Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let's say I have a complete weighted graph with $n$ nodes and strictly positive weights. I'd like to find the smallest $d\in\mathbb{N}$ such that there exists a set of $n$ points in $x_n\in\mathbb{R}^d$ with Euclidean distance equal to the corresponding edge weights.

A couple questions:

Is there a $d$ bounded by some constant for every $n$, or does it depend explicitly on the size of n?

What is the complexity class of this problem?

So I am faced with solving a system of $\frac{n(n-1)}{2}$ multivariate quadratic equations, right? What's the best way to tackle this? I have read a bit that maybe resultant elimination is applicable, but I am not exactly sure how to apply it. Ideas?


Okay, so I found another necessary condition based on Joseph's answer. All but one of the eigenvalues of a Euclidean distance matrix are negative.

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 2 down vote accepted

This does not answer the question fully, but is too long for a comment. I'll try to add more to the answer. Also the answer is a bit rough; it does not explain most of the terms. I will polish it when I get some free time.

First of all, the weighted graph must be a metric; i.e., it should satisfy symmetry ($D(u,v) = D(v,u)$), nonnegativity ($D(u,v) \geq 0$ with equality iff $u=v$), and triangle inequality ($D(u,v) \leq D(u,w)+D(w,v)$). The way the problem is set up, symmetry and nonnegativity come for free. So it suffices to check for triangle inequality (this can be done by brute force if $n$ is not too large).

Technically, the question you are asking can be phrased as:

Which metrics can be isometrically embedded in $\ell^2$?

My first answer is: not all. To see this, take a graph with $10$ vertices (say) with weights: $D(x,y)$ is $1$ if either $x$ or $y$ is the special vertex $v_1$; otherwise it is $2$. (This is known a Greek/British airline metric.) It is a fun exercise to show that this cannot be embedded in $\mathbb R^d$ for any dimension $d$.

I have to dig up a bit for a general criterion to decide this question.

Meanwhile, suppose that I told you that a particular metric can indeed be embedded in $\mathbb R^d$ for some $d$, possibly much larger than $n$. Then, somewhat remarkably, one can show that you can embed the $n$ points in $\mathbb R^n$ itself. This is ultimately related to the fact that every $n \times n$ Gram matrix $G$ has a representation $v_1, v_2, \ldots v_n \in \mathbb R^n$ (notice that the vectors live in an $n$ dimensional space) such that $G_{i,j} = \langle v_i, v_j \rangle$. Unfortunately, however, in many scenarios of interest, $n$ could be much larger than the minimum dimension $d$, so this statement by itself is not always useful.

Added: The "correct" upper bound here is $d = n-1$. The discrete metric on $n$ points cannot be embedded in less than $n-1$ dimensions, so this is the best possible bound, if we want a universal upper bound.

When I can get to this, I would like to add any known criteria to compute the minimum dimension needed. Also, possibly mention something about dimensionality reduction, aka Johnson-Lindenstrauss.

share|improve this answer
As Craig points out, the correct upper bound is $n-1$. I was just arguing an upper bound, but it was perhaps a little bit sloppy. –  Srivatsan Sep 8 '11 at 15:48
I don't quite understand your explanation of the Greek airline metric. The way it is stated it sounds like the trivial metric plus one. –  Tim Seguine Sep 8 '11 at 18:35
@Tim Thanks. I now made it less ambiguous. The airline analogy will be clear if you think of $v_1$ as the hub(main terminal) of an airline. You can take a direct flight to fly either to or from $v_1$; to fly between other cities, you need necessarily to fly through $v_1$. –  Srivatsan Sep 8 '11 at 18:51
Okay, I can see it now. The non-special points form a simplex and if we draw unit hyperspheres around each vertex, there is no place where they all intersect. –  Tim Seguine Sep 8 '11 at 19:17
So a quick question about Johnson-Lindenstrauss. Does it guarantee distortion bounds for any dimension reducing map that is at least Lipschitz? –  Tim Seguine Sep 11 '11 at 11:26

This doesn't necessarily have a solution. Consider the triangle inequality.

However, assuming the weights obey the triangle inequality, the answer is $d = n - 1$. The algorithm adds nodes one at a time. After $k$ nodes are placed in $R^{k-1}$, the $(k+1)$st node lies at the intersection of $k$ $(k-1)$-dimensional spheres in $R^k$, which generically is a pair of disrete points (and finding such a point is not too difficult). Adding more dimensions doesn't help you any, because you only care about the displacement relative to the hyperplane the previous $k$ nodes lie on.

Not sure if there are other necessary relations in addition to the triangle inequality, but I don't think so.

share|improve this answer
I cannot state any necessary conditions off the top of my head, but surely triangle inequality is not sufficient. See my answer for a counterexample. –  Srivatsan Sep 8 '11 at 15:49

Try doing a search using the string "distance matrix" With various definitions about what it takes to be a distance there is a literature about isometric embeddings of "distances" which obey various rules. In particular, in phylogenetics there is an interest in knowing when a collection of distances arise from a tree or a weighted tree.

share|improve this answer
A lot of what I have read so far takes "distance matrix" to mean any edge weight matrix that satisfies the properties of a metric. But I did find some interesting and pertinent facts about the spectrum of such matrices. –  Tim Seguine Sep 11 '11 at 11:31

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.