Combinining metrics of components into a metric of a complex object - triangular inequality
I have a set $X = X_1 times X_2 times dots times X_n$.
I have metrics that satisfy triangular inequality "per component"
$$
rho_i: X_i times X_i to mathbb{R}
$$
for each $i=1,2,dots,n$.
I want to know what are possible ways to combine $rho_i$ for $i=1,2,dots,n$ into
$$rho:Xtimes X to mathbb{R}$$
Specifically:
- Would weighted $max$ work?
- Would weighted sum work?
- Would rooted weighed sum of squares of components work?
metric-spaces triangle
add a comment |
I have a set $X = X_1 times X_2 times dots times X_n$.
I have metrics that satisfy triangular inequality "per component"
$$
rho_i: X_i times X_i to mathbb{R}
$$
for each $i=1,2,dots,n$.
I want to know what are possible ways to combine $rho_i$ for $i=1,2,dots,n$ into
$$rho:Xtimes X to mathbb{R}$$
Specifically:
- Would weighted $max$ work?
- Would weighted sum work?
- Would rooted weighed sum of squares of components work?
metric-spaces triangle
add a comment |
I have a set $X = X_1 times X_2 times dots times X_n$.
I have metrics that satisfy triangular inequality "per component"
$$
rho_i: X_i times X_i to mathbb{R}
$$
for each $i=1,2,dots,n$.
I want to know what are possible ways to combine $rho_i$ for $i=1,2,dots,n$ into
$$rho:Xtimes X to mathbb{R}$$
Specifically:
- Would weighted $max$ work?
- Would weighted sum work?
- Would rooted weighed sum of squares of components work?
metric-spaces triangle
I have a set $X = X_1 times X_2 times dots times X_n$.
I have metrics that satisfy triangular inequality "per component"
$$
rho_i: X_i times X_i to mathbb{R}
$$
for each $i=1,2,dots,n$.
I want to know what are possible ways to combine $rho_i$ for $i=1,2,dots,n$ into
$$rho:Xtimes X to mathbb{R}$$
Specifically:
- Would weighted $max$ work?
- Would weighted sum work?
- Would rooted weighed sum of squares of components work?
metric-spaces triangle
metric-spaces triangle
asked Nov 26 at 8:37
Karel Macek
594217
594217
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
All 3 would work.
First, you reduce the weighted problems to the unweighted ones by pre-scaling the initial metrics. That means to prove that e.g.
$$rho ((x_1,x_2), (y_1,y_2)) = max (alpha_1rho_1(x_1,y1), alpha_2rho_2(x_2,y_2))$$
is a metric for any $rho_1,rho_2$ it is enough to prove that
$$rho^* ((x_1,x_2), (y_1,y_2)) = max (rho_1^*(x_1,y1), rho_2^*(x_2,y_2))$$
is a metric for any $rho_1^*,rho_2^*$ and then set
$$rho_1^*(x_1,y_1)=alpha_1rho(x_1,y_1),quad rho_2^*(x_2,y_2)=alpha_2rho(x_2,y_2),$$
which are metrics on $X_1$ and $X_2$ resp., if $alpha_i > 0, i=1,2$.
So the 3 'combination functions' you considered are
$$f_m(d_1,ldots,d_n) = max(d_1,ldots,d_n)$$
$$f_s(d_1,ldots,d_n) = d_1+ldots+d_n$$
$$f_e(d_1,ldots,d_n) = sqrt{d_1^2+ldots+d_n^2}$$
Those are the well known maximum, sum and euclidean norms on $mathbb R^n$. I'll show that any such norm that is also increasing in each component under the assumption that all components are non-negative will work.
Let $f_r$ be such a norm. Then you define
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (y_1,ldots,y_n)) = f_r(rho_1(x_1,y_1),ldots,rho_n(x_,y_n))$$
This $rho$ is $0$ iff $(x_1,ldots,x_n)=(y_1,ldots,y_n)$ because that is true for each component's $rho_i$ and also $f_r$ is zero only for the null vector.
This $rho$ is symmtric because your component $rho_i$'s are symmetric (nothing needed from $f_r$).
Of course, the triangle inequality is the most problematic thing to prove usually.
Define
$$r_i=rho_i(x_i,y_i),quad s_i=rho_i(y_i,z_i),quad t_i=rho_i(x_i,z_i), forall i=1,ldots,n$$
We then have
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n))=f_r(t_1,ldots,t_n)$$
Because I assumed that $f_r$ was increasing in each component for non-negative values, we can replace each $t_i$ with $r_i+s_i$ and we have $r_i+s_i ge t_i$ because of the triangle inequality of $rho_i$ between $x_i,y_i$ and $z_i$:
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n)) le f_r(r_1+s_1,ldots,r_n+s_n)$$ Because $f_r$ is a norm, the norm-version of the triangle inequality applies here:
$$f_r(r_1+s_1,ldots,r_n+s_n) le f_r(r_1,ldots,r_n) + f_r(s_1,ldots,s_n) = rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (y_1,ldots,y_n)) + rho((y_1,ldots,y_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n)),$$
which finally proves that $rho$ is indeed a metric.
That means that any such norms can be used to combine the component's metrics into a new one for the product set.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3014048%2fcombinining-metrics-of-components-into-a-metric-of-a-complex-object-triangular%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
All 3 would work.
First, you reduce the weighted problems to the unweighted ones by pre-scaling the initial metrics. That means to prove that e.g.
$$rho ((x_1,x_2), (y_1,y_2)) = max (alpha_1rho_1(x_1,y1), alpha_2rho_2(x_2,y_2))$$
is a metric for any $rho_1,rho_2$ it is enough to prove that
$$rho^* ((x_1,x_2), (y_1,y_2)) = max (rho_1^*(x_1,y1), rho_2^*(x_2,y_2))$$
is a metric for any $rho_1^*,rho_2^*$ and then set
$$rho_1^*(x_1,y_1)=alpha_1rho(x_1,y_1),quad rho_2^*(x_2,y_2)=alpha_2rho(x_2,y_2),$$
which are metrics on $X_1$ and $X_2$ resp., if $alpha_i > 0, i=1,2$.
So the 3 'combination functions' you considered are
$$f_m(d_1,ldots,d_n) = max(d_1,ldots,d_n)$$
$$f_s(d_1,ldots,d_n) = d_1+ldots+d_n$$
$$f_e(d_1,ldots,d_n) = sqrt{d_1^2+ldots+d_n^2}$$
Those are the well known maximum, sum and euclidean norms on $mathbb R^n$. I'll show that any such norm that is also increasing in each component under the assumption that all components are non-negative will work.
Let $f_r$ be such a norm. Then you define
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (y_1,ldots,y_n)) = f_r(rho_1(x_1,y_1),ldots,rho_n(x_,y_n))$$
This $rho$ is $0$ iff $(x_1,ldots,x_n)=(y_1,ldots,y_n)$ because that is true for each component's $rho_i$ and also $f_r$ is zero only for the null vector.
This $rho$ is symmtric because your component $rho_i$'s are symmetric (nothing needed from $f_r$).
Of course, the triangle inequality is the most problematic thing to prove usually.
Define
$$r_i=rho_i(x_i,y_i),quad s_i=rho_i(y_i,z_i),quad t_i=rho_i(x_i,z_i), forall i=1,ldots,n$$
We then have
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n))=f_r(t_1,ldots,t_n)$$
Because I assumed that $f_r$ was increasing in each component for non-negative values, we can replace each $t_i$ with $r_i+s_i$ and we have $r_i+s_i ge t_i$ because of the triangle inequality of $rho_i$ between $x_i,y_i$ and $z_i$:
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n)) le f_r(r_1+s_1,ldots,r_n+s_n)$$ Because $f_r$ is a norm, the norm-version of the triangle inequality applies here:
$$f_r(r_1+s_1,ldots,r_n+s_n) le f_r(r_1,ldots,r_n) + f_r(s_1,ldots,s_n) = rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (y_1,ldots,y_n)) + rho((y_1,ldots,y_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n)),$$
which finally proves that $rho$ is indeed a metric.
That means that any such norms can be used to combine the component's metrics into a new one for the product set.
add a comment |
All 3 would work.
First, you reduce the weighted problems to the unweighted ones by pre-scaling the initial metrics. That means to prove that e.g.
$$rho ((x_1,x_2), (y_1,y_2)) = max (alpha_1rho_1(x_1,y1), alpha_2rho_2(x_2,y_2))$$
is a metric for any $rho_1,rho_2$ it is enough to prove that
$$rho^* ((x_1,x_2), (y_1,y_2)) = max (rho_1^*(x_1,y1), rho_2^*(x_2,y_2))$$
is a metric for any $rho_1^*,rho_2^*$ and then set
$$rho_1^*(x_1,y_1)=alpha_1rho(x_1,y_1),quad rho_2^*(x_2,y_2)=alpha_2rho(x_2,y_2),$$
which are metrics on $X_1$ and $X_2$ resp., if $alpha_i > 0, i=1,2$.
So the 3 'combination functions' you considered are
$$f_m(d_1,ldots,d_n) = max(d_1,ldots,d_n)$$
$$f_s(d_1,ldots,d_n) = d_1+ldots+d_n$$
$$f_e(d_1,ldots,d_n) = sqrt{d_1^2+ldots+d_n^2}$$
Those are the well known maximum, sum and euclidean norms on $mathbb R^n$. I'll show that any such norm that is also increasing in each component under the assumption that all components are non-negative will work.
Let $f_r$ be such a norm. Then you define
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (y_1,ldots,y_n)) = f_r(rho_1(x_1,y_1),ldots,rho_n(x_,y_n))$$
This $rho$ is $0$ iff $(x_1,ldots,x_n)=(y_1,ldots,y_n)$ because that is true for each component's $rho_i$ and also $f_r$ is zero only for the null vector.
This $rho$ is symmtric because your component $rho_i$'s are symmetric (nothing needed from $f_r$).
Of course, the triangle inequality is the most problematic thing to prove usually.
Define
$$r_i=rho_i(x_i,y_i),quad s_i=rho_i(y_i,z_i),quad t_i=rho_i(x_i,z_i), forall i=1,ldots,n$$
We then have
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n))=f_r(t_1,ldots,t_n)$$
Because I assumed that $f_r$ was increasing in each component for non-negative values, we can replace each $t_i$ with $r_i+s_i$ and we have $r_i+s_i ge t_i$ because of the triangle inequality of $rho_i$ between $x_i,y_i$ and $z_i$:
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n)) le f_r(r_1+s_1,ldots,r_n+s_n)$$ Because $f_r$ is a norm, the norm-version of the triangle inequality applies here:
$$f_r(r_1+s_1,ldots,r_n+s_n) le f_r(r_1,ldots,r_n) + f_r(s_1,ldots,s_n) = rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (y_1,ldots,y_n)) + rho((y_1,ldots,y_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n)),$$
which finally proves that $rho$ is indeed a metric.
That means that any such norms can be used to combine the component's metrics into a new one for the product set.
add a comment |
All 3 would work.
First, you reduce the weighted problems to the unweighted ones by pre-scaling the initial metrics. That means to prove that e.g.
$$rho ((x_1,x_2), (y_1,y_2)) = max (alpha_1rho_1(x_1,y1), alpha_2rho_2(x_2,y_2))$$
is a metric for any $rho_1,rho_2$ it is enough to prove that
$$rho^* ((x_1,x_2), (y_1,y_2)) = max (rho_1^*(x_1,y1), rho_2^*(x_2,y_2))$$
is a metric for any $rho_1^*,rho_2^*$ and then set
$$rho_1^*(x_1,y_1)=alpha_1rho(x_1,y_1),quad rho_2^*(x_2,y_2)=alpha_2rho(x_2,y_2),$$
which are metrics on $X_1$ and $X_2$ resp., if $alpha_i > 0, i=1,2$.
So the 3 'combination functions' you considered are
$$f_m(d_1,ldots,d_n) = max(d_1,ldots,d_n)$$
$$f_s(d_1,ldots,d_n) = d_1+ldots+d_n$$
$$f_e(d_1,ldots,d_n) = sqrt{d_1^2+ldots+d_n^2}$$
Those are the well known maximum, sum and euclidean norms on $mathbb R^n$. I'll show that any such norm that is also increasing in each component under the assumption that all components are non-negative will work.
Let $f_r$ be such a norm. Then you define
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (y_1,ldots,y_n)) = f_r(rho_1(x_1,y_1),ldots,rho_n(x_,y_n))$$
This $rho$ is $0$ iff $(x_1,ldots,x_n)=(y_1,ldots,y_n)$ because that is true for each component's $rho_i$ and also $f_r$ is zero only for the null vector.
This $rho$ is symmtric because your component $rho_i$'s are symmetric (nothing needed from $f_r$).
Of course, the triangle inequality is the most problematic thing to prove usually.
Define
$$r_i=rho_i(x_i,y_i),quad s_i=rho_i(y_i,z_i),quad t_i=rho_i(x_i,z_i), forall i=1,ldots,n$$
We then have
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n))=f_r(t_1,ldots,t_n)$$
Because I assumed that $f_r$ was increasing in each component for non-negative values, we can replace each $t_i$ with $r_i+s_i$ and we have $r_i+s_i ge t_i$ because of the triangle inequality of $rho_i$ between $x_i,y_i$ and $z_i$:
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n)) le f_r(r_1+s_1,ldots,r_n+s_n)$$ Because $f_r$ is a norm, the norm-version of the triangle inequality applies here:
$$f_r(r_1+s_1,ldots,r_n+s_n) le f_r(r_1,ldots,r_n) + f_r(s_1,ldots,s_n) = rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (y_1,ldots,y_n)) + rho((y_1,ldots,y_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n)),$$
which finally proves that $rho$ is indeed a metric.
That means that any such norms can be used to combine the component's metrics into a new one for the product set.
All 3 would work.
First, you reduce the weighted problems to the unweighted ones by pre-scaling the initial metrics. That means to prove that e.g.
$$rho ((x_1,x_2), (y_1,y_2)) = max (alpha_1rho_1(x_1,y1), alpha_2rho_2(x_2,y_2))$$
is a metric for any $rho_1,rho_2$ it is enough to prove that
$$rho^* ((x_1,x_2), (y_1,y_2)) = max (rho_1^*(x_1,y1), rho_2^*(x_2,y_2))$$
is a metric for any $rho_1^*,rho_2^*$ and then set
$$rho_1^*(x_1,y_1)=alpha_1rho(x_1,y_1),quad rho_2^*(x_2,y_2)=alpha_2rho(x_2,y_2),$$
which are metrics on $X_1$ and $X_2$ resp., if $alpha_i > 0, i=1,2$.
So the 3 'combination functions' you considered are
$$f_m(d_1,ldots,d_n) = max(d_1,ldots,d_n)$$
$$f_s(d_1,ldots,d_n) = d_1+ldots+d_n$$
$$f_e(d_1,ldots,d_n) = sqrt{d_1^2+ldots+d_n^2}$$
Those are the well known maximum, sum and euclidean norms on $mathbb R^n$. I'll show that any such norm that is also increasing in each component under the assumption that all components are non-negative will work.
Let $f_r$ be such a norm. Then you define
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (y_1,ldots,y_n)) = f_r(rho_1(x_1,y_1),ldots,rho_n(x_,y_n))$$
This $rho$ is $0$ iff $(x_1,ldots,x_n)=(y_1,ldots,y_n)$ because that is true for each component's $rho_i$ and also $f_r$ is zero only for the null vector.
This $rho$ is symmtric because your component $rho_i$'s are symmetric (nothing needed from $f_r$).
Of course, the triangle inequality is the most problematic thing to prove usually.
Define
$$r_i=rho_i(x_i,y_i),quad s_i=rho_i(y_i,z_i),quad t_i=rho_i(x_i,z_i), forall i=1,ldots,n$$
We then have
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n))=f_r(t_1,ldots,t_n)$$
Because I assumed that $f_r$ was increasing in each component for non-negative values, we can replace each $t_i$ with $r_i+s_i$ and we have $r_i+s_i ge t_i$ because of the triangle inequality of $rho_i$ between $x_i,y_i$ and $z_i$:
$$rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n)) le f_r(r_1+s_1,ldots,r_n+s_n)$$ Because $f_r$ is a norm, the norm-version of the triangle inequality applies here:
$$f_r(r_1+s_1,ldots,r_n+s_n) le f_r(r_1,ldots,r_n) + f_r(s_1,ldots,s_n) = rho((x_1,ldots,x_n), (y_1,ldots,y_n)) + rho((y_1,ldots,y_n), (z_1,ldots,z_n)),$$
which finally proves that $rho$ is indeed a metric.
That means that any such norms can be used to combine the component's metrics into a new one for the product set.
answered Nov 26 at 12:35
Ingix
3,214145
3,214145
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3014048%2fcombinining-metrics-of-components-into-a-metric-of-a-complex-object-triangular%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown