Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $(X,d_1)$ and $(X,d_2)$ be two metric spaces on the same set $X$. Is there any relation between $d_1$ and $d_2$ being equivalent and $(X,d_1)$ and $(X,d_2)$ being isometric? If not, can anyone give examples where $d_1$ and $d_2$ are equivalent but $(X,d_1)$ and $(X,d_2)$ are not isometric; and where $d_1$ and $d_2$ are not equivalent, but $(X,d_1)$ and $(X,d_2)$ are isometric?

share|cite|improve this question
in which sense precisely do you mean that the two metrics are equivalent? – Ittay Weiss Jun 13 '13 at 9:07
In the sense that they induce exactly the same topology on $X$; or, id from $X$ to $X$ is a homeomorphism. – Joshua Ciappara Jun 13 '13 at 9:13
up vote 2 down vote accepted

If I understand your question correctly, there is no relation between being equivalent and being isometric.

To see that "equivalent" does not imply "isometric", take $X=\mathbb R$ with $d_1(x,y)=\vert x-y\vert$ and $d_2(x,y)=\frac{\vert x-y\vert}{1+\vert x-y\vert}$. Then $d_1$ and $d_2$ are equivalent but $(\mathbb R,d_1)$ cannot be isometric with $(\mathbb R, d_2)$ because $d_2$ is bounded and $d_1$ is not.

To see that "isometric" does not imply "equivalent", take again $X=\mathbb R$. Let $\phi$ be any $discontinuous$ bijection from $\mathbb R$ onto $\mathbb R$ (where $\mathbb R$ has the usual topology). Define $d_1(x,y)=\vert x-y\vert$ and $d_2(x,y)=\vert \phi(x)-\phi(y)\vert$. Then $(\mathbb R, d_1)$ and $(\mathbb R, d_2)$ are isometric by definition, but $d_1$ and $d_2$ are not equivalent.

share|cite|improve this answer

Consider the standard metric $d_1$ on $\mathbb R$ and let $d_2$ be given by $d_2(x)=\ln (1+ \cdot d_1(x,y))$. These tow metrics give the same topology (the standard topology) on $\mathbb R$, but they are not isometric.

Any isometry between metric spaces, when passing to the topologies induced by the metrics, gives rise to a homeomorphism. Thus, if two metrics on the same space are isometric, then there is an isometry $f:(X,d_1)\to (X,d_2)$, and thus a homeomorphism $X\to X$. If $f$ is the identity, then it implies that the topologies are identical. So, if the identity is an isometry between $(X,d_1)$ and $(X,d_2)$, then the induced topologies are the same.

However, two metric spaces can be isomorphic while the identity is not an isomorphism. For instance, let $g:X\to X$ be a non-identity bijection on a given metric space $(X,d)$. Defining $d':X\times X\to \mathbb R$ by $d'(x,y)=d(g(x),g(y))$ gives a metric space. Clearly, $g:(X,d')\to (X,d)$ is an isometry. But only very rarely will $d$ and $d'$ yield the same topology (they will, of course, give homeomorphic spaces, only the identity need not be a homeomorphism). For a particular example, take $X=\mathbb R$ with the usual metric, and take $g:X\to X$ interchange $0$ and $1$, and leave everything else fixed.

share|cite|improve this answer

If $(X,d_1),(X,d_2)$ are isometric metric spaces with identity map then they're equvalent,but otherwise,it's not true in generally,For example $X=\mathbb{R}-0$,$d_2$ is Euclidean metric and $d_1(x,y)=|\frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{y}|$ now $f:(X,d_1)\to (X,d_2) $s,t $x\mapsto\frac{1}{x}$ is isometry but these are not equivalent because {$n$}$_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is Cauchy in $(X,d_1)$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.