16
$\begingroup$

Let $A \subset X$ and $B \subset X$ be two isometric subsets of a metric space $X$. So there is an isometry $f: A \to B$. Say that a metric space $X$ has the superposition property (my terminology) if, for every pair of isometric subsets $A$, $B$, there is an isometry of $X$, $F: X \to X$, that superimposes $A$ onto $B$: $F(A) = B$, i.e. $F$ places $A$ on top of $B$.

Which metric spaces have this superposition property?

Euclidean space $\mathbb{E}^d$ has this property. But it seems the punctured plane does not: e.g. if $A$ is the point $(1,0)$ and $B$ is the point $(-2,0)$, then (I believe) there is not an isometry of the whole punctured plane that maps $A$ onto $B$.

Has this property been studied before? If so, under what name? I am (clearly) unschooled in this area. Thanks for pointers and/or examples!

$\endgroup$
4
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ In other words you're asking which spaces have the property that an isometry of subsets can be extended to an isometry of the whole space $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 4, 2013 at 1:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It seems that if you start with a Riemannian manifold with this property it must be highly symmetric. For example, it must be a symmetric space: take a unit speed geodesic through a point $p$ and consider the space $A = \gamma([-\epsilon,\epsilon))$ and $B = \gamma((-\epsilon,\epsilon])$. Then the associated isometry should be a inversion around $p$. I have no idea if this is sufficient, although it would be pretty cool if it was. Also, I'm not quite sure what to do if you modified your definition to demand that $A,B$ are closed. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 4, 2013 at 1:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Anthony: I wonder if it is possible that $F$ maps $A$ onto $B$ but not identically to how $f$ maps $A$ to $B$ point by point...? For example, suppose $A$ and $B$ are congruent disks, and $f$ spins and translates $A$, but $F$ just translates $A$. Then $F$ is not an extension of $f$. (I am unsure of myself here...) $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 4, 2013 at 2:18
  • $\begingroup$ This question mathoverflow.net/q/64269 is nearly a duplicate. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 21, 2023 at 21:49

5 Answers 5

20
$\begingroup$

If the metric space is locally compact and intrinsic, then you get only spheres, Euclidean spaces and hyperbolic spaces. [See Metric methods in Finsler... by Busemann and Sur certaines classes d'espaces... by Tits (1955); thanks to Linus for the reference]

Without assuming local compactness, the same conclusion holds assuming local uniqueness of geodesics [See Metric foundations of geometry. I by Birkhoff]. Without this extra assumption you also get the so-called universal $\mathbb{R}$-trees of finite valence; they are complete, but not separable.

If the metric is not intrinsic you get discrete spaces and yet Cantor-like spaces build on them (who knows what else).

Comments

  • In the Urysohn universal space $\mathbb{U}$ the property holds for compact subsets; that is, any distance-preserving map $K\to\mathbb{U}$ defined on a compact subset $K\subset \mathbb{U}$ can be extended to an isometry $\mathbb{U}\leftrightarrow\mathbb{U}$.

  • The real projective space is not three-point-homogeneous --- a closed geodesic contains three points on equal distance from each other, and there is an isometric three-point set that does not lie on a closed geodesic.

  • See also a related question.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ @Anton: Thanks, especially for the connection to the Urysohn universal space! $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 4, 2013 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Anton: isn't there a condition that the subsets be compact? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 26, 2014 at 6:27
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure what "the property" of the Urysohn universal space is meant. Just in case, let me mention, that Urysohn theorem theorem is about the homogeneity with respect to finite subspaces (it doesn't mention compacta). However, that finite homogeneity is very strong, it is characteristic. $\endgroup$
    – Wlod AA
    Commented Oct 2, 2022 at 5:30
7
$\begingroup$

A very natural concept arises if you should insist that $A$ and $B$ are small in some way, such as insisting that they are finite.

For example, the countable random graph under the shortest-path metric satisfies this version of the superposition property. The reason is that any partial isomorphisms of two finite induced subgraphs of the random graph extends to an automorphism of the random graph. (Meanwhile, the random graph does not have the full superposition property, since it is isomorphic to a proper subset of itself.)

We might define that a metric space has the $\omega$-superposition property, if any isometry of finite subspaces entends to an isometry of the whole space with itself. More generally, a space has the $\kappa$-superposition property, for a cardinal $\kappa$, when isometries of subspaces of size less than $\kappa$ extend to isometries of the whole space with itself.

This is a natural instance of what is known in model theory as a homogeneous structure, a structure for which any partial isomorphism of finitely generated substructures extends to an automorphism of the entire structure. This is essentially what is going on in your case, if you should restrict to finite $A$ and $B$ (and if also you should insist that the larger isometry $F$ agree with $f$ on $A$). More generally, we have the concept of a $\kappa$-homogeneous structure, for a cardinal $\kappa$, which means that any partial isomorphism of substructures of size less than $\kappa$ extends to an automorphism.

For example, structures arising as a Fraisse limit are always homogeneous. Also, every saturated structure is homogenous.

$\endgroup$
2
6
$\begingroup$

If you restrict sets A, B to be simply points, then you are asking for spaces which have the property that for all points A,B\in X there exists an isometry T from X onto X so that T(A)=B (am I understanding you correctly?). Such spaces are called transitive. It is known that if a finite dimensional space is transitive then it is isometric to a Euclidean space, I think that this is a result of Mazur. It is an old, still open problem, whether every separable transitive Banach space is isometric to a Euclidean space. This problem is called Banach-Mazur problem and it goes back to 1930's. There has been a lot of work on this problem and it is connected to other interesting problems.

If you require that every 2 points can be mapped by a surjective isometry onto any other 2 points with the same distance, then I think the space is called 2-transitive. Similarly one defines n-transitive. I believe, but I am not 100% certain that 2-transitive Banach spaces have to be isometric to a Euclidean space. You might check work of V. Mascioni.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I think this answer is taking "space" to mean "Banach space", not "metric space". $\endgroup$
    – Nik Weaver
    Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 15:15
  • $\begingroup$ Any Banach space is transitive (according to your definition) so it might be not Euclidean. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 28, 2022 at 13:15
1
$\begingroup$

Like Euclidean geometry, also hyperbolic geometry has this extension property: an isometry defined on any subset extends to an isometry of the whole space. As I recall from long ago, in the book
Busemann & Kelly Projective Geometry and Projective Metrics
it is shown (among that class of geometries) there are very few of these spaces.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I checked this book and did not find anything related to the question. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 7, 2022 at 11:53
  • $\begingroup$ See Busemann's paper cited in Anton's answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 3, 2022 at 10:11
1
$\begingroup$

There is a paper Globalization of the partial isometries of metric spaces and local approximation of the group of isometries of Urysohn space by A. M. Vershik.

It gives stronger results for Urysohn.

It also contains "Hrushevski’s theorem" type results. Which are different from what OP wanted. But maybe still interesting.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .