Pith. sign in

REVIEW 8 minor 70 references

Combinatorial properties of ultrametrics and generalized ultrametrics

T0 review · 0 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a mapping with domain $X^2$ is combinatorially similar to a (pseudo)ultrametric exactly when its triples are isosceles, its zero-fiber is coherent (or the diagonal), and its canonical value order extends to a linear…

desk verdict Dovgoshey's combinatorial characterizations of (pseudo)ultrametrics are real and the main proofs hold up; only minor expository gaps stand between this and a solid accept. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08349 v1 pith:IM4PYAD6 submitted 2019-08-22 math.MG

O. Dovgoshey This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.MG MSC 54E3506A0506A06
keywords ultrametricpseudoultrametriccombinatorialsimilaritygeneralizedposet-valueddistancea0-coherenceisoscelestrianglesorderembeddingintothereals
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 when an arbitrary table of values on $X \times X$ is, up to renaming points and relabeling the values, a genuine (pseudo)ultrametric. It proves that this happens exactly when the table is symmetric; its $a_0$-level set is an equivalence relation and every other level is a union of such classes (the $a_0$-coherence condition); every triple of points is isosceles in the value pattern; and the canonical comparison order on the values extends to a linear order isomorphic to a subposet of $(\mathbb{R}_+,\leq)$. For countable value sets the last condition is automatic, because every countable linear order embeds into the nonnegative rationals. The paper also characterizes poset-valued ultrametric distances and gives a lexicographic example showing the real-line order condition is genuinely needed. If the paper is right, the strong triangle inequality of an ultrametric is invisible to combinatorial similarity: only the order type of the value set survives.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the canonical relation $u_\Phi$ on the value set $V=\Phi(X^2)$: put $\langle y_1,y_2\rangle\in u_\Phi$ when there exist $x_1,x_2,x_3$ with $y_1=\Phi(x_1,x_3)$ and $y_2=\Phi(x_1,x_2)=\Phi(x_2,x_3)$. This relation records, in purely combinatorial form, which value can sit at the base of an isosceles triangle while the larger value sits on its two equal sides. Its transitive closure together with the diagonal forms a partial order $\preceq_\Phi$ on the values; when $\Phi$ is $a_0$-coherent, $a_0$ is its smallest element. The proofs build an actual real-valued pseudoultrametric by extending $\preceq_\Phi$ to a linear order and then embedding that order into $(\mathbb{R}_+,\leq)$ through standard theorems: every countable linear order embeds into the nonnegative rationals, every partial order extends to a linear order, and a linear order is a subposet of $(\mathbb{R}_+,\leq)$ exactly when its order topology is second countable. The sharpness boundary is the lexicographic value set $\mathbb{R}_+\times\{0,1\}$, whose canonical order cannot be embedded into $\mathbb{R}_+$.

What would settle it

To test the characterization, take any symmetric, $a_0$-coherent mapping whose triples are isosceles and whose canonical relation extends to an $\mathbb{R}_+$-embeddable linear order, and apply the paper's construction $f^*\circ\Phi$; if that function ever violates the strong triangle inequality, Theorem 4.21 is false. The sharp test case is the lexicographic ultrametric of Example 4.9: it satisfies every condition except order-embeddability into $\mathbb{R}_+$, and the proof of its non-realizability reduces to the claim that an embedding would create an injection from $\mathbb{R}_+$ into $\mathbb{Q}_+$; any explicit embedding of its value order into $\mathbb{R}_+$ would refute the paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 4.21 and its ultrametric counterpart Corollary 4.22. A mapping $\Phi$ with domain $X^2$ is combinatorially similar to a pseudoultrametric if and only if: $\Phi$ is symmetric; there is a value $a_0$ such that $\Phi^{-1}(a_0)$ is an equivalence relation and $\Phi$ is $a_0$-coherent; every triple of points admits a permutation with two equal $\Phi$-values; the canonical relation $u_\Phi$ is contained in a linear order on $\Phi(X^2)$ with $a_0$ as its smallest element; and that linear order is order-isomorphic to a subposet of $(\mathbb{R}_+, \leq)$. For ultrametrics the coherence condition is replaced by the stricter equality $\Phi^{-1}(a_0)=\Delta_X$. For countable value sets these conditions collapse to symmetry, $a_0$-coherence, antisymmetry of the transitive closure of $u_\Phi$, and the isosceles-triangle condition, by Theorem 3.10. The paper further characterizes when a mapping is combinatorially similar to a poset-valued ultrametric distance, showing that the same local conditions are sufficient and that the real-line condition is precisely what distinguishes real-valued ultrametrics from merely poset-valued ones.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the value set, equipped with the canonical comparison order coming from isosceles triangles, can be extended to a linear order that is order-isomorphic to a subset of the nonnegative reals; if that order-embedding fails, the whole characterization collapses, and Example 4.9 shows the failure is possible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every symmetric, $a_0$-coherent mapping with countable range whose triples are isosceles and whose canonical relation has an antisymmetric transitive closure is a relabeled rational-valued pseudoultrametric; for ultrametrics, the zero fiber must be the diagonal.
  • A mapping with uncountably many values can satisfy all local ultrametric-pattern conditions and still fail to be a real ultrametric: the lexicographic example $\mathbb{R}_+\times\{0,1\}$ is combinatorially similar to no real ultrametric, despite every countable restriction being realizable.
  • For poset-valued ultrametric distances, the same conditions characterize combinatorial similarity to a generalized ultrametric, and the passage to a real ultrametric is governed solely by whether the canonical value order embeds into $\mathbb{R}_+$.
  • Whenever combinatorial similarity holds, it can be realized by a weak similarity, meaning that the relabeling of values is an order isomorphism of the canonical value posets; combinatorial and order-theoretic sameness coincide on the class the paper characterizes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the characterization is right, ultrametric similarity is a purely order-theoretic invariant: two pseudoultrametrics are combinatorially similar exactly when their canonical value posets are order-isomorphic, so numerical distances play no role beyond their ordering.
  • The continuum example implies a non-localizability result: no finite collection of triple conditions can certify real-ultrametric similarity in general, since every countable subtable is realizable while the full table is not.
  • This suggests a practical test for hierarchical clusterability of finite dissimilarity data: check symmetry, zero-fiber coherence, the isosceles-triangle condition, and acyclicity of the canonical relation; for finite tables the real-line embeddability condition is automatic, so four-point checks decide whether the data is a monotone relabeling of an ultrametric.
  • Conjecture 4.24, if true, would turn the real-line condition into an internal criterion on the value poset: cardinality at most continuum and every totally ordered subposet embeddable in $\mathbb{R}_+$. Testing that conjecture on lexicographic products like $\mathbb{R}_+\times\{0,1\}$ is the natural next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper studies the notion of combinatorial similarity between arbitrary mappings on X^2 and (pseudo)ultrametrics, asking when a mapping Φ with domain X^2 is just a value-insensitive relabeling of a real-valued ultrametric or pseudoultrametric. The main results are Theorem 3.10, which handles the countable-range case; Theorem 3.18, which characterizes combinatorial similarity to a Q-pseudoultrametric for a poset Q; and Theorems 4.21 and Corollary 4.22, which give the general real-valued characterization in terms of symmetry, a0-coherence, the isosceles-triangle property, antisymmetry of the transitive closure of the canonical relation u_Phi, and the existence of a linear order on the value set that extends u_Phi and embeds into R+. The paper also studies weak similarities between such mappings, with applications to Priess-Crampe–Ribenboim ultrametric distances, and provides a sharpness example (Example 4.9) showing that the order-embeddability condition is not redundant.

Significance. If correct, this is a complete and checkable combinatorial characterization of when a mapping is secretly an ultrametric or pseudoultrametric. The conditions are explicit and the proofs are constructive, including the rigid ultrametric construction of Proposition 4.7 and the countable embedding via Cantor's lemma. The countable-range theorem is clean, and Example 4.9 sharply delineates the boundary of the general case. The paper also connects to the established literature on weak similarities and on Priess-Crampe–Ribenboim ultrametric distances, and it makes a believable conjecture (Conjecture 4.24) that frames the remaining order-theoretic question. Overall, the central results appear sound and would be a useful contribution to the theory of ultrametric spaces.

minor comments (8)
  1. [Definition 2.2 and Remark 2.3] The definition of a0-coherence should explicitly require that Φ^{-1}(a0) is an equivalence relation, because strong consistency was defined only for equivalence relations; otherwise Remark 2.3 is false (a two-point mapping with a0 on the off-diagonal and a different value on the diagonal satisfies implication (2.1) without the fiber being reflexive) and the inference Φ(x,x)=a0 in the proof of Theorem 3.10 is unjustified.
  2. [Theorem 3.10, proof of (ii)⇒(iii)] The displayed chain after (3.4) uses ≥ where the strong triangle inequality gives ≤ (since ⟨y_i,y_{i+1}⟩∈uΦ means the first coordinate is the base of an isosceles triangle); the contradiction still works after reversing the signs, but please correct the inequalities.
  3. [Example 4.9, formula (4.22)] The symbol q^x_2 in formula (4.22) is undefined; it should refer to a point such as q^y_0 with y>x (for instance y=x+1) to make the injectivity argument work. Also clarify the direction of f: if g:R0→X is a weak similarity from d to ρ, then f should map d(R0^2) to ρ(X^2), not the reverse.
  4. [Theorem 4.15] The theorem statement does not mention the Continuum Hypothesis, but the proof uses 2^{ℵ0}=ℵ1; please state the assumption explicitly in the theorem or indicate that the result is conditional.
  5. [Proposition 2.4] The proof is omitted with the comment that it is straightforward, but the proposition is used later (for instance in Proposition 4.3); please include a proof or at least a detailed sketch.
  6. [Theorem 4.20] The proof is given only by analogy with Theorem 4.18; please provide the details or clearly state the modifications needed when Lemma 4.19 is used instead of Lemma 4.17.
  7. [Theorem 3.10, proof of (ii)⇒(iii)] The bijection g is written as g:Z→Y, but Y was previously defined as Φ(X^2); it should be g:Z→X.
  8. [Throughout] There are several small typos and formatting issues (for example, 's imilar' and 'Combina torial' in the abstract, 'Φ be a mappings' in Proposition 2.5, and the repeated use of /greaterorequalslant where ≤ is meant); a careful proofreading pass would resolve these.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 4.21 and its corollaries are genuine characterizations built from explicit order embeddings, not reductions of the conclusion to the hypotheses.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation is self-contained in the sense that matters for circularity. Theorem 4.21 proves necessity by taking a real pseudoultrametric ρ, forming the canonical partial order ≼_ρ = u_ρ^t ∪ Δ (Lemma 3.22), and pulling back the usual R+-order through the combinatorial similarity; sufficiency takes any linear order extending u_Φ and embeddable in R+, shifts the embedding so that b0 maps to 0, and uses Proposition 3.24 to show the composed map is a real pseudoultrametric, with injectivity giving the similarity. The order-embeddability hypothesis is not the conclusion by construction: the isosceles and a0-coherence conditions are needed to certify that the order actually supports the strong triangle inequality, and Example 4.9 shows the hypothesis is not redundant. Theorem 3.10 similarly constructs its Q+-valued ultrametric from Szpilrajn and Cantor embeddings rather than assuming it. The cited Theorem 3.1 from the author's own [16] is a lemma about pseudometrics, not about the ultrametric target, and the final characterization does not reduce to it; per the rules, a parameter-free theorem with disjoint assumptions is real evidence and does not raise the circularity score. The remaining defects (omitted proof of Proposition 2.4, Theorem 4.20 proved by analogy, undefined q_x^2 in (4.22)) are expository and do not constitute circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The paper is a pure mathematics work built on standard set-theoretic and order-theoretic background. No free parameters are fitted to data; the constructions (order embeddings f*, the rigid ultrametric in (4.9)) are chosen for proofs, not estimated. The non-elementary inputs are Szpilrajn's theorem, Cantor's countable-order embedding, Cater's order-topology characterizations, and eta-1-set universality, all cited with sources. The Continuum Hypothesis is assumed explicitly and only in Theorem 4.15, and the paper flags it. Invented entities are limited to definitional invariants derived from the input mapping (u_Phi, <=_Phi, a0-coherence) and explicit counterexample constructions; none is a postulated mechanism requiring independent empirical evidence.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math ZFC set theory, including the Boolean prime ideal theorem via Szpilrajn's linear-extension theorem (Lemma 3.7)
    Every partial order extends to a linear order; used in Theorems 3.10, 3.18, and 4.15 to linearize the canonical order <=_Phi and embed value sets. Cited to [67].
  • standard math Cantor's embedding theorem for countable total orders (Lemma 3.6)
    Every countable totally ordered set embeds into (Q+, <=); used in Theorem 3.10 (iii) to construct the real-valued pseudoultrametric with rational values. Cited to [65].
  • domain assumption Continuum Hypothesis
    Explicitly assumed in Theorem 4.15: 'In the proof of the following theorem we will use the Continuum Hypothesis', to obtain 2^aleph_0 = aleph_1 so that |Phi(X^2)| <= aleph_1 and eta-1-set universality applies. The theorem is a conditional result; the rest of the paper does not use CH.
  • standard math eta-1-sets are aleph-1-universal (Lemma 4.13)
    Cited to Adams [1]; needed in Theorem 4.15 to embed the linearized value set into the eta-1-set Q while preserving the smallest element.
  • standard math Cater's theorems on order topologies (Lemmas 4.17 and 4.19)
    Second-countability and separability of the order topology characterize embeddability into (R+, <=) and (R0, <=_R0); used in Theorems 4.18 and 4.20. Cited to [9].
  • standard math Equivalence-relation and partition correspondence (Proposition 2.7 and Lemma 2.8)
    Used throughout Section 2 to translate a0-coherence into the equality Phi^{-1}(b) = R o Phi^{-1}(b) o R and into partition refinements. Cited to Kuratowski-Mostowski [45] and Kelley [41].
invented entities (4)
  • Canonical relation u_Phi on the value set Phi(X^2)
    purpose: Orders the value set by the combinatorial structure of Phi: <y1,y2> is in u_Phi iff y1 = Phi(x1,x3) and y2 = Phi(x1,x2) = Phi(x2,x3) for some x1,x2,x3; its transitive closure defines the poset (Phi(X^2), <=_Phi) used in every characterization theorem.
    Definition in Section 3 (around (3.3)); a definitional invariant derived from the input mapping, not an empirically postulated entity, so the usual graviton concern does not apply.
  • Canonical partial order <=_Phi = u_Phi^t union Delta on Phi(X^2)
    purpose: Gives the intrinsic order of the value set; Theorem 3.18(iv) states that Phi is a <=_Phi-pseudoultrametric exactly when the characterization conditions hold.
    Equations (3.19) and (4.24); derived from Phi itself. The apparent circularity is resolved because condition (iii) of Theorem 3.18 states the same property without reference to <=_Phi.
  • a0-coherence (strong consistency with the fiber Phi^{-1}(a0))
    purpose: Identifies the zero-level fiber as an equivalence relation and forces Phi(x,x) = a0; central to all main theorems and to the pseudometric base case inherited from [16].
    Definition 2.2; a property of the input mapping, not a postulated entity.
  • Lexicographic product R0 = R+ x {0,1} with the rigid ultrametric d of formula (4.9)
    purpose: Counterexample: a poset-valued ultrametric not combinatorially similar to any real ultrametric, though every countable restriction is; proves sharpness of Theorem 3.10 and drives Proposition 4.11.
    Explicit construction in Example 4.9 and Proposition 4.7; a mathematical example, fully self-contained, with no external evidence required.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Combinatorial properties of ultrametrics and generalized ultrametrics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IM4PYAD6

@misc{pith2026190808349,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Combinatorial properties of ultrametrics and generalized ultrametrics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IM4PYAD6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08349}
}
abstract

Let $X$, $Y$ be sets and let $\Phi$, $\Psi$ be mappings with domains $X^{2}$ and $Y^{2}$ respectively. We say that $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are combinatorially similar if there are bijections $f \colon \Phi(X^2) \to \Psi(Y^{2})$ and $g \colon Y \to X$ such that $\Psi(x, y) = f(\Phi(g(x), g(y)))$ for all $x$, $y \in Y$. Conditions under which a given mapping is combinatorially similar to an ultrametric or a pseudoultrametric are found. Combinatorial characterizations are also obtained for poset-valued ultrametric distances recently defined by Priess-Crampe and Ribenboim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08349 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The metric space (X, ρ) is (up to isometry) a subspace of the metric space L consisting of the three rays −−→x4x1, −−→x4x2, −−→x4x3 and a unit circle (a circle with the radius 1) passing through x1, x2 and x3 if we consider L endowed with the shortest path metric. We want to describe the mappings which are combinatorially similar to pseudoultrametrics. For this goal we recall some definitions. Let γ be a binary rela… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Each equilateral, pseudolinear quadruple is (up to similarity) a subspace {x1, x2, x3, x4} of the unit circle endowed with the shortest path metric. Remark 3.13. The pseudolinear quadruples appeared for the first time in the paper of Menger [52]. According to Menger, the pseudolinear quadruples are characterized as the metric spaces which are not iso￾metric to any subset of R, but such that every triple of whose poi… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Combinatorial characterization of pseudometrics

    O. Dovgoshey. Combinatorial characterization of pseu dometrics. arXiv:1906.07411v1, pages 1–32, 2019. COMBINATORIAL PROPERTIES 39

    work page Pith review arXiv 1906

  2. [1]

    L. Adams. Universal totally ordered sets. https://www. whitman.edu/Docu- ments/Academics/Mathematics/2018/Adams.pdf

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    Andrikopoulos

    A. Andrikopoulos. Szpilrajn-type theorems in economic s. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 2009. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/i d/eprint/14345

    work page 2009

  4. [3]

    V. N. Berestovskii. On Urysohn’s R-tree. Siberian Mathematical Journal , 60(1):10–19, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    Bestvina

    M. Bestvina. R-trees in topology, geometry and group the ory. In R. J. Daver- man and R. B. Sher, editors, Handbook of Geometric Topology , pages 55–91. Nort-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002

    work page 2002

  6. [5]

    Beyrer and V

    J. Beyrer and V. Schroeder. Trees and ultrametric m¨ obiu s structures. P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. , 9(4):247–256, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    L. M. Blumenthal. Theory and Applications of Distance Geometry . Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1953

    work page 1953

  8. [7]

    Bonnet and M

    R. Bonnet and M. Pouzet. Linear Extensions of Ordered Set s. In I. Rival, editor, Ordered Sets. NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series , volume 83 of Series C: Mathematical and Physical Sciences , pages 125–170, Dordrecht, 1982. Springer

    work page 1982

Show all 70 references
  1. [8]

    Carlsson and F

    G. Carlsson and F. M´ emoli. Characterization, stabilit y and convergence of hierarchical clustering methods. J. Machine Learn. Res. , 11(3/1):1425–1470, 2010

    2010

  2. [9]

    F. S. Cater. On order topologies and the real line. Real Analysis Exchange , 25(2):771–780, 1999/2000

    1999

  3. [10]

    Colebunders and K

    E. Colebunders and K. van Opdenbosch. Topological prop erties of non- Archimedean approach spaces. Theory and Applications of Categories , 32(41):1454–1484, 2017

    2017

  4. [11]

    Delhomm´ e, C

    C. Delhomm´ e, C. Laflamme, M. Pouzet, and N. Sauer. Indiv isible ultrametric spaces. Topology and its Applications , 155(14):1462–1478, 2008

    2008

  5. [12]

    E. D. Demaine, G. M. Landau, and O. Weimann. On Cartesian Trees and Range Minimum Queries. In Proceedings of the 36-th International Colloquium, ICALP 2009, Rhodes, Greece, July 5-12, 2009, Part I , volume 5555 of Lecture notes in Computer Science , pages 341–353. Springer-Ber...

    2009

  6. [13]

    Dordovskyi, O

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

    2011

  7. [14]

    A. A. Dovgoshe ˘ ı and E. A. Petrov. Ptolemaic spaces. Siberian Mathematical Journal, 52(2):222–229, 2011

    2011

  8. [15]

    A. A. Dovgoshey and D. V. Dordovskyi. Betweenness and is ometric embed- dings of metric spaces. Ukrain. Mat. Zh. , 61(10):1319–1328, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    Dovgoshey

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

    2019

  10. [18]

    Dovgoshey

    O. Dovgoshey. On ultrametric-preserving functions. arXiv:1902.08747v2, pages 1–9, 2019

    1902 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dovgoshey

    O. Dovgoshey. Semigroups generated by partitions. Int. Electron. J. Algebra , 26:145–190, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Dovgoshey and D

    O. Dovgoshey and D. Dordovskyi. Ultrametricity and met ric betweenness in tangent spaces to metric spaces. P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. , 2(2):100–113, 2010

    2010

  13. [21]

    Dovgoshey and O

    O. Dovgoshey and O. Martio. Blow up of balls and covering s in metric spaces. Manuscripta Math. , 127:89–120, 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    Dovgoshey and O

    O. Dovgoshey and O. Martio. Products of metric spaces, c overing numbers, packing numbers and characterizations of ultrametric spac es. Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures. Appl. , 54(5-6):423–439, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Dovgoshey and E

    O. Dovgoshey and E. Petrov. Subdominant pseudoultrame tric on graphs. Sb. Math, 204(8):1131–1151, 2013. translation from Mat. Sb. 204 (2013), no. 8, 51–72

    2013

  16. [24]

    Dovgoshey and E

    O. Dovgoshey and E. Petrov. Weak similarities of metric and semimetric spaces. Acta Math. Hung. , 141(4):301–319, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Dovgoshey and E

    O. Dovgoshey and E. Petrov. From isomorphic rooted tree s to isometric ultra- metric spaces. P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. , 10(4):287–298, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Dovgoshey and E

    O. Dovgoshey and E. Petrov. Properties and morphisms of finite ultrametric spaces and their representing trees. P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. , 11(1):1–20, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Dovgoshey, E

    O. Dovgoshey, E. Petrov, and H.-M. Teichert. On spaces e xtremal for the Gomory-Hu inequality. P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. , 7(2):133–142, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Dovgoshey, E

    O. Dovgoshey, E. Petrov, and H.-M. Teichert. How rigid t he finite ultrametric spaces can be? Fixed Point Theory Appl. , 19(2):1083–1102, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    M. Fiedler. Ultrametric sets in Euclidean point spaces . Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra, 3:23–30, 1998

    1998

  22. [30]

    R. E. Gomory and T. C. Hu. Multi-terminal network flows. SIAM, 9(4):551– 570, 1961

    1961

  23. [31]

    de Groot

    J. de Groot. Non-Archimedean metrics in topology. Proc. A.M.S. , 7(6):948– 956, 1956

    1956

  24. [32]

    Gurvich and M

    V. Gurvich and M. Vyalyi. Characterizing (quasi-)ultr ametric finite spaces in terms of (directed) graphs. Discrete Appl. Math. , 160(12):1742–1756, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    Gurvich and M

    V. Gurvich and M. Vyalyi. Ultrametrics, trees, and bott leneck arcs. Math. Ed., Moscow: MCNMO , 3(16):75–88, 2012

    2012

  26. [34]

    Z. Hedrlin. On universal partly ordered sets and classe s. Journal of Algebra , 11:503–509, 1969

    1969

  27. [35]

    J. E. Holly. Pictures of ultrametric spaces, the p-adic numbers, and valued fields. Amer. Math. Monthly , 108(8):721–728, 2001

    2001

  28. [36]

    John M. Howie. An Introduction to Semigroup Theory , volume 7 of L.M.S. Monographs. Academic Press, 1976

    1976

  29. [37]

    B. Hughes. Trees and ultrametric spaces: a categorical equivalence. Adv. Math., 189(1):148–191, 2004. 40 OLEKSIY DOVGOSHEY

    2004

  30. [38]

    B. Hughes. Trees, ultrametrics, and noncommutative ge ometry. Pure Appl. Math. Q. , 8(1):221–312, 2012

    2012

  31. [39]

    Ibragimov

    Z. Ibragimov. M¨ obius maps between ultrametric spaces are local similarities. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. , 37:309–317, 2012

    2012

  32. [40]

    Johnston

    J. Johnston. Universal infinite partially ordered sets . Proc. AMS , 7:507–514, 1956

    1956

  33. [41]

    J. L. Kelley. General Topology. Springer-Verlag, New York /emdash.cyr Heidelberg /emdash.cyr Berlin, 1975

    1975

  34. [42]

    W. A. Kirk and N. Shahzad. Some fixed point results in ultr ametric spaces. Topology Appl., 159:3327–3334, 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    Kleindessner and U

    M. Kleindessner and U. von Luxburg. Uniqueness of ordin al embedding. In Proceedings of The 27-th conference of Learning Theory , pages 40–67, 2014

    2014

  36. [44]

    Kr¨ otzch

    M. Kr¨ otzch. Generalized ultrametric spaces in quanti tative domain theory. Theoret. Comput. Sci. , 36(1–2):30–49, 2006

    2006

  37. [45]

    Kuratowski and A

    K. Kuratowski and A. Mostowski. Set Theory with an Introduction to Descrip- tive Set Theory . North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam /emdash.cyr New York /emdash.cyr Oxford, 1976

    1976

  38. [46]

    A. J. Lemin. On isosceles metric spaces. Functional Analysis and its Applica- tions, pages 26–31, 1984. (in Russian)

    1984

  39. [47]

    A. J. Lemin. On the stability of the property of a space be ing isosceles. Russ. Math. Surveys , 39(5):283–284, 1984

    1984

  40. [48]

    A. J. Lemin. Proximity on isosceles spacesProximity on isosceles spaces. Russ. Math. Surveys , 39(1):143–144, 1984

    1984

  41. [49]

    A. J. Lemin. Isometric embedding of isosceles (non-Arc himedean) spaces in Euclidean spaces. Soviet Math. Dokl. , 32(3):740–744, 1985

    1985

  42. [50]

    A. J. Lemin. An application of the theory of isosceles (u ltrametric) spaces to the Trnkova-Vinarek theorem. Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae , 29(3):427– 434, 1988

    1988

  43. [51]

    A. J. Lemin. The category of ultrametric spaces is isomo rphic to the category of complete, atomic, tree-like, real graduated lattices LA T∗ . Algebra Universalis, 50(1):35–49, 2003

    2003

  44. [52]

    K. Menger. Untersuchunger ¨ uber allgemeine Metrik. Math. Ann. , 100:75–163, 1928

    1928

  45. [53]

    E. Petrov. Weak similarities of finite ultrametric and s emimetric spaces. P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. , 10(2):108–117, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    Petrov and A

    E. Petrov and A. Dovgoshey. On the Gomory-Hu inequality . J. Math. Sci. , 198(4):392–411, 2014. Translation from Ukr. Mat. Visn. 10( 4):469–496, 2013

    2014

  47. [55]

    Pongsriiam and I

    P. Pongsriiam and I. Termwuttipong. Remarks on ultrame trics and metric- preserving functions. Abstr. Appl. Anal. , 2014:1–9, 2014

    2014

  48. [56]

    Priess-Crampe

    S. Priess-Crampe. Der Banachesche fixpunktsats f¨ ur ultrametrishe R¨ aume.Re- sults in Math. , 18:178–186, 1990

    1990

  49. [57]

    Priess-Crampe and P

    S. Priess-Crampe and P. Ribenboim. Fixed points, combs and generalized power series. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg , 63:227–244, 1993

    1993

  50. [58]

    Priess-Crampe and P

    S. Priess-Crampe and P. Ribenboim. Generalized ultram etric spaces I. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg , 66:55–73, 1996

    1996

  51. [59]

    Priess-Crampe and P

    S. Priess-Crampe and P. Ribenboim. Generalized ultram etric spaces II. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg , 67:19–31, 1997. COMBINATORIAL PROPERTIES 41

    1997

  52. [60]

    Priess-Crampe and P

    S. Priess-Crampe and P. Ribenboim. Ultrametric spaces and logic program- ming. J. Logic Programming, 42(2):59–70, 2000

    2000

  53. [61]

    D. Qiu. Geometry of non-Archimedian Gromov–Hausdorff d istance. P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. , 1(4):317–337, 2009

    2009

  54. [62]

    D. Qiu. The structures of Hausdorff metric in non-Archim edian spaces. P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. , 6(1):33–53, 2014

    2014

  55. [63]

    Ribenboim

    P. Ribenboim. The new theory of ultrametric spaces. Periodica Math. Hung. , 32(1–2):103–111, 1996

    1996

  56. [64]

    Ribenboim

    P. Ribenboim. The immersion of ultrametric spaces into Hahn Spaces. J. of Algebra, 323(5):1482–1493, 2009

    2009

  57. [65]

    J. G. Rosenstein. Linear Orderings, volume 98 of Pure and Applied Mathemat- ics. Academic Press, New York, 1982

    1982

  58. [66]

    A. K. Seda and P. Hitzler. Generalized ultrametrics, do mains and an applica- tion to computational logic. Irish. Math. Soc. Bull. , 41:31–43, 1998

    1998

  59. [67]

    Szpilrajn

    E. Szpilrajn. Sur l’extension de l’ordre partiel. Fundamenta Matematicae , 16:386–389, 1930

    1930

  60. [68]

    J. Vaughan. Universal ultrametric spaces of smallest w eight. Topology Proc., 24:611–619, 1999

    1999

  61. [69]

    Vestfrid

    I. Vestfrid. On the universal ultrametric space. Ukr. Math. J. , 46(12):1890– 1898, 1994

    1994

  62. [70]

    Weighill

    T. Weighill. Mal’tsev objects, R1-spaces and ultrametric spaces. Theory and Applications of Categories , 32(42):1485–1500, 2017. O. Dovgoshey Function theory department Institute of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics of NASU Dobrovolskogo str. 1, Slovyansk 84100, Ukraine E-mail...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.