Is d' = d/(d+1) a Valid Metric?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daveyboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the validity of the metric d' = d/(d+1) and its adherence to the properties of a metric space. Participants confirm that d'(x,x)=0, d'(x,y)>0, and d'(x,y)=d'(y,x) are satisfied, while the triangle inequality remains challenging. The inequality a/(1+a) ≤ b/(1+b) + c/(1+c) is proposed as a potential solution, suggesting that the triangle inequality can be demonstrated through algebraic manipulation. The conversation highlights the importance of exploring various approaches to prove metric properties.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of metric spaces and their properties
  • Familiarity with the triangle inequality in mathematics
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills
  • Knowledge of metric definitions and axioms
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of metric spaces in detail
  • Study the triangle inequality and its applications in metric analysis
  • Explore alternative metrics and their characteristics
  • Learn about proofs in metric spaces and common techniques used
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying metric spaces, and anyone interested in the theoretical foundations of distance metrics in mathematics.

Daveyboy
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
d is a metric show d'= d/d+1 is a metric

I know d(x,z)\leqd(x,y)+d(y,z). And have been trying to make it fall out of this.

I have been fooling around with the terms but it has not provided to be useful. Any direction would be helpful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Which parts of the definition of metric have you been able to demonstrate?
 
d'(x,x)=0
d'(x,y)>0
d'(x,y)=d'(y,x)

They follow immediately from d being a metric. But the triangle inequality is providing to be more difficult.
 
I actually saw this problem a bit ago as well. If we let a = d(x,z), b = d(x,y) and c = d(y,z), then we know a\leq b + c and it comes down to proving \frac{a}{1+a} \leq \frac{b}{1+b} + \frac{c}{1+c}, which is easy if you just multiply out, I think. Anyways there is probably a nicer way to do this, but I think the above works (I didn't really double check) and suits me.

*EDIT* By the way, I think awhile ago you were trying to prove all of axioms of a metric spaces using only 2 of them. At first I said you had to have a rearrangement of the triangle inequality, but later I realized you could do it using the triangle inequality by switching around a few variables. If you're still interested, I could show you.
 
I figured that one out... eventually. But thanks I'm impressed that you remember.
Ya, that does work, I guess I missed the most obvious approach.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
4K