Skip to article frontmatterSkip to article content

Recall that a mapping f:X→Yf: X \to Y between two metric spaces (X,dX)(X,d_X) and (Y,dY)(Y,d_Y) is an isometry if

dY(f(x),f(y))=dX(x,y) for all x,y∈X,d_Y(f(x),f(y)) = d_X(x,y) \quad \text{ for all $x,y \in X$},

that is, an isometry is a mapping that preserves distances. The function ff is also called an isometric embedding of XX into YY. XX and YY are isometric if there exists a bijective isometry between them.

Universal spaces

A concrete example of such a space is C[0,1]\mathcal{C}[0,1].

But this example is not quite what we have in mind here. There exists another space with a stronger, more “intrinsic” universality property. This space was first constructed by Pavel Urysohn in 1927 Urysohn (1927).

The construction features an amalgamation principle that has surfaced in other areas like model theory or graph theory.

Extensions of finite isometries and Urysohn universality

Suppose XX is a Polish metric space. Let D={x1,x2,… }D = \{x_1, x_2, \dots\} be a countable, dense subset. We first observe that, to isometrically embed XX into another Polish space, it is sufficient to embed DD.

Proof

Given z∈Xz \in X, let (xin)(x_{i_n}) be a sequence in DD converging to zz. Since (xin)(x_{i_n}) converges, it is Cauchy.

ee is an isometry, and thus yn:=e(xin)y_n := e(x_{i_n}) is Cauchy, and since YY is Polish, (yn)(y_n) converges to some y∈Yy \in Y. Put e∗(z)=ye^*(z) = y.

To see that this mapping is well-defined, let (xjn)(x_{j_n}) be another sequence with xjn→zx_{j_n} \to z. Then d(xin,xjn)→0d(x_{i_n}, x_{j_n}) \to 0, and hence d(e(xin),e(xjn)=d(yn,e(xjn))→0d(e(x_{i_n}),e(x_{j_n}) = d(y_n, e(x_{j_n}))\to 0, implying e(xjn)→ye(x_{j_n}) \to y.

Furthermore, suppose w=lim⁡xknw = \lim x_{k_n} is another point in XX. Then (since a metric is a continuous mapping from Y×Y→RY\times Y \to \Real)

d(e∗(z),e∗(w))=lim⁡d(e(xin),e(xkn))=lim⁡d(xin,xkn)=d(z,w).d(e^*(z), e^*(w)) = \lim d( e(x_{i_n}), e(x_{k_n})) = \lim d( x_{i_n}, x_{k_n}) = d(z,w).

Thus e∗e^* is an isometry.

In order to embed DD, we can now exploit the inductive structure of N\Nat and reduce the task to extending finite isometries.

Suppose we have constructed an isometry ee between FN={x1,…,xN}⊂DF_N = \{x_1, \dots, x_N \} \subset D and a space YY. We would like to extend the isometry to include xN+1x_{N+1}. For this we have to find an element y∈Yy \in Y such that for all i≤Ni \leq N

dY(y,e(xi))=dX(xN+1,xi).d_Y(y, e(x_i)) = d_X(x_{N+1}, x_i).

This extension property gives rise to the following definition.

As outlined above, the extension property of Urysohn universal spaces implies the desired isometric embedding property.

But the extension property also implies a strong intrinsic extension property for the Urysohn space itself.

The proof applies the Back-and-forth method that you may know from the rationals: every order-isomorphism between finite subsets of Q\Q extends to an automorphism of (Q,<)(\Q,<).

This property (which can be formulated for structures in general) is also known as homogeneity. It plays an important role, for example, in model theory Macpherson (2011) and in the topological dynamics of automorphism groups of countable structures Kechris et al. (2005).

We will prove the existence of this unique Polish space, which we denote by U\Ury, in the following sections.

Constructing the Urysohn space -- a first approximation

We first give a construction of a space that has the extension property, but is not Polish. After that we will take additional steps to turn it into a Polish space.

The crucial idea is to observe that if XX is a metric space and x∈Xx \in X, then the mapping fx:X→R≥0f_{x}: X \to \Real^{\geq 0} given by

fx(y)=dX(x,y)f_{x}(y) = d_X(x,y)

is 1-Lipschitz. Recall that a function gg between metric spaces XX and YY is LL-Lipschitz, L>0L > 0 if for every x,y∈Xx,y \in X,

d(g(x),g(y))≤L d(x,y).d(g(x),g(y)) \leq L \, d(x,y).

Let Lip⁡1(X)\Lip_1(X) be the set of 1-Lipschitz mappings from XX to R\Real. We endow Lip⁡1(X)\Lip_1(X) with the supremum metric

d(f,g)=sup⁡{∣f(x)−g(x)∣ ⁣:x∈X}.d(f,g) = \sup \{|f(x) - g(x)| \colon x \in X \}.

If diam(X)≤d\diam(X) \leq \mathrm{d} and f,gf,g are 1-Lipschitz, then d(f,g)d(f,g) is indeed finite. However, we will later need that the resulting space is also bounded. Let Lip⁡1d(X)\Lip^{\mathrm{d}}_1(X) be the space of all 1-Lipschitz functions from XX to [0,d][0,\mathrm{d}].

Clearly, diam(Lip⁡1d(X))≤d\diam(\Lip^{\mathrm{d}}_1(X)) \leq \mathrm{d}.

With this metric, the mapping x↦fx(y)=d(x,y)x \mapsto f_{x}(y) = d(x,y) becomes an isometry: We have

d(fx,fz)=sup⁡{∣d(x,y)−d(z,y)∣ ⁣:y∈X}.d(f_{x}, f_{z}) = \sup\{ | d(x,y) - d(z,y)| \colon y \in X \}.

By the reverse triangle inequality, this is always ≤d(x,z)\leq d(x,z). On the other hand, setting y=zy=z yields d(fx,fz)≥d(x,z)d(f_x,f_z) \geq d(x,z). This embedding of XX into Lip⁡1d(X)\Lip^{\mathrm{d}}_1(X) is called the Kuratowski embedding.

We use this fact as follows: If X∗=X⊔{x∗}X^* = X \sqcup \{x^*\} and d∗d^* is an extension of dXd_X, then fx∗f_{x^*} is an element of Lip⁡1d(X)\Lip^{\mathrm{d}}_1(X), and as above, for any x∈Xx \in X

d(fx∗,fx)=d∗(x∗,x).d(f_{x^*}, f_x) = d^*(x^*,x).

Hence Lip⁡1d(X)\Lip^{\mathrm{d}}_1(X) has an extension property of the kind we are looking for.

Iterative construction: Let X0X_0 be any non-empty Polish space with finite diameter d>0\mathrm{d} > 0. Given XnX_n, let d(n)=diam(Xn)\mathrm{d}(n) = \diam(X_n) and set Xn+1=Lip⁡12d(n)(Xn)X_{n+1} = \Lip^{2\mathrm{d}(n)}_1(X_n). Finally, put X∞=⋃nXnX_\infty = \bigcup_n X_n. Note that X∞X_\infty inherits a well-defined metric dd from the XnX_n, which embed isometrically into it.

We wan to verify that X∞X_\infty has the extension property needed to be Urysohn universal. Let FF be a finite subset of X∞X_\infty. There exists NN such that F⊂XNF \subset X_N. Suppose F∗=F⊔{x∗}F^* = F \sqcup \{x^*\} and d∗d^* is an extension of dd to F∗F^*. Let d∗=diam(F∗)\mathrm{d}^* = \diam(F^*). Note that diam(Xn)=2nd\diam(X_n) = 2^n \mathrm{d}. Choose MM so that M≥NM \geq N and diam(XM)≥d∗\diam(X_M) \geq \mathrm{d}^*. The next lemma ensures that we can find f∈XM+1f \in X_{M+1} such that f(x)=d∗(x∗,x)f(x) = d^*(x^*,x) for all x∈Fx \in F.

Proof

For each a∈Aa \in A define fa:X→Rf_a: X \to \Real as

fa(x)=f(a)+d(a,x).f_a(x) = f(a) + d(a,x).

Then faf_a is 1-Lipschitz, by the reverse triangle inequality. Let

f∗(x)=inf⁡{fa(x) ⁣:a∈A}.f^*(x) = \inf \{f_a(x) \colon a \in A\}.

Then f∗(a)=f(a)f^*(a) = f(a) for all a∈Aa \in A. Let x,y∈Xx,y \in X and ε>0\eps > 0. Wlog assume f∗(y)≥f∗(x)f^*(y) \geq f^*(x). Pick a∈Aa \in A so that fa(x)≤f∗(x)+εf_a(x) \leq f^*(x) + \eps. Then

∣f∗(x)−f∗(y)∣=f∗(y)−f∗(x)≤f∗(y)−fa(x)+ε≤fa(y)−fa(x)+ε≤d(x,y)+ε.\begin{align*} |f^*(x) - f^*(y)| = f^*(y) - f^*(x) & \leq f^*(y) - f_a(x) + \eps \\ & \leq f_a(y) - f_a(x) + \eps \leq d(x,y) + \eps. \end{align*}

Since ε>0\eps > 0 was arbitrary, we have ∣f∗(x)−f∗(y)∣≤d(x,y)|f^*(x) - f^*(y)| \leq d(x,y).

Finally, we have f(a)≤fa(x)≤f(a)+df(a) \leq f_a(x) \leq f(a) + \mathrm{d} and thus 0≤f∗(x)≤fa(x)≤2d0 \leq f^*(x) \leq f_a(x) \leq 2\mathrm{d}.

Finishing the construction

The set X∞X_\infty we constructed has two deficiencies with respect to our goal of constructing a Urysohn universal space: X∞X_\infty is not necessarily separable, and X∞X_\infty is not necessarily complete.

To make X∞X_\infty separable, we observe that if XX is compact, then the set Lip⁡1d(X)\Lip^{\mathrm{d}}_1(X) is closed in C(X)\mathcal{C}(X) (the set of all real-valued continuous functions on XX), bounded, and equicontinuous. By the Arzelà-Ascoli Theorem, Lip⁡1d(X)\Lip^{\mathrm{d}}_1(X) is compact. Every compact metric space is separable: For every ε>0\eps > 0, there exists a finite covering of the space with sets of diam<ε\diam < \eps. Letting ε\eps traverse all positive rationals and picking a point from each set in an ε\eps-covering yields a countable dense subset. Hence if we start with X0X_0 compact, each XnX_n will be compact, too. A countable union of separable spaces is separable, thus X∞X_\infty is separable.

To obtain a complete space, we can pass from X∞X_\infty to its completion X∞‾\Cl{X_\infty}. First note that if a metric space XX is separable, so is its completion X‾\Cl{X}. However, we also have to ensure that X∞‾\Cl{X_\infty} retains the universality property of X∞X_\infty.

Proof

We follow Gromov (1999). Let F={x1,…,xn}⊂YF = \{x_1, \dots, x_n\} \subset Y and assume F∗=F⊔{x∗}F^* = F \sqcup \{x^*\} is an extension with metric d∗d^*.

We first note that YY is approximately universal. This means that for any ε>0\eps > 0, there exists a point y∗∈Yy^* \in Y such that

∣d(y∗,x)−d∗(x∗,x)∣<ε for all x∈F.(∗)\tag{$*$} |d(y*,x) - d^*(x^*,x)| < \eps \quad \text{ for all $x \in F$}.

This can be seen as follows. Since U\mathcal{U} is dense in YY, we can find a finite set Fε={z1,…,zn}⊂UF_\eps = \{z_1, \dots, z_n\} \subset \mathcal{U} such that

d(xi,zi)<ε for 1≤i≤n.d(x_i, z_i) < \eps \quad \text{ for $1 \leq i \leq n$}.

Now use the Urysohn universality of U\mathcal{U} for the set G∗={z1,…,zn}⊔{x∗}G^* = \{z_1, \dots , z_n\} \sqcup \{x^*\} with the metric

d∗∗(x∗,zi)=d∗(x∗,xi)(i=1,…,n)d^{**}(x^*, z_i) = d^*(x^*, x_i) \qquad (i = 1, \dots, n)

to find z∈Uz \in \mathcal{U} with

d(z,zi)=d∗∗(x∗,zi)=d∗(x∗,xi)(i=1,…,n)d(z,z_i) = d^{**}(x^*,z_i) = d^*(x^*,x_i) \qquad (i = 1, \dots, n)

Then, by the reverse triangle inequality,

∣d(z,xi)−d∗(x∗,zi)∣=∣d(z,xi)−d(z,zi)∣≤d(zi,xi)=ε,\left | d(z,x_i) - d^*(x^*,z_i) \right | = \left | d(z,x_i) - d(z,z_i) \right | \leq d(z_i, x_i) = \eps,

as required.

We use this approximate universality to construct a Cauchy sequence (yk)(y_k) in YY of ‘approximate’ extension points that satisfy (∗)(*) for smaller and smaller ε\eps.

Let 0<δ=max⁡{d∗(x∗,xi) ⁣:1≤i≤n}0 < \delta = \max \{d^*(x^*,x_i) \colon 1 \leq i \leq n \}. The formal requirements for the sequence (yi)(y_i) are as follows.

  1. ∣d(yk,xi)−d∗(x∗,xi)∣≤2−kδ|d(y_k,x_i) - d^*(x^*,x_i)| \leq 2^{-k} \delta.
  2. d(yk+1,yk)≤2−kδd(y_{k+1},y_k) \leq 2^{-k}\delta.

The sequence necessarily converges in YY and the limit point must be a true extension point, due to (1.)

Suppose we have already constructed y1,…,yky_1, \dots, y_k satisfying (1.), (2.). Add an (abstract) point yk+1∗y^*_{k+1} to Fk=F∪{y1,…,yk}F_k = F \cup \{y_1, \dots, y_k\}. Let Fk+1∗=Fk⊔{yk+1∗}F^*_{k+1} = F_k \sqcup \{y^*_{k+1}\}.

We want to use approximate universality on Fk+1∗F^*_{k+1}. To this end we have to define a metric e∗e^* on Fk+1∗F^*_{k+1} that has the following properties

(i)e∗∣Fk=d∣Fk(ii)e∗(yk+1∗,xi)=d∗(x∗,xi)(1≤i≤n)(iii)e∗(yk+1∗,yk)=2−k−1δ\begin{align*} (i) \qquad & e^*|_{F_k} = d|_{F_k} \\ (ii) \qquad & e^*(y^*_{k+1},x_i) = d^*(x^*,x_i) \quad (1 \leq i \leq n) \\ (iii) \qquad & e^*(y^*_{k+1}, y_k) = 2^{-k-1}\delta \end{align*}

Indeed such a metric exists: The condition (i)(i) already defines a metric on the set FkF_k. The conditions (i)(i)-(iii)(iii) also define a metric on F∪{yk,yk+1∗}F \cup \{y_k,y^*_{k+1}\} -- the only thing to check for this is the triangle inequality for yk,yk+1∗y_k, y^*_{k+1}:

∣e∗(xi,yk)−e∗(yk+1∗,xi)∣=∣d(xi,yk)−d∗(x∗,xi)∣≤2−kδ=e∗(yk,yk+1∗),|e^*(x_i,y_k) - e^*(y^*_{k+1},x_i)| = |d(x_i,y_k) - d^*(x^*,x_i) | \leq 2^{-k}\delta = e^*(y_k, y^*_{k+1}),

by (1.). These metrics agree on the set

Fk∩(F∪{yk,yk+1∗})=F∪{yk}.F_k \cap (F \cup \{y_k,y^*_{k+1}\}) = F \cup \{y_k\}.

Therefore, we can “merge” them to a metric on all of Fk+1∗F^*_{k+1} by letting

e∗(yk+1∗,yj)=inf⁡{e∗(yk+1∗,z)+e∗(z,yj) ⁣:z∈{y1,…,yk−1}}.e^*(y^*_{k+1}, y_j) = \inf \{e^*(y^*_{k+1}, z) + e^*(z,y_j) \colon z \in \{y_1, \dots, y_{k-1}\} \}.

Now choose ε<2−k−1δ\eps < 2^{-k-1}\delta and apply approximate universality to Fk+1∗F^*_{k+1}. This yields a point yk+1∈Yy_{k+1} \in Y such that

∣d(yk+1,z)−e∗(yk+1∗,z)∣<2−k−1δ|d(y_{k+1}, z) - e^*(y^*_{k+1}, z) | < 2^{-k-1}\delta

for all z∈Fkz \in F_k. By definition of e∗e^*, we have

∣d(yk+1,xi)−d∗(yk+1∗,z)∣<2−k−1δ|d(y_{k+1}, x_i) - d^*(y^*_{k+1}, z) | < 2^{-k-1}\delta

for 1≤i≤n1 \leq i \leq n, and (iii)(iii) yields

d(yk+1,yk)<e∗(yk+1∗,yk)+ε≤2−k−1δ+2−k−1δ=2−kδd(y_{k+1}, y_k) < e^*(y^*_{k+1},y_k) + \eps \leq 2^{-k-1}\delta + 2^{-k-1}\delta = 2^{-k}\delta

as required.

References
  1. Urysohn, P. (1927). Sur un espace métrique universel. I, II. Bull. Sci. Math., 51, 1–38.
  2. Macpherson, D. (2011). A survey of homogeneous structures. Discrete Mathematics, 311(15), 1599–1634.
  3. Kechris, A. S., Pestov, V. G., & Todorcevic, S. (2005). Fraïssé Limits, Ramsey Theory, and topological dynamics of automorphism groups. Geometric And Functional Analysis, 15(1), 106–189.
  4. Gromov, M. (1999). Metric structures for Riemannian and non-Riemannian spaces (Vol. 152). Birkhäuser Boston Inc.