9
$\begingroup$

Definition Let a metric space $(X,d)$ be given. A similitude is a function $f: X \to X$ such that, for all $x,y \in X$, $d(f(x),f(y)) = r \cdot d(x,y)$ for some positive real number $r>0$.

Questions:
1. What is the name of metric space in which every similitude is surjective?

For example $\mathbb{R}$ is such a space (I think) but $\mathbb{Z}$ is not.

2. The set of all surjective similitudes is always a group. However, unlike in $\mathbb{R}^n$, it is not always the case that, for each $r>0$, there exists a similitude $f:X \to X$ with scaling factor $r$.

What is the name of such a space, i.e. a space for which $SurjSim(X) \cong \mathbb{R}^+ \times Iso(X)$?

(Where $Iso(X)$ is the group of isometries of $X$.)

3. For any space as in 2., does $Iso(X)$ only determine $d$ up to a positive constant?

This is true for the Euclidean metric on $\mathbb{R}^n$.

4. Is 2. equivalent to the isometry group $Iso(X)$ being a homogeneous space with respect to $\mathbb{R}^+$? Or even to $X$ itself being a homogeneous space with respect to $\mathbb{R}^+$?

For example, any finite-dimensional vector space satisfies these properties -- is there a name for more general spaces which are "scaleable" like this? Homogeneous space can refer to any type of group action, including the group action of a group $G$ on its corresponding torsor which denotes a notion of translation, not of scaling.

Note: I think these may have something to do with the notions of (complete) convex metric spaces (for $r<1$) and (complete) externally convex metric spaces$^*$ (for $r>1$).

*See the third page, p. 231, here.

Also note that any geodesic space is a convex metric space as a result of Lemma 2.2. (ii) here.

So I think it is possible to show that an externally convex geodesic space satisfies 2., using the fact that any geodesic space is complete, Lemma 2.2(ii), and binary search.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Are you sure that the two statements in your 2nd item are equivalent? Assuming that for $X$ there are similitudes for every $r \in \Bbb R$ (and moreover that $|X| > 1$) only gives us $SurjSim(X)/Iso(X) \cong \Bbb R^+$. To get a product, we would need a family $\lambda_r$ of surjective similitudes of factor $r\in \Bbb R^+$, each commuting with every isometry on $X$, satisfying $\lambda_{rs} = \lambda_r \circ \lambda_s$ for all $r, s>0$, and to me the existence of such a family is not obvious. $\endgroup$ – Marc Paul Apr 2 '17 at 21:32
  • $\begingroup$ @MarcPaul No I am not certain at all. I thought I would make the bold claim hoping either (1) I was right or (2) someone would correct me and in the process figure out the answer. If you want, you can edit the post to split the claim into a separate question, since, as you correctly point out, it is extremely speculative. $\endgroup$ – Chill2Macht Apr 3 '17 at 5:49
0
$\begingroup$

Note: I said in the post I think that any externally convex geodesic space satisfies 2. -- however this is not necessarily true, even for an externally convex geodesic space which is also an M-space. At the very least, the simple method I had in mind (which works for Euclidean space) doesn't work, for example, for hyperbolic space. See the answer to this question: Is there a counterexample to this metric analog of the side-angle-side (SAS) postulate?

3. I believe the answer is yes, based on the following.

Claim: The condition in 2. is equivalent to the following:

For every $\lambda > 0$, the metric space $(X,d)$ is isometric to $(X, \lambda d)$.

Proof of claim: Assume 2. is true. Then for any $\lambda > 0$, there exists a surjective similitude $f: (X,d) \to (X,d)$ with scaling factor $r = \frac{1}{\lambda} > 0$. If we consider $f$ as a function $$\tilde{f}:(X,d) \to (X, \lambda d)$$ then $\tilde{f}$ is the same set map as $f$, and since $f$ is bijective, since it is surjective by assumption and any similitude is injective, $\tilde{f}$ is bijective. Moreover, $\tilde{f}$ is an isometry between $(X,d)$ and $(X, \lambda d)$ since: $$ (\lambda d)(\tilde{f}(x_1), \tilde{f}(x_2)) = \lambda \cdot d(f(x_1),f(x_2))=\lambda \cdot \left(\frac{1}{\lambda} \cdot d(x_1, x_2) \right) = d(x_1, x_2) $$

Now assume that, for every $\lambda > 0$, the metric space $(X,d)$ is isometric to $(X, \lambda d)$.

Then for every $r > 0$, there exists a bijective function $\tilde{f}: (X,d) \to (X, \frac{1}{r}$d) such that $$\left(\frac{1}{r}d\right)(\tilde{f}(x_1), \tilde{f}(x_2)) = d(x_1,x_2) $$ If we define $f:(X,d) \to (X,d)$ such that it is the same set map as $\tilde{f}$, then we have that $$r \cdot d(x_1,x_2) = r \cdot \left(\frac{1}{r}d\right)(\tilde{f}(x_1), \tilde{f}(x_2)) = r \cdot \left(\frac{1}{r} \cdot d(f(x_1), f(x_2))\right) = d(f(x_1),f(x_2)) $$ Thus $f$ is a similitude, and moreover $f$ is surjective since $\tilde{f}$ is bijective by assumption. $\square$

EDIT: I realize that the original post has a mistake -- in 2. it should say surjective similitude, not just any similitude. Although a space with the property as originally written would also be interesting -- it's just that the similitudes might be isometries into $(X, \lambda d)$, not isometric isomorphisms, i.e. not bijective -- any similitude is automatically injective, for the same reason any isometry is automatically injective, a fact I also should have mentioned in the original post.

Anyway, if we have 2., then by the argument above, this is equivalent to $(X,d)$ being isometric to $(X, \lambda d)$ for every $\lambda > 0$. Thus, any isometry $\tilde{f}$ in $Iso(X)$ is equivalent to a surjective similitude $f$ and vice versa. Thus it should follow that $Iso(X)$ only determines the metric $d$ up to a positive constant $\lambda > 0$, although I am not sure how to phrase this argument rigorously at the moment.

I think from 3. then it might follow at least that the group of surjective similitudes is at least the semidirect product of $\mathbb{R}^+$ and the isometry group, although I'm not sure. Anyway, then assuming that a space $X$ satisfying 2. is also a space where the group action of $Iso(X)$ is sufficiently nice, I think it follows that $X$ is homogeneous with respect to $\mathbb{R}^+$, although I am also not sure.

$\endgroup$

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.