Tell me more ×
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.

Is there a set of points in $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that every positive distance is realized by exactly one pair of points in the set?

I can see that if it exists, the set must be uncountable and unbounded, and cannot contain any line segment.

share|improve this question
Wrote a number of comments, but realized that I did not understand the question. Sorry about that. – JBeardz Dec 1 '11 at 23:43

1 Answer

up vote 14 down vote accepted

The answer is yes.

Say that a subset $X$ of $\mathbb{R}$ is metrically rigid if each positive distance is realized by at most one pair of points in $X$.

Let $\{d_\xi:\xi<2^\omega\}$ be an enumeration of the positive reals. Let $X_0=\varnothing$. Suppose that $\eta<2^\omega$ and for each $\xi<\eta$ we have a set $X_\xi\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ such that for each $\xi<\eta$ the following hold:

$\qquad(1)_\xi: X_\zeta\subseteq X_\xi$ whenever $\zeta\le\xi$;
$\qquad(2)_\xi: |X_\xi|\le\max \{|\xi|,\omega \}$;
$\qquad(3)_\xi: X_\xi$ is metrically rigid; and
$\qquad(4)_\xi: d_\xi$ is realized by some pair of points of $X_\xi$.

Let $Y_\eta=\bigcup\limits_{\xi<\eta}X_\xi$; it’s easy to see that $Y_\eta$ is metrically rigid and that $|Y_\eta|\le\max\{|\eta|,\omega\}$.

If $d_\eta$ is realized by some pair of points of $Y_\eta$, let $X_\eta=Y_\eta$, and observe that $(1)_\eta-(4)_\eta$ hold.

Begin Edit:

Otherwise, let

$$\begin{align*}S_\eta&=\{x\in\mathbb{R}:\exists \xi<\eta\;\exists\zeta\le\eta\;\big(|x-x_\xi|=d_\zeta\big)\}\;,\\ M_\eta&=\left\{\frac12(x_\xi+x_\zeta):\xi,\zeta<\eta\right\},\\ C_\eta&=\left\{x\in\mathbb{R}:\exists y\in M_\eta\left(|x-y|=\frac{d_\eta}2\right)\right\},\text{ and}\\ Z_\eta&=S_\eta\cup M_\eta\cup C_\eta\;. \end{align*}$$

$|Z_\eta|\le\max\{2|\eta|^2,\omega\}<2^\omega$, so we can choose $x_\eta,y_\eta\in\mathbb{R}\setminus Z_\eta$ so that $|x_\eta-y_\eta|=d_\eta$. Set $X_\eta=Y_\eta\cup\{x_\eta,y_\eta\}$, and again observe that $(1)_\eta-(4)_\eta$ hold.

Only the metric rigidity of $Y_\eta$ might be in doubt. Clearly any violation must involve at least one of the two new points and a distance not in $\{d_\xi:\xi<\eta\}$. This could happen in one of two ways. First, $x_\eta$ or $y_\eta$ could be the midpoint of two points of $Y_\eta$, but this is excluded by the inclusion of $M_\eta$ in $Z_\eta$. Secondly, there might be $x,y\in Y_\eta$ such that $|x-x_\eta|=|y-y_\eta|$. But in that case the pairs $\{x,y\}$ and $\{x_\eta,y_\eta\}$ have the same midpoint, so this possibility is excluded by the inclusion of $C_\eta$ in $Z_\eta$.

My thanks to Arthur Fischer for catching an oversight in the original version of this section.

End Edit.

Thus, the construction goes through to $2^\omega$.

Finally, let $X=\bigcup\limits_{\xi<2^\omega}X_\xi$; then $X$ is a metrically rigid subset of $\mathbb{R}$ (and by abuse of terminology of $\mathbb{R}^n$ for any $n$) that realized every positive distance.

Added: Some may find it interesting that the continuum hypothesis is equivalent to the statement that $\mathbb{R}$ is the union of countably many metrically rigid sets; see Corollary 7 of this old paper. ($\mathbb{R}$ is not the union of finitely many such sets.)

share|improve this answer
There appears to be a small gap in your justification. When moving from $Y_\eta$ to $X_\eta$ (in the case where points must be added) you must also ensure that (1) neither $x_\eta$ nor $y_\eta$ lie mid-way between two (distinct) points of $Y_\eta$, and (2) $|x-x_\eta| \neq |y-y_\eta|$ for all $x,y \in Y_\eta$. (1) can be taken care of by a simple modification of the set $Z_\eta$, while (2) seems to require looking at the set of all pairs from $\mathbb{R} \setminus Z_\eta$ which are $d_\eta$ apart. The induction does seems to go through, however. – Arthur Fischer Dec 2 '11 at 13:33
@Arthur: You’re absolutely right; I was trying to simplify the argument and overdid it. It should be okay now, but I’d appreciate it if you cast an independent eye over it. – Brian M. Scott Dec 2 '11 at 17:39
Looks perfect to me! – Arthur Fischer Dec 2 '11 at 19:25
@Arthur: Thanks! – Brian M. Scott Dec 2 '11 at 19:36

Your Answer

 
discard

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.