Hausdorff distance between ultrametric balls

Oleksiy Dovgoshey

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Hausdorff distance between ultrametric balls

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read For ultrametric spaces, the ball space and the space share every major metric property.

desk verdict The main characterizations are new and likely correct, but two proof gaps (Prop 2.17, Lemma 5.8) and an unsupported remark need fixing before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00205 v1 pith:UVHXMK63 submitted 2025-08-29 math.GN

Oleksiy Dovgoshey This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.GN MSC 54E3554E45

keywords ultrametricspacesHausdorffdistanceclosedballsballeanseparabilitydensediscretesubsetslocalcompactnessmetricaldiscreteness

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks a transference question: if you replace an ultrametric space $(X,d)$ by the set $\bar B_X$ of all its closed balls, with the Hausdorff distance $d_H$ between balls, which metric properties are preserved? The answer, proved here for eight properties, is that the ballean $\bar B_X$ is discrete, locally finite, metrically discrete, complete, totally bounded, compact, locally compact, or boundedly compact exactly when $X$ is. A second thread produces a sharp separability criterion: $\bar B_X$ is separable if and only if the set of positive-radius balls is countable, and that set is the unique dense discrete subset of the ballean. The engine is a one-line identity: for any two distinct closed balls, $d_H(B_1,B_2)=\operatorname{diam}(B_1\cup B_2)$. This makes the ballean a faithful 'diameter picture' of $X$, so properties can be read off from either side. The results matter because ultrametric spaces appear in hierarchical clustering, $p$-adic analysis, and phylogenetics, where moving to the space of balls changes the geometry and the paper shows it does not change the fundamental metric type.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ballean $\bar B_X$ — the set of all closed balls of $X$, metrized by Hausdorff distance $d_H$. The argument's workhorse is Lemma 4.3: for distinct closed balls, $d_H(B_1,B_2)=\operatorname{diam}(B_1\cup B_2)$. This collapse of Hausdorff distance to a pure diameter comparison is what makes the ballean's metric structure readable from $X$'s ball diameters. Two structural facts do the rest: the singleton balls $\{x\}$ form an isometric closed copy of $X$ inside $\bar B_X$ (Corollary 4.6), so $X$ embeds in its ballean; and the isolated points of the ballean are precisely the positive-diameter balls plus singletons of isolated points (Theorem 4.12), so separability can be tested by counting positive-radius balls.

What would settle it

Compute the ballean of the countably infinite equidistant ultrametric space (all distinct points at distance 1): the closed balls are exactly the singletons and the whole space, and the Hausdorff distance between any two distinct balls is 1. Checking the paper's eight equivalences on this example—discrete, locally finite, metrically discrete, complete, totally bounded, compact, locally compact, boundedly compact—would confirm the theorems; any discrepancy, such as a promised property failing for the ball space, would refute the corresponding theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Hausdorff distance on the set of closed balls of an ultrametric space is not a wild new object but a controlled transform of the original space. Specifically, for distinct closed balls $B_1$ and $B_2$, $d_H(B_1,B_2)$ equals $\operatorname{diam}(B_1\cup B_2)$ (Lemma 4.3). From this identity the author proves that the isolated points of the ballean are exactly the balls with positive diameter together with singletons of isolated points of $X$, that the positive-radius balls form a unique dense discrete subset, and that completeness, total boundedness, compactness, local compactness, bounded compactness, discreteness, local finiteness, and metrical discreteness each hold for $X$ if and only if

Load-bearing premise

The uniqueness of the dense discrete subset rests on the assertion that any two dense subsets of a metric space have identical isolated points, and if that assertion fails so does Proposition 4.14's claim that the positive-radius balls are the unique dense discrete subset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If X is complete, so is its ballean; equivalently, Cauchy-completing X exactly completes the ballean, and the paper conjectures the completion of the ballean of X is isometric to the ballean of the completion of X.
A separable ultrametric space can have a non-separable ballean: the rational points of [0,∞) with the max ultrametric give uncountably many distinct balls, so no countable dense set of balls exists.
The uniqueness of the dense discrete subset means the ballean has a canonical 'skeleton' when separable: the positive-radius balls themselves.
Because the ballean is locally compact iff X is, the Heine-Borel intuition transfers: bounded closed subsets behave the same way on both sides.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Taking the identity d_H = diam(union) as a lens, the ballean is essentially the diameter spectrum of X; algorithms that operate on ultrametric balls (e.g., cluster hierarchies) could replace Hausdorff-distance computations with diameter computations, which are cheaper.
The separability criterion suggests a practical test for infinite hierarchical clusterings: if a data set's ultrametric generates uncountably many distinct clusters, no countable dense subset of clusters exists, so any densification must be non-separable.
The paper's results leave open whether the ballean construction is a functor that preserves isometry types; if Conjecture 6.2 holds, two ultrametric spaces have isometric completions exactly when their positive-radius ball spaces are isometric, offering a new invariant for ultrametric spaces.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a genuinely useful paper, and the main theorems look true. The ball space of an ultrametric space with Hausdorff metric is a natural object, and the paper gives a clean set of preservation results plus a very nice separability criterion (Theorem 5.17). The identification of \bar B^0_X as the unique dense discrete subset of the ballean (Prop 4.14) is the kind of result people will cite.

What is actually new: the extension from finite ultrametric spaces to arbitrary ones, the uniqueness of the dense discrete subset, and the separability characterization. The proofs are mostly straightforward and correct, and Lemma 4.3—the Hausdorff distance between distinct balls equals the diameter of their union—is a genuinely useful simplification. The Delhommé–Laflamme–Pouzet–Sauer example is used well to produce sharp examples.

Soft spots, in order of seriousness.

First, Lemma 5.8. The step from d_H(B_n,B_{n+1})→0 to diam(B_n)→0 uses (25), which is only valid for distinct balls. If the sequence is eventually constant with a positive-diameter ball, the claimed convergence of diameters is false. The lemma is probably true—split into the eventually constant case and the other—but as written the proof is invalid. Since Theorem 5.10 relies on this lemma, the completeness equivalence is not proved until this is fixed.

Second, Proposition 2.17. The proof assumes you can choose distinct points a_n of A approximating b_n; if p is isolated in A, that can fail. The proposition itself is true (for dense sets, isolated points in Y are just isolated points of Y), but the given proof doesn't work. Corollary 2.19 and hence Prop 4.14 rest on it.

Third, Remark 5.19 claims Example 5.18 is a counterexample to Theorem 19.3 of Schikhof without stating the theorem or giving the construction. That should either be spelled out or removed.

None of this is a fatal flaw. The main ideas are sound, and the gaps are repairable. But the paper as submitted should not be accepted without fixing these two proofs and the remark. The right call is to send it to a knowledgeable referee and ask for major revision.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the set \bar{\mathbf{B}}_X of all closed balls of an ultrametric space (X,d), equipped with the Hausdorff distance d_H. The main results are a series of equivalences: (\bar{\mathbf{B}}_X,d_H) is discrete, locally finite, metrically discrete, complete, totally bounded, compact, locally compact, or boundedly compact exactly when (X,d) has the corresponding property. The paper also characterizes separability of (\bar{\mathbf{B}}_X,d_H) in terms of countability of the set \bar{\mathbf{B}}^0_X of balls of positive radius, proves that \bar{\mathbf{B}}^0_X is the unique dense discrete subset of (\bar{\mathbf{B}}_X,d_H), and describes when (X,d) and (\bar{\mathbf{B}}_X,d_H) are isometric for equidistant metrics. The key technical tool is Lemma 4.3, which identifies d_H between distinct balls with the diameter of their union.

Significance. If the results are correct, they give a clean and useful dictionary between ultrametric spaces and their balleans: several global and local metric properties transfer back and forth through the Hausdorff metric. The paper is well organized, and the main formula in Lemma 4.3 is proved directly and is simple enough to be convincing. The use of the Delhommé–Laflamme–Pouzet–Sauer space as a recurring example is helpful, as is the explicit separability example. The paper is not circular: it proves its key identity from definitions and from standard facts about Hausdorff distance, and no fitting or normalization is involved. The main theorems appear plausible and, with the repairs described below, likely correct. The manuscript is appropriate for a general-topology or ultrametric-analysis venue.

major comments (2)

[§2, Proposition 2.17] The proof of Proposition 2.17 is not valid as written. After assuming p ∈ iso_Y(A) and p ∉ iso_Y(B), the proof selects distinct b_n ∈ B with δ(p,b_n)→0, and then asserts the existence of a sequence (a_n) of distinct points of A with δ(a_n,b_n)→0. This assertion can fail: if p is isolated in A, then for all sufficiently large n every a ∈ A sufficiently close to b_n must equal p, so the a_n cannot be chosen distinct. The proposition itself is true and can be proved directly: if p ∈ iso_Y(A), density of A forces p to be isolated in Y, and then density of B gives p ∈ iso_Y(B). The manuscript does not contain this argument. Since Corollary 2.19 and the uniqueness part of Proposition 4.14 rely on Proposition 2.17, the proof needs repair even though the statement is not false.
[§5, Lemma 5.8] The proof of Lemma 5.8 is invalid in the case of an eventually constant sequence of balls. The step 'd_H(\bar B_n,\bar B_{n+1})→0 and equality (25) give diam(\bar B_n∪\bar B_{n+1})→0' applies equality (25) only when \bar B_n and \bar B_{n+1} are distinct. For a constant sequence with a ball of positive diameter, d_H=0 but the diameter of the union is the positive diameter of that ball, so the conclusion diam(\bar B_n)→0 is false. The proof should split into two cases: if the sequence is eventually constant, the limit is the constant ball and the conclusion is immediate; otherwise there are infinitely many adjacent pairs with distinct balls, and (25) applies along those pairs, giving diam(\bar B_n)→0 and hence A a singleton. As written, Theorem 5.10, which relies on Lemma 5.8, rests on an invalid argument.

minor comments (4)

[§5, Theorem 5.10] The two implications in the proof are both labeled '(i)⇒(ii)'; the second should be '(ii)⇒(i)'.
[§4, Proposition 4.10] The symbol A is used both for a subset of \bar{\mathbf{B}}_X and for the union of the balls in that set. This is confusing; a different letter for the union would help.
[§5, Lemma 5.8] The notation acc_{𝔐_X}(\bar{\mathbf{B}}_X) is used before the notion of accumulation point of a subset of a hyperspace has been introduced. It is clear from context, but a short explanation would improve readability.
[Throughout] There are several typographical slips, e.g., 'the the', 'anunique', and 'Wĳsman' inconsistencies. These do not affect the mathematics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper proves its equivalences directly from definitions and standard hyperspace theorems; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The key identity (25), d_H(B_1,B_2)=diam(B_1∪B_2), is proved directly in Lemma 4.3 from Proposition 3.7 and Lemma 4.2; the citation of [12] is only a remark about a finite-space precursor, and no load-bearing step transfers an unverified result from the author's prior work. The equivalence theorems in Section 5 each reduce to the isometric copy of X inside \bar B_X (Corollary 4.6), the direct identity (25), standard facts on hyperspaces (Propositions 5.9 and 5.11), and the closedness of \bar B_X in \mathfrak M_X (Lemma 5.8). The separability criterion (Theorem 5.17) uses Theorem 4.12 and Proposition 4.14, both proved in the paper. The uniqueness of the dense discrete subset follows from Proposition 2.17 and Corollary 2.19, which are attempted in-paper even though Proposition 2.17 is prefaced with 'the author cannot give a precise reference here' and its proof may require additional justification; that is a correctness/completeness concern, not circularity. The proof gap in Lemma 5.8—where d_H(B_n,B_{n+1})→0 does not by itself force diam(B_n)→0 for an eventually constant sequence—is likewise a correctness issue, not a circular reduction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no central claim is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard background from ultrametric space theory and hyperspace theory, all cited. The proof gaps in Propositions 2.17 and Lemma 5.8 are internal to the paper, not external assumptions.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Strong triangle inequality holds for the metric (ultrametric)
The entire paper is about ultrametric spaces; this is the defining property. Invoked throughout, e.g., in equality (1) and Propositions 3.1, 3.7.
standard math Standard facts about hyperspaces: the space of nonempty closed bounded subsets is complete iff X is complete (Prop 5.9) and totally bounded iff X is totally bounded (Prop 5.11)
Used in Theorems 5.10 and 5.12. Cited from [45] and [29].
standard math Axiom of Regularity in ZF set theory: there is no set X with X in X
Invoked in the proof of Theorem 5.7 to rule out finite sets of size at least 2 when showing the ballean has more elements than X.
domain assumption Proposition 3.1 and Proposition 3.7 from Schikhof's book [44]: every ball has every point as a center; nested or disjoint ball structure in ultrametric spaces
Used to prove Lemma 4.3 and later results. Cited to [44].
domain assumption Lemma 4.2 from Qiu [42]: formula for Hausdorff distance between balls of positive radius in ultrametric spaces
Used in the proof of Lemma 4.3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hausdorff distance between ultrametric balls." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UVHXMK63

@misc{pith2026250900205,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hausdorff distance between ultrametric balls},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UVHXMK63}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00205}
}

abstract

Let $(X, d)$ be an ultrametric space and let $d_H$ be the Hausdorff distance on the set $\bar{\mathbf{B}}_X$ of all closed balls in $(X, d)$. Some interconnections between the properties of the spaces $(X, d)$ and $(\bar{\mathbf{B}}_X, d_H)$ are described. It is established that the space $(\bar{\mathbf{B}}_X, d_H)$ has such properties as discreteness, local finiteness, metrical discreteness, completeness, compactness, local compactness if and only if the space $(X, d)$ has these properties. Necessary and sufficient conditions for the separability of the space $(\bar{\mathbf{B}}_X, d_H)$ are also proved.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

[1]

S. Arya, A. Auddy, R. A. Clark, S. Lim, F. Mémoli, and D. Packer. The Gromov—Wasserstein Distance Between Spheres.Foundations of computational mathematics, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Beer and A

G. Beer and A. Di Concilio. A generalization of boundedly compact metric spaces.Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin., 32(2):361–367, 1991

work page 1991
[3]

G. Beer, S. A. Naimpally, A. Lechicki, and S. Levi. Distance functionals and suprema of hyperspace topologies.Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., IV. Ser., 162:367–381, 1992

work page 1992
[4]

V. K. Bhardwaj, S. Dhawan, and O. A. Dovgoshey. Density by moduli and Wĳsman statistical convergence.Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin, 24:393–415, 2017. HAUSDORFF DISTANCE BETWEEN ULTRAMETRIC BALLS 27

work page 2017
[5]

V.BiletandO.Dovgoshey.Pseudometricspaces: Fromminimalitytomaximalityinthegroups of combinatorial self-similarities.Analysis and Geometry in Metric Spaces, 11(1):20230103, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Bilet and O

V. Bilet and O. Dovgoshey. When all permutations are combinatorial similarities.Bulletin of the Korean Mathematical Society, 60(3):733–746, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

Front.Appl.Math.Stat

V.BiletandO.Dovgoshey.Onmonoidsofmetricpreservingfunctions. Front.Appl.Math.Stat. , 10:1420671, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Bilet, O

V. Bilet, O. Dovgoshey, and Y. Kononov. Ultrametrics and Complete Multipartite Graphs. Theory and Applications of Graphs, 9(1), 2022. Article 8

work page 2022

Show all 45 references

[9]

Topology and its Applications, 155(14):1462–1478, 2008

C.Delhommé,C.Laflamme,M.Pouzet,andN.Sauer.Indivisibleultrametricspaces. Topology and its Applications, 155(14):1462–1478, 2008

2008
[10]

M. M. Deza and E. Deza.Encyclopedia of Distances. Springer, 2016

2016
[11]

Dordovskyi, O

D. Dordovskyi, O. Dovgoshey, and E. Petrov. Diameter and diametrical pairs of points in ultrametric spaces.p-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl., 3(4):253–262, 2011

2011
[12]

Dovgoshey

O. Dovgoshey. Finite ultrametric balls.p-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl., 11(3):177–191, 2019

2019
[13]

Dovgoshey

O. Dovgoshey. Isomorphism of trees and isometry of ultrametric spaces.Theory and Applica- tions of Graphs, 7(2), 2020. Article 3

2020
[14]

Dovgoshey

O. Dovgoshey. Strongly ultrametric preserving functions. Topology and its Applications, 351:108931, 2024

2024
[15]

Dovgoshey

O. Dovgoshey. Totally bounded ultrametric spaces and locally finite trees.arXiv:2502.04228, pages 1–114, 2025

2025 arXiv
[16]

Dovgoshey, O

O. Dovgoshey, O. Cantor, and O. Rovenska. Compact ultrametric spaces generated by labeled star graphs.arXiv:2504.02425, pages 1–19, 2025

2025 arXiv
[17]

Dovgoshey and A

O. Dovgoshey and A. Kostikov. Locally finite ultrametric spaces and labeled trees.Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 276(5):614–637, 2023

2023
[18]

Dovgoshey and A

O. Dovgoshey and A. Kostikov. Delhomme—Laflamme—Pouzet—Sauer space as groupoid. Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 284(3):315–328, 2024

2024
[19]

Dovgoshey and M

O. Dovgoshey and M. Küçükaslan. Labeled trees generating complete, compact, and discrete ultrametric spaces.Annals of Combinatorics, 26:613–642, 2022

2022
[20]

ActaMath

O.DovgosheyandJ.Luukkainen.Combinatorialcharacterizationofpseudometrics. ActaMath. Hungar, 161(1):257–291, 2020

2020
[21]

Dovgoshey and O

O. Dovgoshey and O. Rovenska. Labeled Trees Generating Separable and Locally Finite Ultra- metrics. arXiv:2506.03853, pages 1–16, 2025

2025 arXiv
[22]

Dovgoshey and V

O. Dovgoshey and V. Shcherbak. The range of ultrametrics, compactness, and separability. Topology and its Applications, 305:107899, 2022

2022
[23]

Dovgoshey and V

O. Dovgoshey and V. Vito. Totally bounded ultrametric spaces generated by labeled rays.Appl. Gen. Topol., 26(1):163–182, 2025

2025
[24]

D. Edwards. The structure of superspace. In N. M. Stravrakas and K. R. Allen, editors,Studies in Topology, pages 121–133. Academic Press, New York, 1975

1975
[25]

Engelking.General Topology, volume 6 ofSigma Series in Pure Mathematics

R. Engelking.General Topology, volume 6 ofSigma Series in Pure Mathematics. Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989

1989
[26]

Publ.Math.Inst.HautesÉtudes Sci., 53(1):53–78, 1981

M.Gromov.Groupsofpolynomialgrowthandexpandingmaps. Publ.Math.Inst.HautesÉtudes Sci., 53(1):53–78, 1981

1981
[27]

Discrete Appl

V.GurvichandM.Vyalyi.Characterizing(quasi-)ultrametricfinitespacesintermsof(directed) graphs. Discrete Appl. Math., 160(12):1742–1756, 2012

2012
[28]

Hausdorff.Grundzüge der Mengenlehre

F. Hausdorff.Grundzüge der Mengenlehre. Veit, Leipzig, 1914. (Reprint: Chelsea, New York, 1949)

1914
[29]

Henrikson

J. Henrikson. Completeness and Total Boundedness of the Hausdorff Metric.MIT Undergrad- uate Journal of Mathematics, pages 69–80, 1999

1999
[30]

IEEETransactionsonPatternAnalysisandMachineIntelligence ,15(9):850–863, 1993

D.P.Huttenlocher,G.A.Klanderman,andW.J.Rucklidge.ComparingimagesusingtheHaus- dorffdistance. IEEETransactionsonPatternAnalysisandMachineIntelligence ,15(9):850–863, 1993. 28 OLEKSIY DOVGOSHEY

1993
[31]

Constructions of Urysohn universal ultrametric spaces.𝑝-Adic Numbers Ultra- metric Anal

Yoshito Ishiki. Constructions of Urysohn universal ultrametric spaces.𝑝-Adic Numbers Ultra- metric Anal. Appl., 15(4):266–283, 2023

2023
[32]

Jech.Set theory

T. Jech.Set theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 2003

2003
[33]

S. P. S. Kainth.A Comprehensive Textbook on Metric Spaces. Springer, Singapore, 2023

2023
[34]

Lechicki and S

A. Lechicki and S. Levi. Wĳsmann convergence in the hyperspace of a metric space.Bull. Unione Mat. Ital., 1-B:439–452, 1987

1987
[35]

Y. Ma, J. Siegert, and J. Dydak. Coarse structure of ultrametric spaces with applications.Eur. J. Math., 9(1), 2023. Article number 5

2023
[36]

Foun- dations of computational mathematics, 11(4):417–487, 2011

F.Mémoli.Gromov—Wassersteindistancesandthemetricapproachtoobjectmatching. Foun- dations of computational mathematics, 11(4):417–487, 2011

2011
[37]

Mémoli, A

F. Mémoli, A. Munk, Z. Wan, and C. Weitkamp. The Ultrametric Gromov—Wasserstein Dis- tance.Discrete & Computational Geometry, 70:1378–1450, 2023

2023
[38]

Protasov and T

I. Protasov and T. Banakh.Ball structures and colorings of groups and graphs, volume 11 of Math. Stud. Monogr.VNTL, Lviv, 2003

2003
[39]

Protasov and K

I. Protasov and K. Protasova. Closeness and linkness in balleans. Matematychni Studii, 53(1):100–108, 2020

2020
[40]

GeneralAsymptopogy,volume12of Math.Stud.Monogr

I.ProtasovandM.Zarichnyi. GeneralAsymptopogy,volume12of Math.Stud.Monogr. VNTL, Lviv, 2007

2007
[41]

p-adicNumbersUltrametr

D.Qiu.Geometryofnon-ArchimedianGromov–Hausdorffdistance. p-adicNumbersUltrametr. Anal. Appl., 1(4):317–337, 2009

2009
[42]

D. Qiu. The structures of Hausdorff metric in non-Archimedian spaces.p-adic Numbers Ultra- metr. Anal. Appl., 6(1):33–53, 2014

2014
[43]

Springer, Berlin, 1996

W.Rucklidge.EfficientvisualrecognitionusingtheHausdorffdistance .Number1173inLecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, 1996

1996
[44]

W. H. Schikhof.Ultrametric Calculus. An Introduction to p-Adic Analysis. Number 4 in Cam- bridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 1984

1984
[45]

M. Ó. Searcóid.Metric Spaces. Springer—Verlag, London, 2007. Oleksiy Dovgoshey Institute of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics of the NAS of Ukraine, Sloviansk, Ukraine and Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Turku, Finland. Email address: oleksiy.dovgoshey@...

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

S. Arya, A. Auddy, R. A. Clark, S. Lim, F. Mémoli, and D. Packer. The Gromov—Wasserstein Distance Between Spheres.Foundations of computational mathematics, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Beer and A

G. Beer and A. Di Concilio. A generalization of boundedly compact metric spaces.Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin., 32(2):361–367, 1991

work page 1991

[3] [3]

G. Beer, S. A. Naimpally, A. Lechicki, and S. Levi. Distance functionals and suprema of hyperspace topologies.Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., IV. Ser., 162:367–381, 1992

work page 1992

[4] [4]

V. K. Bhardwaj, S. Dhawan, and O. A. Dovgoshey. Density by moduli and Wĳsman statistical convergence.Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin, 24:393–415, 2017. HAUSDORFF DISTANCE BETWEEN ULTRAMETRIC BALLS 27

work page 2017

[5] [5]

V.BiletandO.Dovgoshey.Pseudometricspaces: Fromminimalitytomaximalityinthegroups of combinatorial self-similarities.Analysis and Geometry in Metric Spaces, 11(1):20230103, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Bilet and O

V. Bilet and O. Dovgoshey. When all permutations are combinatorial similarities.Bulletin of the Korean Mathematical Society, 60(3):733–746, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Front.Appl.Math.Stat

V.BiletandO.Dovgoshey.Onmonoidsofmetricpreservingfunctions. Front.Appl.Math.Stat. , 10:1420671, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Bilet, O

V. Bilet, O. Dovgoshey, and Y. Kononov. Ultrametrics and Complete Multipartite Graphs. Theory and Applications of Graphs, 9(1), 2022. Article 8

work page 2022