQ

For a metric space X, the following conditions are equivalent:

  1. 1) X is a Lipschitz image of an injective metric space;

  2. 2) X is a Lipschitz image of a complete \mathbb R-tree;

  3. 3) X is Lipschitz connected.

Theorem

Theorem 1.3

5AO5

For a metric space X, the following conditions are equivalent:

  1. 1) X is a Lipschitz image of a totally bounded injective metric space;

  2. 2) X is a Lipschitz image of a compact \mathbb R-tree;

  3. 3) X is compact, Lipschitz connected, and its intrinsic metric is totally bounded.

Theorem

Theorem 1.4

H2QH

For a metric space X, the following conditions are equivalent:

  1. 1) X is a Lipschitz image of a separable injective metric space;

  2. 2) X is a Lipschitz image of a separable complete \mathbb R-tree;

  3. 3) X is a 1-Lipschitz image of the Urysohn universal space;

  4. 4) X is analytic, Lipschitz connected, and its intrinsic metric is separable.

Used by Remark 7.1
Definition

Definition 2.1

J1PI

A metric space X is called \mathbb R-convex if for every points x,z\in X, the metric segment

[x,z]\coloneqq\{y\in X:d_X(x,y)+d_X(y,z)=d_X(x,z)\}

is isometric to the segment [0,d_X(x,z)] of the real line.

Proposition

Proposition 2.2

6UZG

For a metric space X, the following conditions are equivalent:

  1. 1) X is \mathbb R-convex;

  2. 2) for every points x,y\in X, there exists a unique set I\subseteq X such that x,y\in I and I is isometric to the segment [0,d_X(x,y)] on the real line;

  3. 3) for every points x,y\in X there exists a unique 1-Lipschitz map f:[0,d_X(x,y)]\to X such that f(0)=x and f(d_X(x,y))=y.

Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 2.2

The implications (1)\Rightarrow(2)\Rightarrow(3) are obvious. To prove that (3)\Rightarrow(1), assume that a metric space X satisfies the condition (3). Given any points x,y\in X, we need to show that the metric segment [x,y] is isometric to the interval [0,d_X(x,y)] in the real line. By the condition (3), there exists a unique 1-Lipschitz map f:[0,d_X(x,y)]\to X such that f(0)=x and f(d_X(x,y))=y. The triangle inequality implies that the image I\coloneqq f\big[[0,d_X(x,y)]\big] is a subset of the metric segment [x,y]. Assuming that [x,y]\ne I, we can find a point z\in [x,y]\setminus I. Then d_X(x,y)=d_X(x,z)+d_X(z,y). By condition (3), there exist 1-Lipschitz maps \alpha:[0,d_X(x,z)]\to X and \beta:[0,d_X(z,y)]\to X such that \alpha(0)=x, \alpha(d_X(x,z))=z=\beta(0) and \beta(d_X(z,y))=y. The 1-Lipschitz maps \alpha,\beta compose a 1-Lipschitz map \gamma:[0,d_X(x,y)]\to X defined by

\gamma(t)=\begin{cases} \alpha(t)&\mbox{if $t\in[0,d_X(x,z)]$};\\ \beta(t-d_X(x,z))&\mbox{if $t\in[d_X(x,z),d_X(x,y)]$}. \end{cases}

Since \gamma(0)=x=f(0), \gamma(d_X(x,y))=y=f(d_X(x,y)), and \gamma\ne f, we obtain a contradiction with the uniqueness of the 1-Lipschitz path f. This contradiction shows that [x,y]=I. The triangle inequality implies that the 1-Lipschitz map f:[0,d_X(x,y)]\to [x,y] is an isometry, witnessing that the metric space X is \mathbb R-convex. Indeed, for every u,z such that 0 \leq u\leq z \leq d_X(x,y) we have |u-z| \geq d_X(f(u),f(z)) \geq d_X(x,y)-d_X(x,f(u))-d_X(f(z),y) \geq d_X(x,y)-|0-u|-|z-d_X(x,y)|=|u-z|.

Proposition

Proposition 2.3

UR5Y

If a metric space X is \mathbb R-convex, then for every points x,y,z\in X, the intersection [x,y]\cap [x,z] is equal to the metric segment [x,u] for a unique point u\in[x,y]\cap[x,z].

Proof of Proposition 2.3

Since the metric space X is \mathbb R-convex, there exist isometries \alpha:[0,d_X(x,y)]\to[x,y] and \beta:[0,d_X(x,z)]\to [x,z] such that \alpha(0)=x=\beta(0), \alpha(d_X(x,y))=y, and \beta(d_X(x,z))=z. By the compactness of [x,z], the closed set \alpha^{-1}[x,z] in [0,d_X(x,y)] has the largest element s. Since \alpha is an isometry, s=d_X(\alpha(0),\alpha(s))=d_X(x,\alpha(s)). Let u=\alpha(s) and t=\beta^{-1}(u). Since \beta is an isometry, t=d_X(\beta(0),\beta(t))=d_X(x,u)=s. Observe that \alpha'\coloneqq \alpha{\restriction}_{[0,s]}:[0,s]\to X and \beta'\coloneqq \beta{\restriction}_{[0,t]}:[0,t]\to X are two 1-Lipschitz maps from the interval [0,s]=[0,t] to X such that such that \alpha'(0)=x=\beta'(0) and \alpha'(s)=u=\beta'(t). Proposition 2.2 ensures that \alpha'=\beta' and hence [x,y]\cap[x,z]=\alpha[[0,s]]=[x,u]. The uniqueness of the point u implies from the uniqueness of the end-points of the segment [x,u]=[x,y]\cap[x,z].

Definition

Definition 3.1

EYED

Let L be a real number. A metric space X is called L-Lipschitz connected if for every points x,y\in X, there exists an L-Lipschitz path f:[0,d_X(x,y)]\to X such that f(0)=x and f(d_X(x,y))=y.

Example

Example 3.2

LZES

Every injective metric space X is 1-Lipschitz connected.

Proof of Example 3.2

Given any point x,y\in X, consider the doubleton \{0,d_X(x,y)\} in the real line and the 1-Lipschitz map f:\{0,d_X(x,y)\}\to X defined by f(0)=x and f(d_X(x,y))=y. By the injectivity of X, this 1-Lipschitz map admits a 1-Lipschitz extension \bar f:[0,d_X(x,y)]\to X, which is a 1-Lipschitz path witnessing that X is 1-Lipschitz connected.

Lemma

Lemma 3.3

E91B

Let X be a Lipschitz connected metric space, \overline X be the completion of X, \overline X_I be the completion of the metric space X_I\coloneqq(X,d_{IX}), and \overline \operatorname{id}:\overline X_I\to \overline X be the unique continuous extension of the identity map \operatorname{id}:X_I\to X. Then \overline \operatorname{id}^{-1}[X]=X_I. In other words, every Cauchy sequence (x_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}} in (X,d_{IX}), which is convergent to a point x in (X,d_X) is convergent to x in (X,d_{IX}), too.

Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 3.3

Given any point x\in \overline X_I with \overline \operatorname{id}(x)\in X, we need to prove that x\in X_I. Since x\in\overline X_I, there exists a sequence (x_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} in X_I such that d_{IX}(x,x_n)<\frac1{2^{n+2}} for all n\in\mathbb{N}. For every n\in\mathbb{N} we have

d_{IX}(x_n,x_{n+1})\le d_{IX}(x_n,x)+d_{IX}(x,x_{n+1})<\tfrac1{2^{n+2}}+\tfrac1{2^{n+3}}<\tfrac1{2^{n+1}}.

So, we can find a 1-Lipschitz path \gamma_n:[\tfrac1{2^{n+1}},\tfrac1{2^n}]\to X such that \gamma_n(\tfrac1{2^{n+1}})=x_{n+1} and \gamma_n(\tfrac1{2^n})=x_n. The paths \gamma_n, n\in\mathbb{N}, compose a 1-Lipschitz path \gamma:[0,1]\to X defined by \gamma(0)=\overline \operatorname{id}(x) and \gamma{\restriction}_{[\tfrac1{2^{n+1}},\tfrac1{2^n}]}=\gamma_n for all n\in\mathbb{N}. The definition of \gamma guarantees that

\lim_{n\to\infty}d_{IX}(x,x_n)=0=\lim_{n\to\infty}d_{IX}(x_n,\operatorname{id}^{-1}(\overline \operatorname{id}(x)))

and hence x=\operatorname{id}^{-1}(\overline \operatorname{id}(x))\in \operatorname{id}^{-1}[X]=X_I.

Lemma

Lemma 3.4

IYJG

Let (X,d_X) be a Lipschitz connected metric space.

  1. (1) If the metric d_X is complete, then so is the intrinsic metric d_{IX}.

  2. (2) The metric d_{IX} is analytic if and only if d_{IX} is separable and the metric d_X is analytic.

  3. (3) If the metric d_{IX} is separable (resp. totally bounded, compact), then so is the metric d_X.

Proof of Lemma 3.4

(1) Suppose that the metric d_X is complete and take a Cauchy sequence (x_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}} in the metric space (X,d_{IX}). Since d_X\le d_{IX}, the sequence (x_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}} remains Cauchy in the metric space (X,d_{X}). Since (X,d_X) is complete, this sequence converges to some point x \in X in the metric space (X,d_X). Lemma 3.3 guarantees that \lim_{n \to \infty} x_n=x in (X,d_{IX}) too, witnessing that the intrinsic metric d_{IX} is complete.

(2) If the metric d_{IX} is analytic, then d_{IX} is separable and d_X is analytic, because of the continuity of the identity map (X,d_{IX})\to (X,d_X).

Next, assume that the metric d_{IX} is separable and d_X is analytic. Let \overline X be the completion of the metric space (X,d_X) and \overline X_I be the completion of the metric space X_I\coloneqq(X,d_{IX}). Let \bar I:\overline X_I\to\overline X be the continuous extension of the (1-Lipschitz) identity map I:X_I\to X. By Lemma 3.3, X_I=\bar I^{-1}[X]. Since the spaces \overline X_I and \overline X are Polish, the preimage X_I=\bar I^{-1}[X] is an analytic subspace of \overline X_I, by [Ke, 14.4].

The statement (3) follows from the 1-Lipschitz property of the identity map (X,d_{IX})\to(X,d_{IX}).

Example

Example 3.5

ZSFZ

Let L be any line in the complex plane \mathbb{C} and o\in\mathbb C\setminus L be any point. For every uncountable compact zero-dimensional set K\subseteq L, the cone

X:=\bigcup_{x\in K}[o,x]

over K with vertex o is a Lipschitz connected compact (by [E, 3.2.11]) metric space with respect to the metric d_X inherited from the complex plane. Thus (X,d_X) is also separable and totally bounded. Since d_{IX}(x,y)\ge 2\cdot \operatorname{dist}(o,L) for any distinct points x,y\in K, the metric space (X,d_{IX}) is not separable (and hence not totally bounded and not compact).

If the compact space K has no isolated points, then for every countable dense set D\subseteq K, the Lipschitz connected metric subspace Y=\bigcup_{x\in D}[o,x] of X is not complete (by the Baire Theorem) whereas the intrinsic metric d_{IY} is \sigma-compact and complete.

Used by Remark 7.1
Example

Example 3.6

YLXT

The metric subspace X=\{(x,\sin(\frac{1}{x})) \colon x>0\} of the Euclidean plane is Lipschitz connected and not complete whereas the intrinsic metric on X is complete.

Definition

Definition 4.1

NOVS

A forest is a partially ordered set (T,\preceq) such that for every t\in T the set

{\downarrow}t\coloneqq \{x\in T:x\preceq t\}

is finite and linearly ordered.

Definition

Definition 4.3

6OOE

A weighted tree (T,w) is defined to be precompact if for every \varepsilon>0 there exists a finite set F\subseteq T such that for every finite linearly ordered set L\subseteq T\setminus F we have \sum_{x\in L}w_x<\varepsilon.

Proposition

Proposition 4.4

SGT8

A weighted tree (T,w) is precompact if and only if the metric space T_w is totally bounded.

Proof of Proposition 4.4

To prove the “if” part, assume that the metric space T_w is totally bounded. Then for every \varepsilon>0, there exists a finite set F''\subseteq T_w such that for every x''\in T_w, there exists y''\in F'' with d_w(x'',y'')<\varepsilon. Since F'' is finite, there exists a finite set F\subseteq T such that F''\subseteq\bigcup\{{\downarrow}(t,w_t):t\in F\}\subseteq T_w. Replacing F by the finite set {\downarrow}F\coloneqq\bigcup_{t\in F}{\downarrow}t, we can assume that F={\downarrow}F. We claim that \sum_{x\in L}w_x<\varepsilon for every finite linearly ordered set L\subseteq T\setminus F. Since L is finite and linearly ordered, there exists an element u\in L such that L\subseteq{\downarrow}u. By the choice of the set F'', there exists a point y''\in F'' such that d_w((u,w_u),y'')<\varepsilon. Write the element y'' as (y,y') for some y\in T and y'\in [0,w_y]. The choice of the set F ensures that y\in F and hence L\subseteq {\downarrow}u\setminus F\subseteq {\downarrow}u\setminus{\downarrow}y. Then

\sum_{x\in L}w_x\le \sum_{x\in {\downarrow}u\setminus{\downarrow}y}w_x\le d_w((u,w_u),y'')< \varepsilon,

witnessing that the weighted tree (T,w) is precompact.

The paper has a picture here, which this page does not show.

To prove the “only if” part, assume that the weighted tree (T,w) is precompact. To prove that the metric space T_w is totally bounded, fix any \varepsilon>0. By the precompactness of the weighted tree (T,w), there exists a nonempty finite set F\subseteq T such that \sum_{x\in L}w_x<\varepsilon for every finite linearly ordered set L\subseteq T\setminus F. Replacing F with the finite set {\downarrow}F\coloneqq\bigcup_{t\in F}{\downarrow}t, we can assume that F={\downarrow}F. Since the set F is finite, the set

K\coloneqq{\textstyle\bigcup}\{{\downarrow}(t,w_t):t\in F\}=(\{r_T\}\times\{0\})\cup\bigcup_{t\in F}(\{t\}\times(0,w_t])

is compact and hence totally bounded in the metric space T_w. Then there exists a finite set F''\subseteq K such that for every x''\in K there exists y''\in F'' with d_w(x'',y'')<\varepsilon. Replacing F'' by the set F''\cup \{(t,w_t):t\in F\}, we can assume that \{(t,w_t):t\in F\}\subseteq F''. We claim that for every x''\in T_w, there exists y''\in F'' such that d_w(x'',y'')<\varepsilon.

Indeed, if x''\in K, then the existence of a point y''\in F'' with d_w(x'',y'')<\varepsilon follows from the choice of the set F''. So, we assume that x''\notin K. In this case, x''=(x,x') for some x\in T\setminus F and x'\in (0,w_x]. Since r_T\in {\downarrow}F=F, there exists a point y\in F\cap{\downarrow}x such that F\cap{\downarrow}x={\downarrow}y. The choice of the set F'' ensures that it contains the point y''\coloneqq (y,w_y). The choice of F guarantees that \sum_{t\in{\downarrow}x\setminus {\downarrow}y}w_t=\sum_{t\in{\downarrow}x\setminus F}w_t<\varepsilon and hence d_w(x'',y'')=x'-w_x+\sum_{t\in {\downarrow}x\setminus {\downarrow}y}w_t\le \sum_{t\in {\downarrow}x\setminus {\downarrow}y}w_t<\varepsilon, by the definition of the metric d_w. This shows that the metric space T_w is totally bounded.

Proposition

Proposition 4.5

2W7R

For a weighted tree (T,w), the \mathbb R-tree T_w is separable if and only if the tree T is countable.

Proof of Proposition 4.5

If the tree T is countable, then T_w\cap(T\times\mathbb Q) is a countable dense set in the \mathbb R-tree, witnessing that the metric space T_w is separable.

Next, assume that the tree T is uncountable. The definition of metric d_w ensures that for every node t\in T, the set \{t\} \times (0,w_t) is open in the metric space T_w. Therefore, the metric space T_w contains the uncountable family of pairwise disjoint open sets \big\{\{t\}\times(0,w_t):t\in T\big\} and hence T_w cannot be separable, according to [E, Corollary 4.1.16].

Proposition

Proposition 4.6

QEOA

For every weighted tree (T,w), the metric space \overline T_w is a completion of the metric space T_w.

Proof of Proposition 4.6

The definition of the metric on \overline T_w implies that the metric space T_w is a dense subspace of the metric space \overline T_w. To prove that \overline T_w is a completion of T_w, it suffices to show that every Cauchy sequence (s''_n)_{n\in\omega} in the metric space T_w has a limit in the space \overline T_w. If for some element t of T_w, the set \{n\in\omega:s''_n=t\} is infinite, then t is the limit of the Cauchy sequence (s''_n)_{n\in\omega} and we are done. So, we can assume that all elements of the Cauchy sequence (s''_n)_{n\in\omega} are pairwise distinct and moreover all of them are distinct from the root (r_T,0) of the \mathbb R-tree T_w. For every n\in\omega, write the element s''_n of T_w as a pair (s_n,s_n') where s_n\in T and s_n'\in(0,w_{s_n}]. Let \check s_n\coloneqq \max({\downarrow}s_n\setminus\{s_n\}) be the immediate predecessor of s_n in the tree T.

In the tree T, consider the set

\Lambda\coloneqq\{t\in T:|\{n\in\omega:t\preceq\check s_n\}|=\omega\}

and observe that it contains the root r_T of the tree T and hence is not empty. Two cases are possible.

1. First assume that the set \Lambda has no maximal elements. In this case \Lambda contains an increasing sequence (\lambda_n)_{n\in\omega}. For this sequence the set b\coloneqq \bigcup_{n\in\omega}{\downarrow}\lambda_n is an infinite branch of the tree T such that for every t\in b the set \{n\in\omega:t\preceq \check s_n\} is infinite. Write the branch b as b=\{b_n\}_{n\in\omega}, where b_n is a unique element of b such that |{\downarrow}b_n|=n+1. We claim that b\in\partial T_w. Since the sequence (s''_n)_{n\in\omega} is Cauchy, for every \varepsilon>0, there exists m\in\mathbb N such that d_w(s''_n,s''_m)<\varepsilon for every n\ge m.

Since the sequence (b_n)_{n\in\omega} is unbounded in the tree T, there exists a number i\in\omega such that b_i\not\preceq \check s_m. Given any number j\ge i, find a number n\ge m such that b_j\preceq \check s_n. Observe that b_i,b_j,\check s_n and \check s_n\wedge\check s_m are elements of the linearly ordered set {\downarrow}\check s_n. Assuming that \check s_m\wedge\check s_n\not\preceq b_i, we conclude that b_i\preceq\check s_m\wedge\check s_n\preceq \check s_m, which contradicts the choice of the number i. This contradiction shows that \check s_m\wedge\check s_n\preceq b_i.

In this case, the definition of the metric d_w ensures that

\sum_{k=i+1}^jw_{b_k}\le-w_{s_n}-w_{s_m}+\sum_{x\in{\downarrow}s_n\triangle{\downarrow}s_m}w_x\le d_w(s''_m,s''_n)<\varepsilon

and hence \sum_{k=i+1}^\infty w_{b_k}\le\varepsilon<\infty, witnessing that b\in\partial T_w.

The paper has a picture here, which this page does not show.

Since the sequence (s''_n)_{n\in\omega} is Cauchy and \varepsilon>0 was arbitrary, the equality b=\lim_{n\to\infty}s''_n will follow as soon as we check that \overline d_w(b,s''_n)<2\varepsilon for infinitely many numbers n. Indeed, for every number n\ge m in the infinite set \{n\in\omega:b_i\preceq \check s_n\} we have \check s_n\wedge \check s_m\preceq b_i and

\begin{aligned} \overline d_w(s''_n,b)&=s_n'-w_{s_n}+\sum_{x\in {\downarrow}s_n\triangle b}w_x=s_n'-w_{s_n}+\sum_{x\in{\downarrow}s_n\setminus b}w_x+\sum_{x\in b\setminus{\downarrow}s_n}w_x\\ & \le s'_n-w_{s_n}+\sum_{x\in{\downarrow}s_n\setminus{\downarrow}b_i}w_x+{\sum_{k=i+1}^\infty w_{b_k}}\\ &\le s'_n-w_{s_n}+\sum_{x\in{\downarrow}s_n\setminus{\downarrow}s_m}w_x+\sum_{k=i+1}^\infty w_{b_k}\le d_w(s''_n,s''_m)+\varepsilon<2\varepsilon. \end{aligned}

2. Next, assume that the set \Lambda has a maximal element \lambda. Consider the infinite set I\coloneqq\{n\in\omega:\lambda\preceq \check s_n\}. If for some s\in T, the set J\coloneqq\{n\in I:s=s_n\} is infinite, then the maximality of \lambda ensures that \lambda is the immediate predecessor of s in the tree T. Then the subsequence (s_n'')_{n\in J} of the sequence (s''_n)_{n\in\omega} is contained in the compact set \{(\lambda,w_\lambda)\}\cup(\{s\}\times(0,w_s]) and hence the Cauchy sequence (s_n'')_{n\in\omega} converges to some points of this compact set. So, assume that for every s\in T, the set \{n\in I:s_n=s\} is finite. In this case we shall show that the Cauchy sequence (s_n'')_{n\in\omega} converges to the element \lambda''\coloneqq (\lambda,w_\lambda) of the \mathbb R-tree T_w. Since the sequence (s_n'')_{n\in\omega} is Cauchy and consists of pairwise distinct elements, it suffices to show that for every \varepsilon>0 there exists n\in\omega such that d_w(\lambda'',s_n'')<\varepsilon. Since the sequence (s''_n)_{n\in\omega} is Cauchy, there exists m\in\omega such that d_w(s_n'',s_k'')<\varepsilon for all n,k\ge m. We can assume that \lambda\preceq \check s_m\prec s_m. Thus the element \lambda has an immediate successor \hat\lambda in the tree T such that \lambda\prec\hat\lambda\preceq s_m. The maximality of \lambda ensures that \hat\lambda\notin\Lambda and hence the set \{n\in\omega:\hat \lambda\preceq \check s_n\} is finite. Then we can choose a number n\in I such that n\ge m and \hat\lambda\not\preceq\check s_n. Then s_n\wedge s_m=\check s_n=\lambda and

d_w(\lambda'',s''_n)\le s'_n-w_{s_n}+s'_m-w_{s_m}+\sum_{x\in{\downarrow}s_n\triangle{\downarrow}s_m}w_x=d_w(s_n'',s_m'')<\varepsilon.
The paper has a picture here, which this page does not show.
Corollary

Corollary 4.7

LZ6D

For every weighted tree (T,w),

  1. (1) the complete metric space \overline{T}_w is an \mathbb R-tree and hence is an injective metric space;

  2. (2) the space \overline T_w is compact if and only if the weighted tree (T,w) is precompact;

  3. (3) the space \overline T_w is separable if and only if the tree T is countable.

Remark

Remark 6.1

MT87

Although compactness of (X,d_X) follows from any of the conditions (1)–(5), the compactness of (X,d_X) is not sufficient to infer these conditions, which is showed in Example 3.5.

Remark

Remark 7.1

FRPN

Although analyticity and separability of (X,d_X) follows from each of the conditions (1)–(6), the analyticity of (X,d_X) is not sufficient to infer the equivalent conditions of Theorem 1.4, which is showed in Example 3.5.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2405.01860v2 by Judyta Bąk, Taras Banakh, Joanna Garbulińska-Węgrzyn, Magdalena Nowak and Michał Popławski, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2405/2405.01860.jsonl.