(This is almost verbatim the talk I gave recently (Feb 23, 2012) at the Toronto Student Set Theory and Topology Seminar. I will be giving this talk again on April 5, 2012)
I have been working on a problem involving the Urysohn space recently, and I figured that I should fill people in with the basic facts and techniques involved in this space. I will give some useful facts, a key technique and 3 cool facts. First, the definition!
Definition: A metric space
has the Urysohn property if
is complete and separable
contains every separable metric space as an isometric copy.
is ultrahomogeneous in the sense that if
are finite, isometric subspaces of
then there is an automorphism of
that takes
to
.
You might already know a space that satisfies the first two properties – The Hilbert cube or
the continuous functions from
to
. However, these spaces are not ultrahomogeneous. Should a Urysohn space even exist? It does, but the construction isn’t particularly illuminating so I will skip it.
Usually, ultrahomogeneity and universality are used in the following way:
Fact 1: A Urysohn space has the “1 point extension property”. That is, if
is a finite subset of
and
is an arbitrary metric extension of
, then there is a point
such that
with
getting mapped to
as the identity.
proof. Let be a finite subset of
and let
be a one point metric extension of
. Well,
is a separable metric space, so find a copy of it in
, call it
. Now use ultrahomogeneity of
to map
to
, by an isometry
. Then
is contained in
and is isometric to
.[QED]

It turns out that the 1 point extension property is a very strong property. This is kind of expected because a space with the 1 point extension property contains a copy of every finite metric space. That is pretty big already!
Fact 2: For a complete, separable metric space
, TFAE:
has the 1pt extension property
is a Urysohn space
proof. We have already seen the converse, so let us assume that has the 1pt extension property and we will show that
is universal with respect to separable metric spaces and that
is ultrahomogeneous.
Universal: This is an easy induction. Let be a dense subset of a metric space. Since
is complete it will be enough to show that
(as an isometric copy of course!)
Any finite collection is contained (isometrically) in
(by using the 1pt extension property
times) and one more application gives that
is contained (isometrically) in
.
Since at each stage we are extending, the union of all of these finite copies will be the desired copy of .
Ultrahomogeneous: For no cost we can actually show a more general fact that illustrates a helpful technique. (This is one of those cases where showing the more general fact more clearly indicates what properties are important.)
Ultrahomogeneity Theorem: Let
be separable, complete metric spaces with the 1pt extension property. Finite isomorphisms extend to the whole space. (i.e. If
is a finite subset of
and
is a finite subset of
such that
then there is an isomorphism
that sends
to
.)
This will be a back-and-forth argument. The “back” part will ensure that we have a surjection, and the “forward” will give us a function defined on all of . The proof is by induction, but seeing the first step will be enough to give you the entire idea.
Let be countable, dense and let
be countable dense. Since
are complete it will be enough to define a map
on at least
whose image contains
as there is a unique function that extends
to all of
.
Let be an isomorphism.
We will define so that:
extends
(Sam’s comment: It might not be possible to map the countable dense subset of isometrically onto the countable dense subset of
. For example, the rationals cannot be mapped isometrically onto the rationals with
.)
Now is a finite metric space, and by the 1pt extension property of
there is a
such that
is isometric to
. Obviously there is in fact an isometry
that extends
.

So we have extended the domain by one point. Now to extend the range. (The next paragraph is almost a copy of the one above.)
Notice that is a finite metric space, and by the 1pt extension property of
there is a
such that
is isometric to
. Obviously there is in fact an isometry
that extends
.
So by induction there is a family of isometries such that
extends
Thus is an isometry from
onto
. [QED]
(Sam and Ivan’s comment: It is true a posteriori that is dense in
as isometries map dense sets to dense sets. In fact continuous surjections map dense sets to dense sets.)
By letting and
in the above theorem we get:
FACT 3: Any two Urysohn spaces are isometric.
And letting we get what some people would call “ultrahomogeneity”:
FACT 4: In the Urysohn space
, any partial isometry
, with
finite, then
extends to all of
.
More on the 1pt extension property
In practise the 1 point extension property isn’t really the right way to describe 1pt extensions. (Wait, what?) It turns out that instead of describing abstract one point metric extensions (which requires using an element outside of the metric space in question) we instead define the distances from a metric space to an outside point. (Stay with me, this will make sense soon.)
Definition: Let
be a metric space. A function
is a Katetov function if
We letbe the set of Katetov functions on
.
At first these seem like weird constraints to put on a function. The first inequality is just saying that is 1-Lipschitz, the second inequality is a type of triangle inequality (which in particular guarantees that
is non-negative). Intuitively, these functions are meant to represent distances to a point.
Example 1: Let be your favourite metric space with
. Consider
given by
. Notice that
:
Example 2: If , then
is also a katetov function.
Example 3: If we can get a 1pt extension of
to
by letting
if
and
if
. Notice now that being a katetov function ensures that d’ satisfies the triangle inequality.
FACT 5: If
is finite, and
, then there is a
such that
for all
.
This says that being a katetov function means that it describes distances to an (abstract) point. (i.e.
describes a 1pt extension). Since
has the 1pt extension property, there is a point
that witnesses this.
Cool Stuff
Enough with all of that abstract stuff, let’s show you some cool stuff.
You are probably wondering about the topological properties of . Well you already know that
is a complete, separable metric space (which is really nice), but what about connectedness?
FACT 6:
has a strong form of path-connectedness, that is,
has geodesics.
Definition: A metric space
has geodesics if for any two points
there is a closed interval
and an isometry
from
into
such that
and
. So there is “a line between
and
“.
proof. The picture says everything, but for those of you so inclined, here are the details.
Take , both in
. Let
. Hey,
is a separable metric space, so find an isometric copy
in
. Now by ultrahomogeneity of
, there is an isometry
of
that maps the end-points of
to
. Thus
and
fulfill the requirements of the definition of geodesics. [QED]

(Dominic’s question: Does have unique geodesics?)
Fact 7:
has uncountably many geodesics between any two points.
proof. Now we get to use a standard proof technique in Urysohn spaces- We construct katetov functions that code different geodesics.
Fix a single geodesic between two points
, and let
be the midpoint of
. For simplicity, assume that
has length 8.
Consider defined by
and
, where
.
If we can show that is a katetov function, then it will produce a point
that is distance
to both
and
(so by the triangle inquality it lies on a geodesic from
to
), and each
is distinct as
if
.
Claim: is a katetov function.
(I’ll supress the subscript for readability)
and
[QED]
Cool Isometric copies of 
Now we look at an interesting copy of . For the record,
, which is clear from the construction of
(which I have omitted).
FACT 7: There are isometric copies of
in
with empty interior.
proof. For a finite set we define
.
For example, in , if
then
.

Claim: For any nonempty finite set ,
.
It is pretty easy to swallow that is a closed subset of
, a complete, separable metric space. Thus
is itself a complete separable metric space and by the ultrahomogeneity theorem it is enough to show that
has the 1pt extension property.
Let be finite and let
be a katetov function.
Let be defined by
for
and
.
[This is called the katetov extension of to
].
We will show later that this is a katetov function, but if we accept that is a katetov function then there is a
such that
for all
.
Since for all
, it only remains to see that
. This follows since
for all
, so
for all
; the infimum does not depend on
or
.
[QED]
This next fact stands in direct opposition of Fact 7:
FACT 8: There are (proper) isometric copies of
in
with non-empty interior.
This will be shown using the following proposition:
Proposition: For
a compact subset of
,
, we have
. Thus
is isometric to
.
proof. Note that is an open subset of
, so
is a complete separable metric space. Thus we only need to show that it has the 1pt extension property.
Let be finite, and let
be a katetov function. Without loss of generality we may assume that
.
Let be an
-net. (Every point of
is within
of some point of
)
Now consider be defined by
. Let us accept for now that this is a katetov function.
Then there is a such that
for all
. For
we just get
. For
we get
And so it is clear that for all
, not just those in
.
[QED]
Katetov Extensions
The only thing we have left to justify is why the functions we defined in Fact 1 and 2 are katetov functions. This comes from a general notion of the “amalgamation of two metric spaces along a compact subspace”, which is mumbo jumbo for gluing two space together.
The idea is that if you have two unrelated spaces that both have an (isometric) copy of the unit circle (or your favourite compact metric space) in them, then you can define a bigger space that contains your original spaces, glued together at the circle.

Showing that there is such a space will prove that the functions be defined by
really are katetov functions (where
is katetov).
FACT 9: Amalgamation is possible.
proof. Let and
be metric spaces both having an isometric copy of
, a compact metric space. Let
, but identify the copies of
. Now we need to define a metric
on
that agrees with
and
.
So let if
. Similarly, let
if
.
Now we only need to deal with the case where the points are in different spaces.
Let . So it is the shortest way from
to
while going through
. This makes sense because
is compact, we need only show that
is actually a metric. The only thing that isn’t clear is the triangle inequality, so here goes.
FACT 10: If
, with
compact, and
is a katetov function, then
is a katetov function that (obviously) extends
, where
proof. If , the result is clear (although we didn’t really have to point out this case). Let
.
Thus .
[Note that above, was chosen to be
.]
[QED]
Conclusion
There is the end of the easily digestible facts about the Urysohn space (that I know). It is interesting to me that I was able to get all of this information across to our seminar in a mere 90 minutes! As presented here the material seems so dense, but it really isn’t. I hope the pictures help you grok this stuff, because I really think that the ideas here are simple and the techniques are useful.
Most of this material was taken from the wonderful article “On the Geometry of Urysohn’s Universal Metric Space” by Julien Melleray (2007), and chapter 5 of “Dynamics of Infinite Dimensional Groups” by Vladimir Pestov (2006). Melleray’s paper contains very useful exercises, some of which I have included in this talk (as facts).
nice,
but there is a typo in the def of Katetov function. (Fixed. -Mike)LikeLike
Thank you very much for sharing this useful notes. Just for an unimportant betterment in the definition of ultrahomogeneous : automorphism of U instead of isomorphism of U. Again thanks
LikeLike