Skip to main content
replaced the link to the arXiv front end; see https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/5124/is-it-time-to-replace-links-to-the-ucdavis-arxiv-frontend
Source Link
Martin Sleziak
  • 4.7k
  • 4
  • 35
  • 40

Here an integral of $\mathbb{R}$ trees means the set of functions from a measure space $\mathcal{F}$ to a measurable field of based $\mathbb{R}$-trees over $\mathcal{F}$, so that the squared distance from the basepoint is integrable, as described in Proposition 44 and Remark 45 of http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0894-0347-06-00525-Xhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0894-0347-06-00525-X .

For $k=4$, the answer to Question 2 appears to be affirmative. Petrunin gives an elegant characterization of which squared-distances between 4 points can be realized in a CAT(0) space: http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/1411.5329https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5329 Let me sketch the argument.

Here an integral of $\mathbb{R}$ trees means the set of functions from a measure space $\mathcal{F}$ to a measurable field of based $\mathbb{R}$-trees over $\mathcal{F}$, so that the squared distance from the basepoint is integrable, as described in Proposition 44 and Remark 45 of http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0894-0347-06-00525-X .

For $k=4$, the answer to Question 2 appears to be affirmative. Petrunin gives an elegant characterization of which squared-distances between 4 points can be realized in a CAT(0) space: http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/1411.5329 Let me sketch the argument.

Here an integral of $\mathbb{R}$ trees means the set of functions from a measure space $\mathcal{F}$ to a measurable field of based $\mathbb{R}$-trees over $\mathcal{F}$, so that the squared distance from the basepoint is integrable, as described in Proposition 44 and Remark 45 of https://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0894-0347-06-00525-X .

For $k=4$, the answer to Question 2 appears to be affirmative. Petrunin gives an elegant characterization of which squared-distances between 4 points can be realized in a CAT(0) space: https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5329 Let me sketch the argument.

replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
Source Link

(Moved the question about extreme points here: What are the extremal CAT(0) metrics?What are the extremal CAT(0) metrics? )

This is a version of this old question: Length inequalities in trees and CAT(0) spacesLength inequalities in trees and CAT(0) spaces However, I started off asking the earlier question in a slightly confusing dual form, so I wanted to restate it with a more easily-understood question first.

(Moved the question about extreme points here: What are the extremal CAT(0) metrics? )

This is a version of this old question: Length inequalities in trees and CAT(0) spaces However, I started off asking the earlier question in a slightly confusing dual form, so I wanted to restate it with a more easily-understood question first.

(Moved the question about extreme points here: What are the extremal CAT(0) metrics? )

This is a version of this old question: Length inequalities in trees and CAT(0) spaces However, I started off asking the earlier question in a slightly confusing dual form, so I wanted to restate it with a more easily-understood question first.

added 121 characters in body; edited title
Source Link
Dylan Thurston
  • 10.1k
  • 1
  • 44
  • 66

Does every CAT(0) space embed in a productmeasurable integral of $\mathbb{R}$-trees?

Question 1. Does every CAT(0) space embed isometrically inside an (infinite) product (or integral, see below)integral of $\mathbb{R}$-trees?

Here the productan integral of two metric spaces has$\mathbb{R}$ trees means the set of functions from a measure space $\ell^2$ square-root-of-sum-of$\mathcal{F}$ to a measurable field of based $\mathbb{R}$-squares metrictrees over $\mathcal{F}$, as in Euclidean space. Noteso that $\mathbb{R}$the squared distance from the basepoint is a treeintegrable, so any convex subset of Euclidean space embedsas described in a productProposition 44 and Remark 45 of treeshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0894-0347-06-00525-X .

(Originally the question referred to $\ell^2$ products of $\mathbb{R}$-trees, but of course most CAT(0) spaces areNicolas Monod below gave an argument that these do not embed in Euclidean spacesuffice, and suggested the generalization.)

Nicolas Monod gave an elegant argument against Question 1. However, in the same answer, he also suggests a generalization where you look at embeddings in a measurable integral of trees using products. So I accepted his answer, but I'm also interested inedited the question to refer to integrals instead, which is the natural generalization.

Does every CAT(0) space embed in a product of $\mathbb{R}$-trees?

Question 1. Does every CAT(0) space embed isometrically inside an (infinite) product (or integral, see below) of $\mathbb{R}$-trees?

Here the product of two metric spaces has the $\ell^2$ square-root-of-sum-of-squares metric, as in Euclidean space. Note that $\mathbb{R}$ is a tree, so any convex subset of Euclidean space embeds in a product of trees, but of course most CAT(0) spaces are do not embed in Euclidean space.

Nicolas Monod gave an elegant argument against Question 1. However, in the same answer, he also suggests a generalization where you look at embeddings in a measurable integral of trees. So I accepted his answer, but I'm also interested in the generalization.

Does every CAT(0) space embed in a measurable integral of $\mathbb{R}$-trees?

Question 1. Does every CAT(0) space embed isometrically inside an integral of $\mathbb{R}$-trees?

Here an integral of $\mathbb{R}$ trees means the set of functions from a measure space $\mathcal{F}$ to a measurable field of based $\mathbb{R}$-trees over $\mathcal{F}$, so that the squared distance from the basepoint is integrable, as described in Proposition 44 and Remark 45 of http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0894-0347-06-00525-X .

(Originally the question referred to $\ell^2$ products of $\mathbb{R}$-trees, but Nicolas Monod below gave an argument that these do not suffice, and suggested the generalization.)

Nicolas Monod gave an elegant argument against Question 1 using products. I accepted his answer, but edited the question to refer to integrals instead, which is the natural generalization.

added 27 characters in body
Source Link
Dylan Thurston
  • 10.1k
  • 1
  • 44
  • 66
Loading
added 461 characters in body
Source Link
Dylan Thurston
  • 10.1k
  • 1
  • 44
  • 66
Loading
added 125 characters in body; edited title
Source Link
Dylan Thurston
  • 10.1k
  • 1
  • 44
  • 66
Loading
deleted 570 characters in body
Source Link
Dylan Thurston
  • 10.1k
  • 1
  • 44
  • 66
Loading
Source Link
Dylan Thurston
  • 10.1k
  • 1
  • 44
  • 66
Loading