when playing around with metric spaces, one might notice that certain metric spaces can be "modeled" by other metric spaces. For instance, let
be a set, and let
be the discrete metric on X. Then we can "model" this metric space by the familiar Euclidean metric on
(the set looks like an equilateral triangle with edge length 1). Similarly, with
, the metric space
can be modeled by
with the sup norm metric, by
with the taxicab metric, or by
with the Euclidean metric.
What, precisely, do we mean by "modeling" metric spaces? Let
be a metric space, and let
be a metric space. Then it seems like we want to say that given points
, we have
, where
are the corresponding points in
. We want some bijection f that maps these points for us. So our final notion is this: Y models X iff there exists some bijection
such that
for all
.
And the above is just the definition of isometric metric spaces.
Questions:
- is the discrete metric always isometric to R^something with the taxicab/sup norm/Euclidean metric? Given
, we can consider
and define
or something, where
such that
and zero everywhere else. (and similarly for the other metrics)
- call X more powerful than Y if X can model more metric spaces by taking appropriate subspaces of itself. are the euclidean metric, taxicab metric, and sup norm metric equally powerful?
- is there a metric space that cannot be modeled by the Euclidean metric?