isarmathlib-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Isarmathlib-devel] Metric spaces


From: daniel
Subject: Re: [Isarmathlib-devel] Metric spaces
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:05:59 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1

Hi!

>I am curious if some kind of reverse of 6 is true.

I don't think there is a reverse of 6, because the balls of quasipseudometrics also form a base.
Quasi means that "d(x,y)=d(y,x)" doesn't need to hold.
Pseudo means that "d(x,y)=e --> x=y" doesn't need to hold.

The base condition for the balls obtained out of a set $S$, an ordered group $(G,*,<)$ and a map $d:SxS\to G$ states:

    Given $z$ such that $d(x,z)<r1$ and $d(y,z)<r2$ then exists $a\in S$ and $r3\in G$ where

    1.$d(a,z)<r3$
    2.$\forall t\in S. d(a,t)<r3 --> d(x,t)<r1 \<and> d(y,t)<r2$

From this I don't see how to extract metric properties out of $d$, may be you get an idea.

Daniel
Rephrasing a bit:

1. We start with a linearly non-trivial ordered group $(G,*,<)$, a set $S$ and an application $d:SxS->G$
2. We build the order topology associated to that order .
3. We considered the family of applications $d_x:S->G$ indexed by $S$; where $d_x(y)=d(x,y)$.
4. We build the initial topology in $S$ associated to the family of maps ${d_x:S->G| x\in S}$
5 On the other hand we consider the collection of "balls" generated by d.
6. If d satisfies $d(x,y)<= d(y,z)*d(z,x)$ and $d(x,y)=e <-> x=y$ the collection of balls from 5 satisfies the base condition and the generated topology is the same as the one in 4.
I am curious if some kind of reverse of 6 is true. That would tell us why the definition of metric has to be as it is.

Slawek

From: daniel <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Isarmathlib-devel] Metric spaces

>Why not a (nontrivial) linearly ordered group then?

Here is what I think happends:

1. We start with a linearly non-trivial ordered group $(G,*,<)$, a set $S$ and an application $d:SxS->G$
such that $d(x,y)<= d(y,z)*d(z,x)$ and $d(x,y)=e <-> x=y$.
2. We build the order topology associated to that order (I'll try to add this example).
3. We considered the family of applications $d_x:S->G$ indexed by $S$; where $d_x(y)=d(x,y)$.
4. We build the initial topology in $S$ associated to the family of maps ${d_x:S->G| x\in S}$ (I'll
try to add this example too).

My intuition tells me that this initial topology is the one we get in the MetricSpace_ZF.thy using a metric
which takes values in an ordered group. This is only an intuition, I'm not 100% sure.

>If you decide to assume linearly ordered group I suggest you don't do your development inside the group3
>locale. It uses multiplicative notation which would look really weird with metric spaces, especially if
>commutativity of the group operation turns out to be needed.

I already did the new development in group4=group3+(linear order)+(non trivial). Commutativity is not needed.

I suggest to change the name of this construction and reserve the "Metric Space" notion when in use of a subfield of a model of the real numbers.

Daniel

PD: I'll upload the new files shortly.
If you decide to assume linearly ordered group I suggest you don't do your development inside the group3 locale. It uses multiplicative notation which would look really weird with metric spaces, especially if commutativity of the group operation turns out to be needed.

Slawekk

From: daniel <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Isarmathlib-devel] Metric spaces

I considered you're ideas and I think you're right. Changing the definition of metric, we can get metric_positive in a linearly ordered group. This new definition is equivalent to the previous one in an ordered ring. I'm not 100% sure, so let me get you back on that in a couple of days.

I'd be utterly surprised that only a linearly ordered group is necessary.

Daniel

Daniel,
I am surprised that it is sufficient to have an ordered-ring valued metric to get a topology. Why not a (nontrivial) linearly ordered group then? I think you can show
metric_positive without using the unit, same with  balls_coverS. Am I missing something?

Slawekk
 


_______________________________________________
Isarmathlib-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/isarmathlib-devel


_______________________________________________
Isarmathlib-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/isarmathlib-devel




_______________________________________________
Isarmathlib-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/isarmathlib-devel


_______________________________________________
Isarmathlib-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/isarmathlib-devel




_______________________________________________
Isarmathlib-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/isarmathlib-devel


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]