that is, an isometry is a mapping that preserves distances. The function f is also called an isometric embedding of X into Y. X and Y are isometric if there exists a bijective isometry between them.
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 X is a Polish metric space. Let D={x1,x2,…} be a countable, dense subset. We first observe that, to isometrically embed X into another Polish space, it is sufficient to embed D.
Proof
Given z∈X, let (xin) be a sequence in D converging to z. Since (xin) converges, it is Cauchy.
e is an isometry, and thus yn:=e(xin) is Cauchy, and since Y is Polish, (yn) converges to some y∈Y. Put e∗(z)=y.
To see that this mapping is well-defined, let (xjn) be another sequence with xjn→z. Then d(xin,xjn)→0, and hence d(e(xin),e(xjn)=d(yn,e(xjn))→0, implying e(xjn)→y.
Furthermore, suppose w=limxkn is another point in X. Then (since a metric is a continuous mapping from Y×Y→R)
In order to embed D, we can now exploit the inductive structure of N and reduce the task to extending finite isometries.
Suppose we have constructed an isometry e between FN={x1,…,xN}⊂D and a space Y. We would like to extend the isometry to include xN+1. For this we have to find an element y∈Y such that for all i≤N
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 extends to an automorphism of (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, 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 X is a metric space and x∈X, then the mapping fx:X→R≥0 given by
If diam(X)≤d and f,g are 1-Lipschitz, then d(f,g) is indeed finite.
However, we will later need that the resulting space is also bounded. Let Lip1d(X) be the space of all 1-Lipschitz functions from X to [0,d].
Clearly, diam(Lip1d(X))≤d.
With this metric, the mapping x↦fx(y)=d(x,y) becomes an isometry: We have
By the reverse triangle inequality, this is always ≤d(x,z). On the other hand, setting y=z yields d(fx,fz)≥d(x,z). This embedding of X into Lip1d(X) is called the Kuratowski embedding.
We use this fact as follows: If X∗=X⊔{x∗} and d∗ is an extension of dX, then fx∗ is an element of Lip1d(X), and as above, for any x∈X
Hence Lip1d(X) has an extension property of the kind we are looking for.
Iterative construction: Let X0 be any non-empty Polish space with finite diameter d>0. Given Xn, let d(n)=diam(Xn) and set Xn+1=Lip12d(n)(Xn). Finally, put X∞=⋃nXn. Note that X∞ inherits a well-defined metric d from the Xn, which embed isometrically into it.
We wan to verify that X∞ has the extension property needed to be Urysohn universal. Let F be a finite subset of X∞. There exists N such that F⊂XN. Suppose F∗=F⊔{x∗} and d∗ is an extension of d to F∗. Let d∗=diam(F∗). Note that diam(Xn)=2nd. Choose M so that M≥N and diam(XM)≥d∗. The next lemma ensures that we can find f∈XM+1 such that f(x)=d∗(x∗,x) for all x∈F.
The set X∞ we constructed has two deficiencies with respect to our goal of constructing a Urysohn universal space: X∞ is not necessarily separable, and X∞ is not necessarily complete.
To make X∞ separable, we observe that if X is compact, then the set Lip1d(X) is closed in C(X) (the set of all real-valued continuous functions on X), bounded, and equicontinuous. By the Arzelà-Ascoli Theorem, Lip1d(X) is compact.
Every compact metric space is separable: For every ε>0, there exists a finite covering of the space with sets of diam<ε. Letting ε traverse all positive rationals and picking a point from each set in an ε-covering yields a countable dense subset. Hence if we start with X0 compact, each Xn will be compact, too. A countable union of separable spaces is separable, thus X∞ is separable.
To obtain a complete space, we can pass from X∞ to its completionX∞. First note that if a metric space X is separable, so is its completion X. However, we also have to ensure that X∞ retains the universality property of X∞.
Proof
We follow Gromov (1999). Let F={x1,…,xn}⊂Y and assume F∗=F⊔{x∗} is an extension with metric d∗.
We first note that Y is approximately universal. This means that for any ε>0, there exists a point y∗∈Y such that
∣d(y∗,x)−d∗(x∗,x)∣<ε for all x∈F.(∗)
This can be seen as follows. Since U is dense in Y, we can find a finite set Fε={z1,…,zn}⊂U such that
We use this approximate universality to construct a Cauchy sequence (yk) in Y of ‘approximate’ extension points that satisfy (∗) for smaller and smaller ε.
Let 0<δ=max{d∗(x∗,xi):1≤i≤n}.
The formal requirements for the sequence (yi) are as follows.
∣d(yk,xi)−d∗(x∗,xi)∣≤2−kδ.
d(yk+1,yk)≤2−kδ.
The sequence necessarily converges in Y and the limit point must be a true extension point, due to (1.)
Suppose we have already constructed y1,…,yk satisfying (1.), (2.). Add an (abstract) point yk+1∗ to Fk=F∪{y1,…,yk}. Let Fk+1∗=Fk⊔{yk+1∗}.
We want to use approximate universality on Fk+1∗. To this end we have to define a metric e∗ on Fk+1∗ that has the following properties
Indeed such a metric exists: The condition (i) already defines a metric on the set Fk. The conditions (i)-(iii) also define a metric on F∪{yk,yk+1∗} -- the only thing to check for this is the triangle inequality for yk,yk+1∗:
Urysohn, P. (1927). Sur un espace métrique universel. I, II. Bull. Sci. Math., 51, 1–38.
Macpherson, D. (2011). A survey of homogeneous structures. Discrete Mathematics, 311(15), 1599–1634.
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.
Gromov, M. (1999). Metric structures for Riemannian and non-Riemannian spaces (Vol. 152). Birkhäuser Boston Inc.