There is a tricky detail about our current definition of pseudometric in terms of ball : M -> R -> M -> Prop
.
There isn't always a distance function. You'd like a distance function dist : M -> M -> R
with the property that
ball x eps y <-> dist x y < eps
and you'd really like
dist x y = inf_(eps | 0 < eps) ball x eps y)
However, this is not always possible. In particular, if there is a pair of x,y : M
with ball x eps y
for no values of eps
, you can't construct a distance that'll satisfy triangle inequality and be compatible with ball
. Let me include here some context I think is relevant:
wlog
so long as you're only talking about [uniform] topological properties. (Turns out limit_ball x eps y := if eps <= 1 then ball eps y else true
generates the same uniformity as ball
).
Ok, so what are our options?
ball_total x y : exists (eps : {posnum R}), ball x eps y
this is good enough to build the distance function we need.
ball_bounded : exists B, forall x y, ball x B y
Then we can add two new structures: totalPseudoMetricType
and boundedPseudometricType
, and prove that every "metrizable uniform structure" has all three extensions. And build some machinery to wlog
add in whatever extra assumptions we need.
Any thoughts on the matter? I quite like option 2, but it dramatically benefit from waiting for HB to avoid all the awful boilerplate it would incur.
I don't grasp everything but 2. seems like a very strong hypothesis?
Indeed 2 looks like the whole space is bounded.
Yes. The result is a bit surprising. Given an unbounded metric, there is a bounded metric that generates the same topology. The limit_ball
above is a simple way to achieve this. Another way to see this, recall f(x) = x/(x+1)
is a continuous order isomorphism from [0,\oo) to [0,1). Given a metric d
, it's straightforward to show f \o d
is also a metric that generates the same topology as d
Last updated: Oct 13 2024 at 01:02 UTC