Misplaced Pages

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (September 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Generalised metric" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (May 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) The topic of this article may not meet Misplaced Pages's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "Generalised metric" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (August 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In mathematics, the concept of a generalised metric is a generalisation of that of a metric, in which the distance is not a real number but taken from an arbitrary ordered field.

In general, when we define metric space the distance function is taken to be a real-valued function. The real numbers form an ordered field which is Archimedean and order complete. These metric spaces have some nice properties like: in a metric space compactness, sequential compactness and countable compactness are equivalent etc. These properties may not, however, hold so easily if the distance function is taken in an arbitrary ordered field, instead of in ${\displaystyle \scriptstyle \mathbb {R} .}$

Preliminary definition

Let ${\displaystyle (F,+,\cdot ,<)}$ be an arbitrary ordered field, and ${\displaystyle M}$ a nonempty set; a function ${\displaystyle d:M\times M\to F^{+}\cup \{0\}}$ is called a metric on ${\displaystyle M,}$ if the following conditions hold:

1. ${\displaystyle d(x,y)=0}$ if and only if ${\displaystyle x=y}$;
2. ${\displaystyle d(x,y)=d(y,x)}$ (symmetry);
3. ${\displaystyle d(x,y)+d(y,z)\geq d(x,z)}$ (triangle inequality).

It is not difficult to verify that the open balls ${\displaystyle B(x,\delta )\;:=\{y\in M\;:d(x,y)<\delta \}}$ form a basis for a suitable topology, the latter called the metric topology on ${\displaystyle M,}$ with the metric in ${\displaystyle F.}$

In view of the fact that ${\displaystyle F}$ in its order topology is monotonically normal, we would expect ${\displaystyle M}$ to be at least regular.

Further properties

However, under axiom of choice, every general metric is monotonically normal, for, given ${\displaystyle x\in G,}$ where ${\displaystyle G}$ is open, there is an open ball ${\displaystyle B(x,\delta )}$ such that ${\displaystyle x\in B(x,\delta )\subseteq G.}$ Take ${\displaystyle \mu (x,G)=B\left(x,\delta /2\right).}$ Verify the conditions for Monotone Normality.

The matter of wonder is that, even without choice, general metrics are monotonically normal.

proof.

Case I: ${\displaystyle F}$ is an Archimedean field.

Now, if ${\displaystyle x}$ in ${\displaystyle G,G}$ open, we may take ${\displaystyle \mu (x,G):=B(x,1/2n(x,G)),}$ where ${\displaystyle n(x,G):=\min\{n\in \mathbb {N} :B(x,1/n)\subseteq G\},}$ and the trick is done without choice.

Case II: ${\displaystyle F}$ is a non-Archimedean field.

For given ${\displaystyle x\in G}$ where ${\displaystyle G}$ is open, consider the set ${\displaystyle A(x,G):=\{a\in F:{\text{ for all }}n\in \mathbb {N} ,B(x,n\cdot a)\subseteq G\}.}$

The set ${\displaystyle A(x,G)}$ is non-empty. For, as ${\displaystyle G}$ is open, there is an open ball ${\displaystyle B(x,k)}$ within ${\displaystyle G.}$ Now, as ${\displaystyle F}$ is non-Archimdedean, ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} _{F}}$ is not bounded above, hence there is some ${\displaystyle \xi \in F}$ such that for all ${\displaystyle n\in \mathbb {N} ,}$ ${\displaystyle n\cdot 1\leq \xi .}$ Putting ${\displaystyle a=k\cdot (2\xi )^{-1},}$ we see that ${\displaystyle a}$ is in ${\displaystyle A(x,G).}$

Now define ${\displaystyle \mu (x,G)=\bigcup \{B(x,a):a\in A(x,G)\}.}$ We would show that with respect to this mu operator, the space is monotonically normal. Note that ${\displaystyle \mu (x,G)\subseteq G.}$

If ${\displaystyle y}$ is not in ${\displaystyle G}$ (open set containing ${\displaystyle x}$) and ${\displaystyle x}$ is not in ${\displaystyle H}$ (open set containing ${\displaystyle y}$), then we'd show that ${\displaystyle \mu (x,G)\cap \mu (y,H)}$ is empty. If not, say ${\displaystyle z}$ is in the intersection. Then $${\displaystyle \exists a\in A(x,G)\colon d(x,z)<a;\;\;\exists b\in A(y,H)\colon d(z,y)<b.}$$

From the above, we get that ${\displaystyle d(x,y)\leq d(x,z)+d(z,y)<2\cdot \max\{a,b\},}$ which is impossible since this would imply that either ${\displaystyle y}$ belongs to ${\displaystyle \mu (x,G)\subseteq G}$ or ${\displaystyle x}$ belongs to ${\displaystyle \mu (y,H)\subseteq H.}$ This completes the proof.

See also

• Ordered topological vector space
• Pseudometric space – Generalization of metric spaces in mathematics
• Uniform space – Topological space with a notion of uniform properties

References

External links

• FOM discussion, 15 August 2007

• Metric geometry
• Norms (mathematics)
• Topology