0
$\begingroup$

Suppose $X$ is a non empty set and let $d_1, d_2$ be two metric on $X$, so we have two metric spaces over the same set $X$: $(X,d_1), (X,d_2).$

Suppose that there exists a surjective bi-Lipschitz map $\phi: (X,d_1)\to (X,d_2)$. Can we conclude that $d_1$ and $d_2$ are equivalent?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ what definition do you use for two metrics are equivalent? They generate the same topology or simply $$cd_1(x,y)\leq d_2(x,y) \leq Cd_1(x,y).$$ $\endgroup$ – Xiao Sep 24 '15 at 14:47
  • $\begingroup$ They generate the same topology $\endgroup$ – batman Sep 24 '15 at 15:58
2
$\begingroup$

You did not specify what definition of equivalence you are using, but let me point out an example.

Take $X=\mathbb{R}$ with its usual metric $d_1(x,y)=|x-y|$. Take $\phi : X \to X$ to be a horrible, awful, very bad bijection. Do your worst. Make it discontuous everywhere, etc. etc. Define $d_2(x,y) = d_1(\phi(x),\phi(y))$. Then I see no reasonable definition of equivalence of metrics under which one would say that $d_1$ and $d_2$ are equivalent.

ADDED: With the definition of equivalence given by the OP in comments, the metrics $d_1$ and $d_2$ are not equivalent, indeed the identity map is not even continuous.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Unless your definition of equivalence has a built-in invariance under bijections of $X$. In other words, your definition of equivalence would have to be formatted as follows: $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Sep 24 '15 at 15:10
  • $\begingroup$ - Two metrics $d_1(x,y) : X \times X \to [0,\infty)$ and $d_2(x,y) : X \times X \to [0,\infty)$ are equivalent if there exists a bijection $\phi : X \to X$ such that the functions $d_1(\phi(x),\phi(y)) : X \times X \to [0,\infty)$ and $d_2(x,y) : X \times X \to [0,\infty)$ are related by [RELATION]. $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Sep 24 '15 at 15:10
  • $\begingroup$ $(X, d_1)$ and $(X, d_2)$ would even be isometric in this case. $\endgroup$ – Cloudscape Sep 24 '15 at 15:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Cloudscape: My example would, yes, where [RELATION] is "equality". $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Sep 24 '15 at 17:01
  • $\begingroup$ @LeeMosher: Thanks for your answer. My definition of equivalence is that the identity maps $I:(X,d_1)\to (X,d_2)$ and $I:(X,d_2)\to(X,d_1)$ are continuous. $\endgroup$ – batman Sep 25 '15 at 7:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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