Equivalence of metrics

From HandWiki
Short description: Mathematical notion

In mathematics, two metrics on the same underlying set are said to be equivalent if the resulting metric spaces share certain properties. This notion generalizes equivalence of norms to arbitrary metric spaces.

Throughout the article, X will denote a non-empty set and d1 and d2 will denote two metrics on X.

Topological equivalence

The two metrics d1 and d2 are said to be topologically equivalent if they generate the same topology on X. The adverb topologically is often dropped.[1] There are multiple ways of expressing this condition:

The following are sufficient but not necessary conditions for topological equivalence:

  • there exists a strictly increasing, continuous, and subadditive f:+ such that d2=fd1.[2]
  • for each xX, there exist positive constants α and β such that, for every point yX, αd1(x,y)d2(x,y)βd1(x,y).

Strong equivalence

Two metrics d1 and d2 on X are strongly or bilipschitz equivalent (sometimes also uniformly equivalent although that's misleading; see example below), if and only if there exist positive constants α and β such that, for every x,yX,

αd1(x,y)d2(x,y)βd1(x,y).

In contrast to the sufficient condition for topological equivalence listed above, strong equivalence requires that there is a single set of constants that holds for every pair of points in X, rather than potentially different constants associated with each point of X.

Strong equivalence of two metrics implies topological equivalence, but not vice versa. For example, the metrics d1(x,y)=|xy| and d2(x,y)=|tan(x)tan(y)| on the interval (π2,π2) are topologically equivalent, but not strongly equivalent. In fact, this interval is bounded under one of these metrics but not the other. On the other hand, strong equivalences always take bounded sets to bounded sets.

Equivalence of metrics from perspective of categories

If 𝒞 is a category whose objects are all metric spaces and morphisms are some continuous maps (i.e. a wide subcategory of Top), we can say that metrics d1,d2 are 𝒞-equivalent if the identity function I:(X,d1)(X,d2) is an isomorphism of 𝒞.

Topological equivalence of metrics is obtained by taking morphisms of 𝒞 to be all continuous maps, and strong equivalence is obtained by taking all Lipschitz maps. If the morphisms are taken to be non-expansive maps or isometries, then d1,d2 are equivalent if and only if d1=d2. Other examples include to take morphisms to be all similarities, so that d1(x,y)=cd2(x,y) for some c>0, or all uniformly continuous maps, obtaining uniform equivalence. Uniformly equivalent metrics in this sense do not need to be strongly equivalent. For example, if X=[0,1],d1(x,y)=|xy|,d2(x,y)=|x2y2|, then d1,d2 are uniformly but not strongly equivalent.

Relation with equivalence of norms

When X is a vector space and the two metrics d1 and d2 are those induced by norms A and B, respectively, then strong equivalence is equivalent to the condition that, for all xX, αxAxBβxA For linear operators between normed vector spaces, Lipschitz continuity is equivalent to continuity—an operator satisfying either of these conditions is called bounded.[3] Therefore, in this case, d1 and d2 are topologically equivalent if and only if they are strongly equivalent; the norms A and B are simply said to be equivalent.

In finite dimensional vector spaces, all metrics induced by a norm, including the euclidean metric, the taxicab metric, and the Chebyshev distance, are equivalent.[4]

Properties preserved by equivalence

  • The continuity of a function is preserved if either the domain or range is remetrized by an equivalent metric, but uniform continuity is preserved only by strongly equivalent metrics.[5]
  • The differentiability of a function f:UV, for V a normed space and U a subset of a normed space, is preserved if either the domain or range is renormed by an equivalent norm.[6]
  • A metric that is strongly equivalent to a complete metric is also complete; the same is not true of equivalent metrics because homeomorphisms do not preserve completeness. For example, since (0,1) and are homeomorphic, the homeomorphism induces a metric on (0,1) which is complete because is, and generates the same topology as the usual one, yet (0,1) with the usual metric is not complete, because the sequence (2n)n is Cauchy but not convergent. (It is not Cauchy in the induced metric.)

Notes

  1. Bishop and Goldberg, p. 10.
  2. Ok, p. 137, footnote 12.
  3. Carothers 2000, Theorem 8.20.
  4. Carothers 2000, Theorem 8.22.
  5. Ok, p. 209.
  6. Cartan, p. 27.

References

Template:Metric spaces