Gromov-Hausdorff convergence for locally finite metric spaces - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net 2013-06-19T18:48:19Z http://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/82692 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdf http://mathoverflow.net/questions/82692/gromov-hausdorff-convergence-for-locally-finite-metric-spaces Gromov-Hausdorff convergence for locally finite metric spaces Valerio Capraro 2011-12-05T10:09:29Z 2011-12-05T13:07:17Z <p>This question might be very easy, but I am little confused by the Gromov-Hausdorff convergence.</p> <p>My situation is the following: I have a fixed set $X$ which is finite or countable; on it I have locally finite metrics $d_n$ and $d$. For the application that I have in mind, I've found that a good notion of convergence of the sequence of spaces $(X,d_n)$ to the space $(X,d)$ would be described by the uniform convergence of $d_n$ to $d$. Therefore, I am wondering if this convergence is equivalent to Gromov-Hausdorff's convergence.</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Question:</strong> Are the following statements equivalent:</p> <ol> <li>$d_n\rightarrow d$ uniformly</li> <li>For any point $x\in X$, the sequence of pointed locally compact metric spaces $(X,d_n,x)$ converges to $(X,d,x)$ in Gromov-Hausdorff sense?</li> </ol> </blockquote> <p>It would sound strange for my intuition if they turn out to be different, but I am in trouble to write down a proof, basically because I am quite new in the definition of Gromov-Hausdorff convergence and I am pretty confused/scared by all these isometric embeddings one should consider.</p> <p>Thank you in advance for any help,</p> <p>Valerio</p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/82692/gromov-hausdorff-convergence-for-locally-finite-metric-spaces/82693#82693 Answer by Tom Leinster for Gromov-Hausdorff convergence for locally finite metric spaces Tom Leinster 2011-12-05T10:45:34Z 2011-12-05T10:45:34Z <p>No: 2 does not imply 1. </p> <p>Let $X$ be the set $\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}$. Define a metric $d$ on $X$ by $$d((x, y), (x', y')) = 2|x-x'| + |y-y'|$$ and define a metric $e$ on $X$ by $$e((x, y), (x', y')) = |x-x'| + 2|y-y'|.$$ Then $d \neq e$, but for each $x \in X$, the pointed metric spaces $(X, d, x)$ and $(X, e, x)$ are isometric in a basepoint-preserving way (rotate by 90 degrees about $x$).</p> <p>Now consider the sequence $$d, e, d, e, \ldots$$ of metrics on $X$. It does not converge uniformly (or even pointwise). However, the sequence $$(X, d, x), (X, e, x), (X, d, x), (X, e, x), \ldots$$ of pointed metric spaces does converge in the Gromov-Hausdorff sense: since they're all pointedly isometric, the distance between each element of the sequence and the next is always zero. </p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/82692/gromov-hausdorff-convergence-for-locally-finite-metric-spaces/82699#82699 Answer by Pablo Shmerkin for Gromov-Hausdorff convergence for locally finite metric spaces Pablo Shmerkin 2011-12-05T13:07:17Z 2011-12-05T13:07:17Z <p>1) does imply 2). An alternative equivalent definition of Hausdorff-Gromov distance is as follows. A <strong>correspondence</strong> between two sets $X, Y$ is a subset of $X\times Y$ which intersects each horizontal and each vertical fiber. Then, given two metric spaces $(X,d)$, $(Y,e)$, their Hausdorff-Gromov distance is</p> <p>$$\frac12 \inf_R \max_{(x,y), (x',y')\in R} |d(x,x')-e(y,y')|,$$</p> <p>where the infimum is over all correspondences (This is Theorem 7.3.25 in the book of Burago-Burago-Ivanov).</p> <p>When the underlying space is the same, the diagonal correspondence gives that the Hausdorff-Gromov distance between $(X,d)$ and $(X,e)$ is at most half the uniform distance between the metrics $d$ and $e$ (likewise for pointed metric spaces). In particular, 1) implies 2).</p>