On the signature of squared distance matrices of metric measure spaces

By the Cauchy interlacing theorem, the sequences \bigl(s_\pm (S(X_N))\bigr)_N are non-decreasing and hence admit a finite or infinite limit. Moreover, by the definition of s_\pm(X,d), we have s_\pm (X,d)\geq s_\pm (S(X_N)) for every N, and hence

To show the other side of the inequality, note for any finite subset X'\subset X, there is an M\in \mathbb{N} such that X'\subset X_M. Thus, by the Cauchy interlacing theorem, s_\pm (S(X'))\leq s_\pm (S(X_M)). Since X' is arbitrary, we also have the reverse inequality

concluding the proof.

By embedding X isometrically into Y we may assume without loss of generality that X is a subset of Y. The assertion is then straightforward from the definition of s_\pm.

Consider an arbitrary finite set X_N\subset X. Since \tilde X is dense in X, we can find a finite \tilde X_N\subset \tilde X close enough to X_N so that s_\pm (S(X_N))\leq s_\pm (S(\tilde X_N)). This implies s_\pm(X,d)\leq s_\pm(\tilde X,d) and the reverse inequality follows immediately from the definition of s_\pm (X,d) (alternatively, from Proposition 4.5) concluding the proof.

Since by Lemma 4.8, one has

for \mathbb{P}-a.e. \omega\in\Omega, i.e., \bigcup_m \hat X_N is a countable dense set in X almost surely. Therefore, we have

\mathbb{P}-a.s. in view of Proposition 4.6. By Lemma 4.9 below, we also get

for all \omega\in\Omega, concluding the proof.

To prove the first claim, consider an arbitrary open set U\subset X satisfying

hence \xi_i(\omega)\in X\setminus U for all i\in\mathbb{N}. The probability of this event does not exceed \mu(X\setminus U)^n for all n\in\mathbb{N} and hence is zero unless \mu(U)=0, i.e. U\cap \operatorname{supp}\mu=\emptyset, showing that

On the other hand, \mathbb{P}(\{\xi_i\in \operatorname{supp}\mu\})= \mu(\operatorname{supp}\mu)=1, and hence

a.s., showing the claim.

To prove the second claim, denote for every k\in \mathbb{N} the set

Observe that for all \omega\in \Omega_k, one has

Hence, \overline{\bigcup_m \hat X_{N(m,\omega)}(\omega)}\neq \operatorname{supp}\mu when \operatorname{supp}\mu is infinite. The first claim just proven implies \mathbb{P}(\Omega_k)=0 in this case. Thus,

as claimed.

For each k and j, interchanging the k-th with j-th row and the k-th with j-th column simultaneously does not change the signature of a matrix, so the proof reduces just to an inductive application of Lemma 4.10 below.

Clearly, we have (e.g., by the Cauchy interlace theorem) that s_\pm(S)\geq s_\pm(\hat S). On the other hand, since the p-th and (p+1)-th row as well as the p-th and (p+1)-th column of S are identical, we have that s_0(S)= s_0(\hat S)+1, where s_0(S) stands for the number of zero eigenvalues of S (i.e. the dimension of the kernel of the latter). Since also

we get

which implies s_-(S)+ s_+(S)=s_-(\hat S)+ s_+(\hat S), hence the claim.

The estimates (4.14) are just Lemma A.4(i) and (ii) applied with A:= K, Q:= P, and B:= T, H_1 = H_2 := L^2(X,\mu), k=1. Lemma A.4(iii) with the same notations implies also the last claim since (\operatorname{Im} P)^\perp = \mathbf{1}^\perp and \mathbf{1} \notin \ker K (otherwise \mu is a Dirac delta measure, T = K = 0, and \ker K = \{0\}, a contradiction), and hence \mathbf{1} \not\perp \ker K implies (\operatorname{Im} P)^\perp \cap (\ker K)^\perp=\{0\}.

It suffices to replicate word-to-word the proof of Proposition 4.11 replacing the use of the estimate (A.3) by (A.3) and (A.3) by (A.3).

If (i) holds, we identify X with the image of the respective isometric embedding and \mu with its push-forward through this embedding. We may assume thus without loss of generality that X\subset H, for some Hilbert space H, and \mu be a measure in H. Then every finite set X_N\subset X is isometrically embedded in a finite-dimensional Euclidean space (the subspace \operatorname{span} X_N\subset H). By Theorem 5.6(We may hare referred here to the celebrated Schoenberg’s theorem. We use a more general Theorem 5.6 instead to be self-consistent), for the operator T_N:= T_{\mu_N} with \mu_N an arbitrary Borel probability measure supported on X_N, we have s_-(T_N)=0. Thus, by Lemma A.3(ii) with A:= K_\mu and H instead of X, we have

thus proving (i)\Rightarrow(iii).

The implication (iii)\Rightarrow(ii) is trivial. We prove (ii)\Rightarrow(i). To this aim, let \mu be as in (ii) and let T:= T_\mu. Observe that by Lemma A.2 (with A:= T, a:= k_T), one has

with the equality formally valid only in the sense of L^2(X\times X,\mu\otimes\mu). But since T is positive definite, by Mercer’s theorem, the convergence in (?) is uniform so that this equation holds for all (x,y)\in X\times X. We act now exactly as in the proof of the first part of Theorem 5.6. Namely, from (?), we get

for all x\in X. Now, (?) and (?) imply

which in view of (?)

gives

for all (x,y)\in X\times X. The latter implies for the map f defined by (?) the relationship holds

i.e., f is an isometry onto the image, proving (i).

The final claim of the statement follows from the estimate s_-(X,d)\geq 1 valid for every metric space, and from Theorem 4.2(iv) which implies the estimates

for every \mu Borel probability measure with full support and finite 4-th moment in X. This completes the proof.

By Lemma A.2 (with A:= T, a:= k_T), one has

where \nu:= n+p, with the equality in (Proof) formally valid only in the sense of L^2(X\times X,\mu\otimes\mu). Since the functions on both sides of this equality are continuous, then (Proof) is also valid pointwise, i.e., for all (x,y) \in X\times X. In particular, we also get

for all x\in X.

From (Proof) and (Proof), we get

for all (x,y). The identity (?)

gives then

for all (x,y).

We observe now that one can view f as a map between X and \mathbb{R}^{n,p} with (?) reading as

Hence, f is an isometry onto the image \Sigma:= f(X) with \Sigma-\Sigma\subset C_{n,p}, concluding the proof of the first part.

For the converse statement, we consider X_N = \{x_i\}_{i=1}^N \subset \operatorname{supp} \mu. Identifying X_N with f(X_N), we may assume that X_N\subset \mathbb{R}^{n,p} with X_N - X_N\subset C_{n,p}. Then T_N := \Pi_N S(X_N) \Pi_N is the matrix

Thus, one can view T_N as the difference between two matrices, T_N = T_+ - T_-, where

P_{n}^- (resp. P_{p}^+) standing for the projections from \mathbb{R}^{n+p} to \mathbb{R}^n identified with the subspace of \mathbb{R}^{n+p} with all coordinates zero except the first n ones (resp. to \mathbb{R}^p identified with the subspace of \mathbb{R}^{n+p} with all coordinates zero except the last p ones). Also, u\cdot v stands for the usual dot product between two vectors in \mathbb{R}^{n+p}. Both T_- and T_+ are clearly positive semidefinite with s_+(T_-)\leq n, s_+(T_+)\leq p, and s_-(T_-)=s_-(T_+) = 0. From Lemma A.1(i), we get that

A completely symmetric reasoning yields s_-(T_N)\leq n. Then Proposition 4.15 applied to the space (\operatorname{supp} \mu, d) yields the desired claim

since L^2(X, \mu) is isomorphic to L^2(\operatorname{supp} \mu, \mu).

Fix linearly independent vectors v_1, \dots, v_N \in \mathbb{R}^N. For any \varepsilon > 0 define

Note g_\varepsilon \to d^2 uniformly as \varepsilon \to 0^+. For sufficiently \varepsilon>0, we have d_\varepsilon := \sqrt{g_\varepsilon}\geq 0. Moreover, since for any distinct i, j, k, the strict triangle inequality

holds, then for all sufficiently small \varepsilon, one has the triangle inequality

Thus, d_\varepsilon is a distance over X for small \varepsilon>0. We set then X_\varepsilon := (X,d_\varepsilon)).

Now, it is easy to see that the matrix corresponding to (X,d_{\varepsilon}) has the form

where G := \begin{pmatrix} \left(v_i - \bar{v}, v_j - \bar{v} \right) \end{pmatrix}_{i,j=1}^N with \bar{v} := \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N v_i. In particular, G is a Gram matrix with s_+(G) = N - 1, s_-(G) = 0, thus due to Lemma A.1(i) one has

Moreover, for small enough \varepsilon, one has s_+(T_\varepsilon) = s_+(T) by Lemma A.1(ii). Since \ker T is non-trivial, we have s_-(T_\varepsilon) \le N - 1 - s_+(T_\varepsilon) = N - 1 - s_+(T). Thus, we get the equality for s_-(T_\varepsilon). The claim follows.

It is enough to apply the above Proposition 5.8 to N:= n + p + 1 distinct points in a general position (i.e. spanning \mathbb{R}^p) on the unit sphere in \mathbb{R}^p, endowed with the Euclidean distance.

For every finite subset X_N\subset X, the squared distance matrix of X_N is a HSN matrix with off-diagonal entries from the interval [\delta_0^2,\delta_1^2], where \delta_1 is the diameter of (X,d). Since \delta_0>0 and \delta_1<+\infty, by theorem 3.3 from [Charles2013], there exists some n_0\in \mathbb{N} such that any HSN matrix of order at least n_0 with off-diagonal entries from [\delta_0^2,\delta_1^2] admits at least m strictly negative eigenvalues. Therefore, for any fixed m, there exists some n_0 such that for any finite X_N\subset X with \# X_N\geq n_0, one has that s_+(S(X_N))\geq m, proving the claim.

We prove the statement for s_+, and the proof for s_- is completely analogous. Fix a finite set \Sigma_N \subset X and let \bar B_r(p)\subset X be a closed ball centered at p such that \Sigma_N\subset \bar B_r(p). It follows from the definition of the pointed Gromov–Hausdorff convergence [burago2001course, definition 8.1.1] that for an arbitrary \varepsilon > 0 there are \bar k \in \mathbb{N} and maps f^k_\varepsilon \colon \bar B_r(p) \subset X \to \bar B_{r+\varepsilon}(p_k) \subset X_k with f_\varepsilon^k(p) = p_k such that

for all x,y\in \bar B_r(p) and k\geq \bar k. Choosing \varepsilon>0 sufficiently small, by Lemma A.1(ii) one has

for all k\in \mathbb{N} sufficiently large. We obtain the bound

Taking a supremum with respect to all finite subsets \Sigma_N \subset X, we get the claim.

Recall that the pointed metric space (T_p, \tilde d, p) (resp., (C_p, \tilde d, p)) is the pointed Gromov–Hausdorff limit of the sequence (X, kd, p) (resp., (X, d/k, p)) as k\to +\infty. Apply the above Proposition 6.5, having in mind that

If (X,d) is a smooth Riemannian manifold, it suffices to recall that T_p=\mathbb{R}^n with n=\dim X, and (T_p,\tilde d) is isometric to \mathbb{R}^n with the Euclidean distance so that s_+(T_p,\tilde d)=s_+(\mathbb{R}^n)=n by Example 5.5.

By the Wigner semi-circle law (Proposition 7.1), with probability 1, we have

On the other hand, by the random construction of the Erdős–Rényi–Rado graph, almost surely there is a sequence of finite subsets R_N \subset R with R_N\nearrow R as N\to\infty such that

Thus by Theorem 4.2(i), we have s_\pm(R,d) = +\infty, which by Theorem 4.2(v) implies s_\pm(K)=+\infty. Finally, Proposition 4.14 yields s_\pm(T)=+\infty.

It remains to compute the dimension of the kernel \ker T of T. Since T=PKP, clearly \mathbf{1} \in \ker T. Since P is self-adjoint in L^2(R,\mu), we have 0\neq f \in \mathbf{1}^{\perp}\cap \ker T if and only if K(f) is collinear to the constant function \mathbf{1} in L^2(R,\mu). Number the vertices of R by positive integers. The fact \mu has full support implies (Kf)_i=(Kf)_j for all i,j\in\mathbb{N}. The sequence (Kf)_i has an infinite “matrix multiplication” representation. More specifically, set

We then have

For any n\geq 1, define

Because \mu has full support and f\neq 0, we see v_n^+\nearrow v^+>0 and v_n^-\searrow v^-<0. Since f\in L^2(R,\mu) and \mu(R)=1, the sequence (v_j) is absolutely convergent and v^+,v^- are finite. Using the finite extension property of the Rado graph, for any fixed n\geq 1, we can find i_1>n such that i_1 is adjacent to all vertices in the summation of v_n^+ while non-adjacent to all vertices in the summation of v_n^-. Therefore, we obtain

Similarly we can find i_2>n such that

Using (Kf)_{i_1}=(Kf)_{i_2}, we get

Since the diameter of (R,d) is 2, we find

Since \lbrace v_j\rbrace is absolutely convergent, we find a contradiction to (?) for sufficiently large n. It follows that \ker T\cap \mathbf{1}^{\perp}=\{ 0\}. Since \mathbf{1}^{\perp} has codimension 1 in L^2(R,\mu), the dimension of \ker T cannot exceed 1. Because \ker T contains constants, they are the only elements of the kernel of T as claimed.

Since \mu has an infinite support, a random sequence \xi = (\xi_i)_{i=1}^\infty a.s. has infinitely many distinct elements. For such a realization of \xi, define an auxiliary sequence \hat\xi = (\hat \xi_i)_{i=1}^{\infty} \subset \mathbb{N} which is obtained from \xi by cancelling the repeating elements in the order of their appearance. Since G and \xi are independent, the conditional law of G given \xi (uniquely defined for a.e. \xi) does not depend on \xi and coincides with the marginal law of G, that is, the distributional law of an Erdős–Rényi–Rado random graph. The matrices \hat{S}_N corresponding to S_N (defined by (?)) are given by the formulae

Since all \hat \xi_i are by definition distinct, by the construction of an Erdős–Rényi–Rado graph and Proposition 7.1 we obtain that ESDs of \hat{S}_{N} converge to the semicircle law a.s. (conditioned on \xi, i.e. with \xi and hence also \hat \xi fixed). Therefore,

and by the Fubini theorem, this holds (unconditionally) a.s.

Finally, by the properties of the Rado graph, one a.s. has (\hat{S}_{N})_{ij} = -\frac 1 2 d^2_G(\hat\xi_i, \hat \xi_j), i.e. \hat{S}_{N} = S(\hat{X}_N), where \hat{X}_N := \{\hat \xi_i\}_{i=1}^N. Then by Lemma 4.9 we get

as claimed.

We prove the claims for s_+. The proof for s_- is identical.

We start with the proof of (i). Assume that s_+(A)<\infty and s_+(B) < \infty, otherwise the claim is trivial. Suppose that s_+(A + B) > s_+(A) + s_+(B). Then there are at least m+1 = s_+(A) + s_+(B) + 1 linearly independent eigenvectors u_1, \dots, u_m of A + B corresponding to positive eigenvalues. Let L_A (resp., L_B) be the linear span of all eigenvectors of A (resp., B) corresponding to positive eigenvalues. Clearly, we have that \dim L_A = s_+(A) and \dim L_B = s_+(B). Then \dim(L_A + L_B) \le s_A(A) + s_+(B) < m and there is a non-zero vector u \in \operatorname{span} \{u_i\}_{i=1}^m \cap (L_A + L_B)^\perp. Since A and B are self-adjoint, this yields (u, A u) \leq 0, (u, B u) \le 0, hence (u, (A + B) u) \le 0 what leads to a contradiction. Therefore, s_+(A + B) \le s_+(A) + s_+(B) as claimed.

Now, let us prove (ii). Let u_1, \dots, u_m be unit norm eigenvectors of A corresponding to positive eigenvalues \lambda_1 \ge \lambda_2 \ge \dots \ge \lambda_m > 0. Define symmetric matrices \bar{A} := ((u_i, A u_j))_{i,j=1}^m = \operatorname{diag}(\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_m) and \bar{A}_n := ((u_i, A_n u_j))_{i,j=1}^m. Then for \lVert A_n - A\rVert < \lambda_m, we have

In this case, s_+(A_n) \ge s_+(\bar{A}_n) \ge m, therefore,

Taking supremum over all m\leq s_+(A), we get the result.

By the Hilbert–Schmidt theorem, \{u_i\} form a topological basis in L^2(X,\mu). Thus representing a in terms of the Fourier series in u_i\otimes u_j in L^2(X\times X,\mu\otimes\mu), we get

For the Fourier coefficients c_{ij}, we have

where \delta_{ij} stands for the Kronecker delta, which implies (A.2).

To prove (i), let \varepsilon>0 be such that all the positive eigenvalues of A(X_N) belong to the interval [\epsilon,+\infty). Choose an r>0 sufficiently small such that all open balls B_i := B_{r}(x_i), i = 1, \dots, N, are pairwise disjoint, and for all i,j=1,\ldots, N the estimate

holds. Define

(recall that \mu(B_i) > 0 since x_i\in \operatorname{supp} \mu). Let Q_N \colon L^2(X,\mu)\to L^2(X,\mu) be the orthogonal projector onto L_N := \operatorname{span} \{v_i\}_{i=1}^N. Define the linear operator \tilde{A}_N \colon L^2(X,\mu) \to L^2(X,\mu) by

For every u\in L_N, setting U:= \bigcup_{i=1}^N B_i, we have

where the first and the last estimates are just Höder inequality minding that \mu is a probability measure, and the second one is due to (Proof). Since Q_N v = Q_N (\mathbf{1}_U v) for all v \in L^2(X,\mu), then from (Proof) we get that the operator norm of Q_N A Q_N - \tilde{A}_N = Q_N (A - \tilde{A}_N) Q_N is bounded by \frac{\varepsilon}{2}. Now, let us define the embedding operator E_N \colon \mathbb{R}^N \to L_N as E_N x := \sum_{i=1}^N x_i v_i, so that \operatorname{Im} E_N = L_N and

with \delta_{ik} standing for the Kronecker delta. Since

then E_N^* \tilde{A}_N E_N = A(X_N). We have therefore

Now, let \bar{Q}_N \colon L^2(X,\mu)\to L^2(X,\mu) be the orthogonal projector onto L_N \cap \mathbf{1}^\perp. In the same way as above, \bar{Q}_N (A - \tilde{A}_N) \bar{Q}_N is bounded by \frac{\varepsilon}{2}. Furthermore,

hence \operatorname{Im}(E_N \Pi_N) = L_N \cap \mathbf{1}^\perp and \bar{Q}_N E_N \Pi_N = E_N \Pi_N. Therefore,

The proofs of s_-(A) \geq s_- (A(X_N)) and s_-(P_\mu A P_\mu) \geq s_-(\Pi_N A(X_N) \Pi_N) are completely symmetric.

We now prove (ii). To this aim, for an arbitrary \varepsilon>0, using that \mu is the Radon measure, we can find a compact K\subset X with \mu(X\setminus K) be so small that

This can be done in view of by absolute continuity of the integral and of the fact that

We find a \delta>0, a \delta-net X_N:= \{x_1, \ldots, x_N\} \subset K, and a partition of K into N disjoint Borel subsets B_1,\ldots, B_N such that

(e.g., B_i being a “Voronoi cell” for x_i).

Much similar to the prof of (i), let Q_N\colon L^2(X,\mu)\to L^2(X,\mu) be the orthogonal projection onto \operatorname{span} \{\mathbf{1}_{B_i}\}_{i=1}^N and denote by \tilde A(X_N)\colon L^2(X,\mu)\to L^2(X,\mu) the linear operator defined by the formula

For every u\in L^2(X,\mu), we have

and

This implies

In other words, we constructed a sequence of X_N\subset X such that \tilde{A}_N \to A as linear bounded operators over L^2(X,\mu) as N\to\infty. This implies

by Lemma A.1(ii). In the same way one can show that

hence concluding the proof.

Let \{u_j\}_{j=1}^n\subset H_1 be a set of linearly independent eigenvectors of B corresponding to strictly positive eigenvalues. The vectors Q u_j, j=1,\ldots, n are also linearly independent since otherwise \ker B \cap \operatorname{span} \{u_j\}_{j=1}^n\neq \{0\} which is impossible. Hence, (Av, v)>0 for every v\in \operatorname{span} \{Q u_j\}_{j=1}^n, v\neq 0. This implies s_+(A)\geq n, and therefore, taking the supremum over all n\in \mathbb{N} such that n\leq s_+(B), we get s_\pm(B) \le s_\pm(A), proving Claim (i).

We now prove (ii). Let \{w_j\}_{j=1}^m \subset H_2 be a set of linearly independent eigenvectors of A corresponding to strictly positive eigenvalues. Then

Thus we may choose at least m-k linearly independent elements

Pick then linearly independent u_j\in H_1 with Q u_j = v_j, j=1,\ldots, m-k. One has

for all u\in \operatorname{span} \{u_j\}_{j=1}^{m-k} unless u=0. Thus implies s_+(B)\geq m-k and taking the supremum over all m\in \mathbb{N} satisfying m\leq s_+(A), we have s_\pm(B) \geq s_\pm(A)-k, i.e., Claim (ii).

Finally, to prove Claim (iii), we first note that for the orthogonal projector P_A from H_2 onto (\ker A)^\perp one has P_A A = A. Hence, A = A^* = A^* P_A^* = A P_A, and this again implies

Therefore,

Furthermore,

hence \operatorname{Im} Q + \ker A is dense in H_2, thus \operatorname{Im}(P_A Q) is dense in \operatorname{Im} P_A = (\ker A)^\perp. Let again \{w_j\}_{j=1}^m\subset H_2 be a set of linearly independent eigenvectors of A corresponding to strictly positive eigenvalues, thus the matrix (A w_i, w_j)_{i,j=1}^m is positive definite. Since all w_j clearly belong to (\ker A)^\perp, then one can find \{\tilde w_j\}_{j=1}^m \subset \operatorname{Im}(P_A Q) with each \tilde w_j so close to w_j that they are all still linearly independent and the matrix (A \tilde w_i, \tilde w_j)_{i,j=1}^m is positive definite (which gives in particular (A\tilde w,\tilde w)>0 for all \tilde w\in \operatorname{span} \{\tilde w_j\}_{j=1}^m, \tilde w\neq 0).

Choosing u_j \in H linearly independent such that P_A Q u_j = \tilde w_j, in view of (?) we get

for all u\in \operatorname{span} \{u_j\}_{j=1}^m, u\neq 0. Thus, s_+(B)\geq m and taking the supremum over all m\in \mathbb{N} satisfying m\leq s_+(A), we have s_\pm(B) \geq s_\pm(A). This together with Claim (i) gives Claim (iii).

The strict triangle inequality is clearly equivalent to

Since

we get the result.