On a Helly-type question for central symmetry

Abstract: We study a certain Helly-type question by Konrad Swanepoel. Assume that $X$ is a set of points such that every $k$-subset of $X$ is in centrally symmetric convex position, is it true that $X$ must also be in centrally symmetric convex position? It is easy to see that this is false if $k\le 5$, but it may be true for sufficiently large $k$. We investigate this question and give some partial results.

\section{Introduction}
The classical Carathéodory theorem in dimension $2$ can be stated in the following equivalent way:
Let $X$ be a set of points in the plane, if any $4$ points from $X$ are in convex positions then $X$ is in convex position. In 2010, Konrad Swanepoel \cite{KS} asked the following Helly-type question which was inspired by this formulation of Carathéodory's theorem.

For brevity, we say that a set of points is in \emph{c.s.c. position} (short for centrally symmetric convex position) if it is contained in the boundary of a centrally symmetric convex body.

\begin{question}
  Does there exist a number $k$ such that for any planar set $X$ the following holds: If any $k$ points from $X$ are in c.s.c position, then the whole set $X$ is in c.s.c. position.
\end{question}

It is clear from Carathéodory's theorem that $X$ should be in convex position. One can also see that $k\geq 6$ since any $5$ points in convex position are in c.s.c. position. This follows from the fact that any $5$ points pass through a quadric curve. Since the points must be in convex position, the points lie on an ellipse, parabola, a branch of a hyperbola or a union of two lines and in each of these cases there is a centrally symmetric convex body containing these points on its boundary.

It is not clear that such a $k$ exists although we suspect that it does. In this short note, we prove the following two results in Sections \ref{sec:9} and \ref{sec:curve}.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:9}
  There is a set $X$ consisting of $9$ points that is not in c.s.c. position such that any $8$ of its points are in c.s.c. position. This implies that, if $k$ exists, then $k\ge 9$.
\end{thm}

\begin{thm}\label{thm:curve}
  Let $\Gamma$ be a closed curve such that any $6$ points of $\Gamma$ are in c.s.c. position, then $\Gamma$ bounds a centrally symmetric convex region.
\end{thm}

Before proving these theorems, we describe a way to decide whether a finite set $X$ is in c.s.c. position or not. For more information on Carathéodory's theorem and Helly-type theorems we recommend \cite{Eck} and \cite{Mat}.

\section{Centrally symmetric convex position}
We start with a useful definition.

\begin{defin}
  Let $X$ be a point set and $O$ be a point. The set $X_O$ denotes the reflection of $X$ with respect to $O$, i.e., $X_O=2O-X$.
  If $X\cup X_O$ is in convex position then we say that $O$ is an \emph{admissible center for $X$}, the set of all admissible centers is denoted by $\mathcal{M}_X$.
\end{defin}

Swanepoel's question can be reformulated in terms of admissible centers, since $X$ is in c.s.c. position if and only if $\mathcal{M}_X$ is non-empty.
The main goal of this section is to give a simple way of constructing $\mathcal{M}_X$.
We start with the simplest possible case. The description of the set of admissible center for a finite set $X$ can be obtained from the following simple lemmas.

\begin{lem}
  Let $\triangle=\{a,b,c\}$ be three non-collinear points. The three lines passing through the midpoints of the sides of $\conv(\triangle)$ divide the plane into $7$ regions. The set $\mathcal{M}_\triangle$, shown in Figure \ref{fig:triang}, is the union of the closed components of this division that do not intersect $\triangle$.
\end{lem}

The set $\mathcal{M}_\triangle$ is naturally represented as the union of $4$ convex subsets. We call these subsets the \emph{center-part}, \emph{$a$-part}, \emph{$b$-part} and \emph{$c$-part} as in Figure \ref{fig:triang}.

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \includegraphics{triang.pdf}
  \caption{Set of admissible centers for a triangle.}
  \label{fig:triang}
\end{figure}

\begin{lem}\label{lem:intersection}
  For a given set $X$ in convex position we have that
  $$\mathcal{M}_X=\bigcap \left\{\mathcal{M}_Y:Y\subset X,\#(Y)=3\right\}.$$
\end{lem}

These last two lemmas provide us with a way to construct the set of admissible centers of a set with $n$ points in convex position as the intersection of $\binom n3$ sets, each of which is the union of four convex sets. We see below how we can achieve the same thing using fewer sets.

\begin{defin}
  Assume $X$ is a finite set of points in convex position such that $X$ is not contained in a line. Let $ab$ be a side of $\conv(X)$ and let $c\in X$ be a farthest point from the line $ab$. We call the triangle $abc$ a \emph{tallest triangle of $X$ with respect to side $ab$}.
\end{defin}

The tallest triangle has appeared before, at least as source of interesting questions for mathematical Olympiads (see e.g. \cite{TT} or \cite{TT2}).

\begin{thm}\label{thm:tallest}
  If $X$ is a finite set of points in convex position, then the set of admissible centers for $X$ is the intersection of the sets of admissible centers of the tallest triangles of $X$, i.e.,
  $$\mathcal{M}_X=\bigcap \left\{ \mathcal{M}_{\{a,b,c\}}: abc \text{ is a tallest triangle of } X \right\}.$$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
  The set $\mathcal{M}_X$ is included in the intersection on the right-hand side of the formula, so we only need to prove that any point from the intersection is in $\mathcal{M}_X$.

  Let $O$ be any point from the intersection and let $a$ be any point from $X$. We will show that it is possible to find a supporting line of $\conv(X\cup X_O)$ at $a$.

  Let $b$ be one of the neighbors of $a$ on the boundary of $\conv(X)$, say in the counter-clockwise direction. Let $abc$ be a tallest triangle of $X$ with respect to $ab$. If $O$ lies in $a$-part or $b$-part of the admissible set for triangle $abc$, then $ab$ is a supporting line for $\conv(X\cup X_O)$. Therefore $O$ lies in the $c$-part or in the central part of $\mathcal{M}_{\{a,b,c\}}$.

  Similarly, if $d$ is the other neighbor of $a$ on the boundary of $X$ (in the clockwise direction), and $ade$ is a tallest triangle of $X$ with respect to $ad$, then $O$ lies in the central part or in the $e$-part of $\mathcal{M}_{\{a,d,e\}}$, otherwise we are done.

  There are two possibilities for the positions of $c$ and $e$. Either they coincide, or $e$ is in the clockwise direction from $c$. In the case $c=e$, the only admissible point from $\mathcal{M}_{\{a,b,c\}}$ is the midpoint of $ac$, which also belongs to the $b$-part of $\mathcal{M}_{\{a,b,c\}}$. So, the line $ab$ is a supporting line of $\conv(X\cup X_O)$ as we have shown before.

 \begin{figure}[ht]
   \includegraphics{tallest.pdf}
   \caption{A supporting line of $\conv(X\cup X_O)$ at $a$.}
   \label{fig:tall}
 \end{figure}

  In the latter case, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:tall}, the point $O\in abc\cap ade$, and $c$ and $e$ are connected by a sequence of sides of $X$. Then there is a side $pq$ of $X$ in the angle $\angle cae$ such that $O$ is inside triangle $apq$. It is not difficult to see that $apq$ is a tallest triangle of $X$. Since $O$ is inside $apq$ and in $\mathcal{M}_{\{a,p,q\}}$, it is in the central part of this set of admissible centers. It follows that the line parallel to $pq$ through $a$ is also a supporting line of $\conv(X\cup X_O)$.
\end{proof}

\section{Example showing \texorpdfstring{$k\ge 9$}{k >= 9}}\label{sec:9}

In this section we prove Theorem \ref{thm:9} by giving an explicit example of a set $X$ with $9$ points such that $\mathcal{M}_X=\emptyset$, but $\mathcal{M}_Y\neq\emptyset$ for every $Y\subset X$ with $8$ points.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:9}]
	Start with a regular $9$-gon with center $O$ and label its vertices as $a_1$, $b_1$, $c_1$, $a_2$, $b_2$, $c_2$, $a_3$, $b_3$, $c_3$ in counter-clockwise order. Now, take the triangle $a_1a_2a_3$ and, with center $O$, scale it down by a factor of $0.93$. Then we are left with an almost regular $9$-gon such as the one shown in Figure \ref{fig:9gon}. This will be the set $X$.

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \includegraphics{9gon.pdf}
  \caption{The $9$-gon for Theorem \ref{thm:9}.}
  \label{fig:9gon}
\end{figure}

A subset $Y$ of $X$ with $8$ points can be of two types, depending on whether or not it is missing a point $a_i$ from $X$. For each of these, a point of $\mathcal{M}_Y$ close to $O$ will serve as an admissible center. If we choose coordinates so that $O=(0,0)$ and $b_1=(1,0)$, then points in $\mathcal{M}_Y$ corresponding to $Y=X\setminus\{a_1\}$ and $Y=X\setminus\{b_2\}$ are $(0.04,0)$ and $(0.02,0)$, respectively (see Figure \ref{fig:9gon2}).

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \includegraphics{9gon2.pdf}
  \caption{The original and reflected $8$-gons with their respective centers.}
  \label{fig:9gon2}
\end{figure}

All that is left is to show that $\mathcal{M}_X=\emptyset$. By Lemma \ref{lem:intersection}, we only need to consider the triangles determined by $X$. Let us consider first the triangle $a_1b_2c_2$, it is not hard to see that $\mathcal{M}_X$ must be a subset of the center part of $\mathcal{M}_{\{a_1,b_2,c_2\}}$. By the threefold symmetry of $X$, the same is true for the triangles $a_2b_3c_3$ and $a_3b_1c_1$. However, the center parts of these sets are triangles that do not intersect, so $\mathcal{M}_X$ must be empty.
\end{proof}

\section{The case of convex curves}\label{sec:curve}

In this section we show that for a convex curve $\Gamma$ the answer for Swanepoel's question is the least possible, i.e. $k=6$. For the remaining part of the section we assume that every 6 points of $\Gamma$ are in c.s.c.

The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:curve} is based on the following simple fact, which can be proved easily using Lemma \ref{lem:intersection}.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:parallelogram}
  The set of admissible centers for the vertex-set of a parallelogram $P$ is the union the two lines passing through the center of $P$ and each parallel to a side of $P$.
\end{lem}

First we establish a few facts for $\Gamma$. Since $\Gamma$ is convex, then every point $x$ of $\Gamma$ has correctly defined one-sided tangents which are the best linear approximations of $\Gamma$ at $x$ in clockwise and counter-clockwise directions. If these lines coincide, then $\Gamma$ has a tangent at $x$ and we will call $x$ a {\it smooth point} of $\Gamma$. Due to the convexity of $\Gamma$, it may contain at most countably many non-smooth points.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:length}
If $\ell$ and $\ell'$ are two parallel supporting lines of $\Gamma$, then the lengths of the segments $\ell\cap\Gamma$ and $\ell'\cap\Gamma$ are equal.
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
We say that a point is a segment of length zero.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that the length of $\ell\cap\Gamma$ is strictly greater than the length of $\ell'\cap\Gamma$. We choose six points $a,b,c,d,e,f\in\Gamma$ in counter-clockwise order such that $a$ and $c$ are the endpoints of $\ell\cap\Gamma$, $b$ is the midpoint of $\ell\cap\Gamma$, $e$ is a point on $\ell'\cap\Gamma$, and $df$ is a segment parallel to $\ell$ such that its length is strictly between lengths of $\ell\cap\Gamma$ and $\ell'\cap\Gamma$, see Figure \ref{fig:parsupport}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
  \includegraphics{parasup.pdf}
  \caption{Parallel supporting lines cannot intersect $\Gamma$ at segments of different lengths.}
  \label{fig:parsupport}
\end{figure}

It is easy to see that these 6 points are not in c.s.c. which is a contradiction. Therefore the intersections $\ell\cap\Gamma$ and $\ell'\cap\Gamma$ have equal length.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}\label{lem:inscribed-para}
Let $a$ be a smooth point of $\Gamma$ with tangent $\ell$, and let $b,c,d\in\Gamma$ be points such that $abcd$ is a parallelogram with sides not parallel to $\ell$. Then the line through $c$ parallel to $\ell$ supports $\Gamma$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Let $\ell'$ be the line parallel to $\ell$ through $c$. Suppose $\ell'$ doesn't support $\Gamma$. We may assume that points $a,b,c,d$ determine a counter-clockwise orientation of $\Gamma$ and $\ell'$ intersects the arc $bc$ of $\Gamma$, see Figure \ref{fig:tangent} for more details. Let $\ell_+$ be the tangent of the arc $bc$ of $\Gamma$ at $c$ and let $\ell_+'$ be the line parallel to $\ell_+$ through $a$ (see Figure \ref{fig:tangent}).

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \includegraphics{smooth.pdf}
  \caption{A curve with an inscribed parallelogram at a smooth point $a$.}
  \label{fig:tangent}
\end{figure}

We can choose a point $x$ on the arc $ab$ that is closer to $\ell$ than to $\ell_+'$, indeed, the line $\ell$ is the best linear approximation of $\Gamma$ at $a$, so each point of $\Gamma$ in a small neighborhood of $a$ is closer to $\ell$ than to $\ell_+'$. Similarly we can find a point $y$ on the arc $bc$ closer to $\ell_+$ than to $\ell'$.

For the set $X=\{a,b,c,d,x,y\}$ the set of admissible centers may consist only of the center $O$ of the parallelogram $abcd$. Indeed, according to the Lemma \ref{lem:parallelogram} $\mathcal{M}_X$ is contained in the union of two lines through $O$ parallel to $ab$ and $ad$. The point $x$ does not allow us to take any point in the line parallel to $ab$ except $O$ as an admissible center, and $y$ does not allow to take any point in the line parallel to $ad$ except $O$. If $y'$ is the reflection of $y$ with respect to $O$, then $a$ is strictly inside the triangle $cxy'$ as shown in Figure \ref{fig:points}. Thus we have found 6 points of $\Gamma$ which are not in c.s.c. position which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \includegraphics{smooth2.pdf}
  \caption{Six points in $\Gamma$ that are not in c.s.c position.}
  \label{fig:points}
\end{figure}

Now we proceed to the proof of the main result of this section.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:curve}]
The convexity of $\Gamma$ is trivial. There are two cases possible, either each supporting line of $\Gamma$ intersects $\Gamma$ at exactly one point (case 1), or there is a supporting line of $\Gamma$ that intersects $\Gamma$ in a segment of non-zero length (case 2).

\noindent{\bf Case 1.} Let $a$ be any smooth point of $\Gamma$, and let $\ell$ be the tangent of $\Gamma$ at $a$. Let $a'$ be the other point of $\Gamma$ with supporting line parallel to $\ell$.

Let $b$ be any point of $\Gamma$ other than $a$ and $a'$. The segment $ab$ is not an affine diameter of $\Gamma$, therefore there are points $c,d\in\Gamma$ such that $abcd$ is a parallelogram. From Lemma \ref{lem:inscribed-para} we get that the line through $c$ parallel to $\ell$ supports $\Gamma$ and therefore $c=a'$. Thus the central symmetry with the center at the midpoint of $aa'$ takes $b$ to another point of $\Gamma$ (the point $d$), and $\Gamma$ is centrally symmetric.

\noindent{\bf Case 2.} Let $ab$ be the intersection of $\Gamma$ with a support line $\ell$. From Lemma \ref{lem:length} we know that the other supporting line $\ell'$ of $\Gamma$ parallel to $\ell$ intersects $\Gamma$ in a segment $cd$ equal in length to $ab$. We may assume that the points $a,b,c,d$ are in counter-clockwise orientation, see Figure \ref{fig:segments}.

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \includegraphics{twopara.pdf}
  \caption{A curve with two equal parallel segments on the boundary.}
  \label{fig:segments}
\end{figure}

Let $p$ be a point in the interior of the arc $da$ of $\Gamma$ and $x$ be a point in the interior of the segment $ab$. Since $px$ is not an affine diameter of $\Gamma$, we can find two more points $q,y\in \Gamma$ (both depending on $x$ and $p$) such that $pxqy$ is a parallelogram. Using Lemma \ref{lem:inscribed-para} for the parallelogram $pxqy$ treating $x$ as the smooth vertex we conclude that the tangent to $\Gamma$ at $x$ is the line $\ell$, therefore the line parallel to $\ell$ through $y$ supports $\Gamma$, and $y$ belongs to the segment $cd$. Also, $q$ must be contained in the arc $bc$ of $\Gamma$.

The center of the parallelogram $pxqy$ is equidistant from the lines $\ell$ and $\ell'$, therefore the distance from $q$ to $\ell$ is equal to the distance from $p$ to $\ell'$ and does not depend on $x$. This means that $q$ only depends on $p$ and not on $x$ and the same is true for the center $O$ of the parallelogram $pxqy$.

If for a fixed $p$ we vary $x$ in the open segment $ab$, then $y$ varies in the interior of $cd$ which has the same length as $ab$. This means that $cd$ is symmetric to $ab$ with respect to $O$ and $O$ is also the center of the parallelogram $abcd$. Thus $O$ does not depend on $p$.

Summarizing, we have shown that for every point $p$ on the arc $da$ of $\Gamma$ we can find another point $q$ of $\Gamma$ symmetric to $p$ with respect to the center of the parallelogram $abcd$. Therefore $O$ is the center of symmetry of $\Gamma$.
\end{proof}

\section{Acknowledgments}
The authors are thankful to Konrad Swanepoel for the interesting questions. We are also thankful to Imre Bárány and Jesús Jerónimo for many fruitful discussions while this work was in progress.


Multiset metrics on bounded spaces

Abstract: We discuss five simple functions on finite multisets of metric spaces. The first four are all metrics iff the underlying space is bounded and are complete metrics iff it is also complete. Two of them, and the fifth function, all generalise the usual Hausdorff metric on subsets. Some possible applications are also considered.

\section{Introduction}

Metrics on subsets and multisets (subsets-with-repetition-allowed)
of metric spaces have or could have numerous fields of application
such as credit rating, pattern or image recognition and synthetic
biology. We employ three related models (called $E,F$ and $G$) for
the space of multisets on the metric space $(X,d)$. On each of $E,F$
we define two closely-related functions. These four functions all
turn out to be metrics precisely when $d$ is bounded, and are complete
iff $d$ is also complete. Another function studied in model $G$
has the same properties for (at least) uniformly discrete $d$. $X$
is likely to be finite in many applications anyway.

We show that there is an integer programming algorithm for those in
model $E$. The three in models $F$ and $G$ generalise the Hausdorff
metric. Beyond finiteness, no assumptions about multiset sizes are
required.

Various types of multiset metric on sets have been described{[}\prettyref{sub:Other-metrics}{]},
but the few that incorporate an underlying metric only refer to $\mathbb{R}$
or $\mathbb{C}$. The simple and more general nature of those described
here suggests that there may be other interesting possibilities.

In this section, after setting out notation and required background,
we mention briefly the existing work in this field. The following
three sections are each dedicated to one of $E$, $F$ and $G$.

\subsection{Notation: metric spaces}

$R$ is the non-negative reals, $\mathbb{N}$ includes $0$, and $(X,d)$
is a metric space of more than one element. $d$ is \emph{uniformly
discrete} if $\exists a>0$ such that $d(x,z)\geq a$ whenever $x\neq z$,
and two metrics on $X$ are \emph{equivalent} if they induce the same
topology.

$d$ is \emph{complete} iff every Cauchy sequence converges (to a
point of $X$), and $d$ is \emph{compact} iff every sequence, Cauchy
or not, has a subsequence that converges to a point of $X$.

The well-known \emph{Hausdorff metric} $d_{H}$ on the space $H$
of all non-empty compact subsets of $X$ is defined for $A,B\in H$
by
\[
d_{H}(A,B)=\max(\max_{x\in A}\min_{y\in B}d(x,y),\max_{y\in B}\min_{x\in A}d(x,y))
\]

in which compactness guarantees that all these extrema are attained.
We use later the simple fact that if $d$ does not satisfy the triangle
inequality, neither does $d_{H}$. It is a standard fact\cite[pp.71-72]{Edg90}
that $d_{H}$ is complete if $d$ is. The converse is also true%
\footnote{Let $x_{i}$ be a non-convergent Cauchy sequence in $X$ so that $S_{i}=\{x_{i}\}$
is Cauchy in $H$ with putative limit $S\in H$, so $S$ is non-empty.
If $S=\{x\}$ then $d(x_{i},x)\rightarrow0$. Thus $S$ contains distinct
$a,b\in X$. But then $d_{H}(S_{i},S)\geq\max(d(x_{i},a),d(x_{i},b))\geq\frac{d(x_{i},a)+d(x_{i},b)}{2}\geq\frac{d(a,b)}{2}$.%
}. A convenient heuristic (for finite $A,B$) is to label the rows
(the columns) of a matrix by the elements of $A$ (of $B$), with
the corresponding $d$-distances as entries. Then $d_{H}(A,B)$ is
the largest of all row and column minima.

\label{quotient}Given an equivalence relation $\sim$ on $X$, and
$\alpha,\beta\in X/\!\sim$ write
\[
D(\alpha,\beta)=\inf d(a,p_{1})+d(q_{1},p_{2})+d(q_{2},p_{3})+\ldots+d(q_{n-1},p_{n})+d(q_{n},b)
\]

where $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $a\in\alpha$, $b\in\beta$ and $p_{i}\sim q_{i}$
for each $i$. In general $D$ is a \emph{pseudometric} on $X/\!\sim$,
that is $D(\alpha,\beta)=0\nRightarrow\alpha=\beta$, though $D$
does satisfy the other metric axioms. Clearly $D(\alpha,\beta)\leq\inf_{a\in\alpha,b\in\beta}d(a,b)$.
To simplify notation, we adopt the conventions that $a=q_{0},b=p_{n+1}$
and $p_{i}\nsim p_{i+1}$ for any $i$.

\subsection{Notation: multisets}

A recent survey article on multisets and their applications is \cite{SIYS07}.
The notation and terminology in this article mostly follow \cite{DD09}
and \cite{Pet97}. A convenient definition of multiset also introduces
the model $E${[}\prettyref{sec:Model E}{]}.\emph{ }

A \emph{multiset} of a set $S$ is a function $e:S\mathbb{\rightarrow N}$
taking each $s\in S$ to its \emph{multiplicity} $e(s)$. The \emph{root
set} $R(e)$ of $e$ is $\{s\in S:e(s)>0\}$, always assumed finite.
The \emph{cardinality}%
\footnote{Called the \emph{counting measure} in \cite{DD09}.%
} of $e$ is $C(e)=\sum_{s\in S}e(s)$. So $E$ is the set of functions
of finite support from $S$ to $\mathbb{N}$.

We denote by $e_{s}$, for $s\in S$, the multiset consisting of a
single copy of $s$ and define $e_{0}$ by $R(e_{0})=\phi$. Naturally
any multiset has a unique form $\sum_{s\in S}e(s)e_{s}$; we can add
or subtract them if all the arithmetic is within $\mathbb{N}$.

$E$ forms a lattice under the operations $\cap$ and $\cup$ defined
for $e,f\in E$ by $e\cap f(s)=\min(e(s),f(s))$ and $e\cup f(s)=\max(e(s),f(s))$.
The \emph{multiset difference} $e_{f}$ is $e-e\cap f$, and $e$
and $f$ are \emph{disjoint} if $e\cap f=e_{0}$. For instance $e_{f}$
and $f_{e}$ are disjoint. The \emph{symmetric difference} of $e$
and $f$ is $e\triangle f=e_{f}+f_{e}=e\cup f-e\cap f$. $e$ is a
\emph{submultiset} of $f$, written $e\subseteq f$, if $e(s)\leq f(s)\forall s$
and of course this is equivalent to $e\cap f=e$ or $e_{f}=e_{0}$.

A \emph{function} $h$ from $e$ to $f$ is simply a function $h$
from $R(e)$ to $R(f)$, to guarantee that identical elements of $e$
are not mapped to distinct elements of $f$. We say that $h$ is an
\emph{injection} (resp. \emph{surjection}, \emph{bijection}), according
as (i) its restriction to the root sets has this property in the ordinary
sense, and (ii) for every $s\in R(e)$, $e(s)\leq f(h(s))$\emph{
(resp.} $e(s)\geq f(h(s))$, both of the preceding).

\subsection{Other metrics on multisets\label{sub:Other-metrics}}

We give a short account of the multiset metrics listed at \cite[pp.51-52]{DD09},
described elsewhere in that book, and regrouped here according to
the main idea.
\begin{itemize}
\item The \emph{matching distance}\cite[p.47]{DD09} is defined by $\inf_{g}\max_{x\in e}d(x,g(x))$
where $g$ runs over all (multiset) bijections from $e$ to $f$.
These are used in size theory (image recognition), where a geometric
trick is used to ensure that bijections are always defined. A survey
article is \cite{dFL06}.
\item The \emph{metric space of roots}\cite[p.221]{DD09} is defined on
multisets of $\mathbb{C}$ of fixed cardinality $n$, each identified
with the monic polynomial of which it is the set of roots. Two such
$u_{1},\ldots,u_{n}$ and $v_{1},\ldots,v_{n}$ are separated by $\min_{\rho}\max_{1\leq j\leq n}|u_{j}-v_{\rho(j)}|$
as $\rho$ ranges over the permutations of $1,\ldots,n$. More details
are in \cite{CM06}\emph{.}
\item Petrovsky has defined several metrics\cite[p.52]{DD09} on $E$ using
a measure $\mu:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, $\mu(e)=\sum_{s\in S}\lambda(s)e(s)$
where $\lambda:S\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{+}$. Thus $\mu=C$ when $\lambda=1$.
One of them is $d(e,f)=\mu(e\triangle f)=\mu(e_{f})+\mu(f_{e})$ and
the others are variants\cite{Pet97,Pet03}. They are related to the
Jaccard and Hamming metrics on sets\cite[p.299, p.45]{DD09}, and
seem to be primarily used in cluster analysis (decision making).
\item The $\mu$\emph{-metric}\cite[p.281]{DD09} on so-called phylogenetic
$X$-trees (computational biology), again is based on symmetric difference.
See \cite{10.1109/TCBB.2007.70270} for more details.
\item The \emph{bag distance}\cite[p.204]{DD09}\emph{,} used in string
matching, is defined to be $\max(C(e_{f}),C(f_{e}))$.
\item In approximate string matching (for instance in bioinformatics), so-called
\emph{$q$-gram similarity}\cite[p.206]{DD09}\emph{ }is defined.
This is not a metric.
\end{itemize}
Note that there are two dominant ideas: minimising over multiset bijections,
and symmetric differences. The latter do not reflect any structure
on $S$ except perhaps if we argue that multiplicity may depend on
that structure. To some extent, the metrics described later mix these
two paradigms.

There are a number of other standard possibilities, such as the metric
induced on $E$ by any injection into a metric space, or those given
by taking the sum (or the supremum) of the $|e(s)-f(s)|$ where $e,f\in E$
and $s\in S$. Any metric on $\mathbb{Z^{+}}$ (multisets on the prime
numbers) is also an example.

\section{The multiset model $E$\label{sec:Model E}}

If $a,c\in E$ and $C(a)\leq C(c)$, we find a submultiset $c'$ of
$c$ of cardinality $C(a)$ so that, matching elements of $a$ and
$c'$ as described below, the sum of the $d$-distances is minimised,
and then we add a constant. The result, denoted $d_{E}$, though resembling
the matching distance just described, actually generalises the bag
distance. The other function, $d_{Em}$ ($m$ for 'mean') is obtained
by dividing $d_{E}$ by $C(c)$.

We choose $M>0$, and define $\theta=\frac{\sup d}{M}$ when $d$
is bounded. Given $a,c\in E$, suppose that $C(a)\leq C(c)$ and $c\neq e_{0}$.
Write down all the elements in both in arbitrary order, \emph{viz.,
$a_{1},a_{2},\ldots,a_{C(a)}$} and \emph{$c_{1},c_{2},\ldots,c_{C(c)}$
}where for each $x\in X$, $\#\{j:a_{j}=x\}=a(x)$ and $\#\{j:c_{j}=x\}=c(x)$.
(In other terminology, we \emph{parametrise} the multisets by enough
positive integers.)

Let $\gamma$ be a member of the permutation group $G_{c}$ on $C(c)$
elements, acting on the subscripts in the $c$-sequence. Write\emph{
}
\[
d^{\gamma}(a,c)=\sum_{j=1}^{j=C(a)}d(a_{j},c_{\gamma(j)})+M|C(c)-C(a)|
\]

and define the following functions $d_{E}$ and $d_{Em}$ from $E\times E$
to $R$.

\[
d_{E}(a,c)=\min_{\gamma\in G_{c}}d^{\gamma}(a,c)\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad d_{Em}(a,c)=\frac{d_{E}(a,c)}{\max(C(a),C(c))}
\]

with $d_{Em}(e_{0},e_{0})=0$. We call $M|C(c)-C(a)|$ the \emph{notional
part} of $d_{E}(a,c)$. The mappings $\gamma$ regarded as from $a$
to $c$, need not be multiset functions.
\begin{prop}
If $d$ is unbounded then $d_{E}$ and $d_{Em}$ are non-metrics for
all $M$. If $d$ is bounded, then $d_{E}$ is a metric iff $\theta\leq2$,
and $d_{Em}$ is a metric iff $\theta\leq1$.\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Only the triangle inequality need be verified or could fail. Let $x,y\in X$,
with $x\neq y$. Then
\[
d_{E}(e_{x},e_{x}+e_{y})+d_{E}(e_{x}+e_{y},e_{y})-d_{E}(e_{x},e_{y})=2M-d(x,y)
\]
So if $d_{E}$ is a metric, $d$ is bounded and $\theta\leq2$. The
same argument for $d_{Em}$ implies $\theta\leq1$.

From now on we take $a,b,c\in E$, and assume $C(a)\leq C(c)$. We
look first at $d_{E}$ and suppose $\theta\leq2$: as motivation,
we could verify that whenever
\[
2C(b)\leq C(a)(2-\theta)\quad\textrm{or}\quad2C(b)\geq\theta C(a)+2C(c)
\]
 then the notional parts alone in $d_{E}(a,b)+d_{E}(b,c)$ add to
at least
\[
M(C(c)-C(a))+\theta MC(a)\geq d_{E}(a,c)
\]
The value of $C(b)$ determines three cases, all with similar reasoning.

Case $C(b)<C(a)$: there exist $\alpha\in G_{a}$ and $\gamma\in G_{c}$
such that

\[
d_{E}(a,b)=\sum_{i=1}^{C(b)}d(b_{i},a_{\alpha(i)})+M(C(a)-C(b))
\]
 and
\[
d_{E}(b,c)=\sum_{i=1}^{C(b)}d(b_{i},c_{\gamma(i)})+M(C(c)-C(b))
\]

So
\begin{align*}
d_{E}(a,b)+d_{E}(b,c) & \geq\sum_{i=1}^{C(b)}d(a_{\alpha(i)},c_{\gamma(i)})+M(C(c)-C(a))+2M(C(a)-C(b))
\end{align*}
\begin{alignat}{1}
 & \geq\sum_{i=1}^{C(a)}d(a_{\alpha(i)},c_{\gamma(i)})+M(C(c)-C(a))+(2-\theta)M(C(a)-C(b))\label{eq:B}
\end{alignat}

having added, for each $i$ beyond $C(b)$, the non-positive $d(a_{\alpha(i)},c_{\gamma(i)})-\theta M$.
Then \eqref{eq:B} is at least

\[
d_{E}(a,c)+M(2-\theta)(C(a)-C(b))\geq d_{E}(a,c)
\]

Case $C(a)\leq C(b)\leq C(c)$: there exist $\beta\in G_{b}$ and
$\gamma\in G_{c}$ such that

\[
d_{E}(a,b)=\sum_{i=1}^{C(a)}d(a_{i},b_{\beta(i)})+M(C(b)-C(a))
\]

and
\[
d_{E}(b,c)=\sum_{i=1}^{C(b)}d(b_{i},c_{\gamma(i)})+M(C(c)-C(b))
\]

Then
\begin{equation}
d_{E}(a,b)+d_{E}(b,c)=M(C(c)-C(a))+\sum_{i=1}^{C(a)}d(a_{i},b_{\beta(i)})+\sum_{i=1}^{C(b)}d(b_{i},c_{\gamma(i)})\label{eq:C}
\end{equation}

Now $\sum_{i=1}^{C(b)}d(b_{i},c_{\gamma(i)})=\sum_{i=1}^{C(b)}d(b_{\beta(i)},c_{\gamma\beta(i)})$
since $\beta\in G_{b}$, and so \eqref{eq:C} is at least

\[
M(C(c)-C(a))+\sum_{i=1}^{C(a)}d(a_{i},c_{\gamma\beta(i)})+\sum_{i=1+C(a)}^{C(b)}d(b_{\beta(i)},c_{\gamma\beta(i)})
\]

which is at least $d_{E}(a,c)$, in this case for any $\theta$.

Case $C(b)>C(c)$: For some $\tau\in G_{c}$,
\[
d_{E}(a,c)=M(C(c)-C(a))+\sum_{i=1}^{C(a)}d(a_{i},c_{\tau(i)})
\]
and $\rho,\sigma\in G_{b}$ are given by

\[
d_{E}(a,b)=\sum_{i=1}^{C(a)}d(a_{i},b_{\rho(i)})+M(C(b)-C(a))
\]

and

\[
d_{E}(b,c)=\sum_{i=1}^{C(c)}d(b_{\sigma(i)},c_{i})+M(C(b)-C(c))
\]

We write $\omega=\sigma^{-1}\rho\in G_{b}$, which takes any subscript
of $a$ to a subscript of $c$, and define
\[
l=\#\{1\leq i\leq C(a):\rho(i)=\sigma(j)\textrm{ for some }j\textrm{ in }1,\ldots,C(c)\}
\]
Then $l\geq C(a)+C(c)-C(b)$ since $\rho(1),\ldots,\rho(C(a))$ and
$\sigma(1),\ldots,\sigma(C(c))$ are all chosen from $1,2,\ldots,C(b)$.
Dropping all terms with $i>l$, $d_{E}(a,b)+d_{E}(b,c)$ is at least

\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^{l}[d(a_{i},b_{\rho(i)})+d(b_{\rho(i)},c_{\omega(i)})]+2M(C(b)-C(c))+M(C(c)-C(a))\label{eq:A}
\end{equation}

Just as before, $d(a_{i},c_{\omega(i)})-\theta M\leq0$, so \eqref{eq:A}
is at least as big as

\[
\sum_{i=1}^{C(a)}d(a_{i},c_{\omega(i)})+2M(C(b)-C(c))-\theta M(C(a)-l)+M(C(c)-C(a))
\]

Now $C(b)-C(c)\geq C(a)-l\geq0$ so we get

\[
d_{E}(a,b)+d_{E}(b,c)\geq\sum_{i=1}^{C(a)}d(a_{i},c_{\omega(i)})+M(C(c)-C(a))+M(2-\theta)(C(a)-l)\geq d_{E}(a,c)
\]

concluding the proof that $d_{E}$ is a metric.

Passing to $d_{Em}$, we now assume $\theta\leq1$, which implies
$d_{Em}(a,c)\leq M$. If $C(b)\leq C(c)$ it is certainly true that

\[
d_{Em}(a,b)+d_{Em}(b,c)\geq d_{Em}(a,c)
\]
so we will suppose $C(b)>C(c)$ and reuse the notation just employed
for $d_{E}$. Using \eqref{eq:A} again, we can write

\[
C(b)(d_{Em}(a,b)+d_{Em}(b,c))\geq(C(c)-l)M+\sum_{i=1}^{l}d(a_{i},c_{\omega(i)})+(2C(b)-2C(c)-C(a)+l)M
\]

Since $\theta\leq1$, the sum of the first two terms on the right
is at least $C(c)d_{Em}(a,c)$ and we also have $2C(b)-2C(c)-C(a)+l\geq C(b)-C(c)>0$,
so

\[
d_{Em}(a,b)+d_{Em}(b,c)\geq\frac{C(c)d_{Em}(a,c)+M(C(b)-C(c))}{C(b)}\geq d_{Em}(a,c)
\]
as it is a convex combination of $d_{Em}(a,c)$ and $M$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Simple properties of $d_{E}$ and $d_{Em}$}

We start with some computational results about $d_{E}$. The first
says that $a$ and $c$ can be taken as disjoint.
\begin{prop}
\label{pro:disj}$d_{E}(a,c)=d_{E}(a_{c},c_{a})$\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Assume $C(a)\leq C(c)$. We have to show that among the permutations
$\gamma$ in $G_{c}$ which minimise
\[
d^{\gamma}(a,c)=\sum_{j=1}^{C(a)}d(a_{j},c_{\gamma(j)})+M|C(c)-C(a)|
\]

there exists one in which maximally many identical elements (with
multiplicity) of $a$ and $c$ are matched up by $\gamma$. But if
$a_{j}=c_{\gamma(k)}$ then
\[
d(a_{j},c_{\gamma(k)})+d(a_{k},c_{\gamma(j)})\leq d(a_{j},c_{\gamma(j)})+d(a_{k},c_{\gamma(k)})
\]
 is certainly true, so if we start with any $\gamma$ that minimises
$d^{\gamma}(a,c)$, we can find another with the required property.\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
If $\frac{d}{M}$ is the discrete metric then $d_{E}(a,c)=M\max(C(a_{c}),C(c_{a}))$,
and so $d_{E}$ generalises the bag distance.
\end{cor}
The next result is needed to establish completeness.
\begin{lem}
\label{squeeze} If $x,y\in X$, $a,c\in E$ and $C(a)=C(c)=n$, then

\[
|d_{E}(a+e_{x},c+e_{y})-d_{E}(a,c)|\leq d(x,y)
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
$d_{E}(a+e_{x},c+e_{y})\leq d(x,y)+d_{E}(a,c)$ because its right
side is obtained from its left side by permuting the subscripts in
the sense of the definition of $d_{E}$.

Now, renumbering so as to identify $x$ as $a_{1}$ and $y$ as $c_{n+1}$
(if these subscripts were the same we would be finished) suppose that
\[
d_{E}(a+e_{x},c+e_{y})=d(x,c_{1})+d(a_{n+1},y)+\sum_{j=2}^{n}d(a_{j},c_{j})
\]
Then
\[
d_{E}(a+e_{x},c+e_{y})+d(x,y)\geq d(a_{n+1},c_{1})+\sum_{j=2}^{n}d(a_{j},c_{j})\geq d_{E}(a,c)
\]

as required. Simple examples show that the bound $d(x,y)$ is tight.
\end{proof}
Finally we compare sequences in $d_{E}$ and $d_{Em}$.
\begin{prop}
\label{pro: sequence}Let $S_{i}$ be a sequence in $E$. Then any
of the following is true with respect to $d_{E}$ iff it is true with
respect to $d_{Em}$: (i) $S_{i}$ is Cauchy; (ii) $S_{i}$ is convergent;
(iii) $S_{i}$ has limit $l\in E$.\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We first show that $d_{E}$ and $d_{Em}$ have the same Cauchy sequences.
Since multisets of cardinalities $r$ and $t$ are at least $M|t-r|$
apart in $d_{E}$, it follows that any Cauchy sequence for $d_{E}$
must eventually have constant cardinality, in which case $d_{E}$
and $d_{Em}$ are mutually proportional and so the sequence is also
Cauchy for $d_{Em}$.

Now suppose $S_{i}$ is Cauchy for $d_{Em}$, write $s_{i}=C(S_{i})$
and then for each $\epsilon>0,\exists N=N(\epsilon)$ such that whenever
$i,j>N$, $d_{Em}(S_{i},S_{j})<\epsilon$. But then $d_{Em}(S_{i},S_{j})\geq M(1-\frac{s_{j}}{s_{i}})$
supposing $s_{i}\geq s_{j}$ and as $\frac{s_{j}}{s_{i}}>1-\frac{\epsilon}{M}$
, no subsequence of the $s_{i}$ can go to infinity, and hence the
sequence $s_{i}$ is bounded (for each $s_{j}$, and hence in general).
But then $M(1-\frac{s_{j}}{s_{i}})$ only takes finitely many positive
values so for sufficiently small $\epsilon$ this gives a contradiction
unless the $s_{i}$ are eventually constant. So $d_{E}$ and $d_{Em}$
are again proportional and $S_{i}$ is Cauchy with respect to $d_{E}$.
(There is also a trivial case in which $s_{i}=0$ infinitely often.)

An exactly similar argument shows that any limit of such a sequence
(either metric) again has the same cardinality. It follows that $d_{E}$
and $d_{Em}$ also have the same convergent sequences (and limits).
\end{proof}
We are now ready for the main result.
\begin{prop}
(Topology and completeness.)

$d_{E}$ and $d_{Em}$ induce the same topology on $E$. The metrics
$d_{E}$ and $d_{Em}$ are complete iff $d$ is.\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By \eqref{pro: sequence}, $d_{E}$ and $d_{Em}$ have the same convergent
sequences (and limits), and so induce the same topology on $E$. We
also see that given $d$, either both or neither of $d_{E}$ and $d_{Em}$
are complete metrics.

If $x_{i}$ is a non-convergent Cauchy sequence in $X$, then $S_{i}=\{x_{i}\}$
is a non-convergent Cauchy sequence for both $d_{E}$ and $d_{Em}$.

Supposing that $d$ is complete, let $S_{i}$ be a sequence of multisets
of $X$ which is Cauchy in $d_{E}$, with all $C(S_{i})=n>1$ (the
completeness of $d$ implies the case $n=1$). Given $\epsilon>0$,
$\exists N=N(\epsilon)$ such that $m\geq N\Longrightarrow d_{E}(S_{m},S_{N})<\epsilon$.
As every element%
\footnote{As always, this is with multiplicity. If some element of $X$ occurs
three times in $S_{N}$, then at least three elements (with multiplicity)
of each $S_{m}$ are within $d$-distance $\epsilon$ of it.%
} of each $S_{m}$ for $m\geq N$ is then within $d$-distance $\epsilon$
of some element of $S_{N}$ it follows that there exists a totally
bounded region of $X$ containing all elements of all the $S_{i}$.
Since $X$ is complete, the completion of this region is (can be regarded
as) a compact subset of $X$ and now we can assume that $X$ is compact.

Recalling that a Cauchy sequence converges iff it has a convergent
subsequence, we select an arbitrary $x_{i}$ from each $S_{i}$ (using
the axiom of choice). Since $X$ is compact, the sequence $x_{i}$
has a convergent subsequence $y_{i}=x_{t(i)}$ with limit $y$ (say).
Writing $T_{i}$ for $S_{t(i)}$, we denote by $T_{i}'$ the multiset
$T_{i}-e_{y_{_{i}}}$. Using \eqref{squeeze} we have

\[
|d_{E}(T_{i},T_{j})-d_{E}(T_{i}',T_{j}')|\leq d(y_{i},y_{j})
\]

and it follows that $T_{i}'$ is a Cauchy sequence of cardinality
$n-1$, and we can assume that $T_{i}'$ has limit $T'$. Using \eqref{squeeze}
again, and denoting $T'+e_{y}$ by $T$,
\[
|d_{E}(T_{i},T)-d_{E}(T_{i}',T')|\leq d(y_{i},y)
\]

and so $T_{i}$ converges to $T$, which is therefore the limit of
the Cauchy sequence $S_{i}$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{An algorithm for $d_{E}$}

We show that calculation of $d_{E}$ is an integer programming problem.
As usual suppose $C(a)\leq C(c)$ and $a\cap c=e_{0}$. Just as in
the Hausdorff heuristic, label the rows (the columns) of a matrix
by elements of $R(a)$ (of $R(c)$), and put the $d$-distances as
entries. Add one more row whose entries are all $M$, to give a matrix
$D$.

Define a new matrix $H$, the same shape as $D$, constrained to satisfy
\[
\sum_{i}h_{ij}=c(j)\;\textrm{for}\; j\leq\#R(c)\text{\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad\ensuremath{\sum_{j}h_{ij}=a(i)\;\textrm{for}\; i\leq\#R(a)}}
\]
implying $\sum_{j}h_{1+\#R(a),j}=C(c)-C(a)$. Then $d_{E}(a,c)$ is
the minimum value of $\sum_{i,j}d_{ij}h_{ij}$ (the trace of $D^{T}H$),
for which all the $h_{ij}\in\mathbb{N}$.

\section{The multiset model $F$}

We will define a space $A$ whose finite subsets include the multisets
of $X$.

This time we identify the multiset $re_{x}$ with $(x,r)\in X\times\mathbb{N}$,
as usual interpreted as {}``$r$ copies of $x$''. Let $A$ be the
quotient space of $X\times\mathbb{N}$ in which all points of the
form $(x,0)$ have been identified. $A_{r}$ will denote the (quotient
of the) subset $X\times\{r\}$. We use $\mathbb{N}$ instead of $\mathbb{Z}^{+}$
(which would be simpler) to get a canonical bijection with model $E$.
Note that $A$ consists of the isolated point $e_{0}$ and isolated
copies of $X$; furthermore $A$ coincides with $\{e\in E:\#R(e)\leq1\}$.

Hence a multiset of $X$ is a finite subset $U$ of $A$ whose underlying
elements of $X$ are all distinct, viz. $re_{x},se_{x}\in U\Longrightarrow r=s$
and $F$ will denote the space of all such subsets of $A$. The following
result should now be obvious.
\begin{prop}
Let $d'$ be any metric on $A$. Then the restriction of $d'_{H}$
to $F$ is a multiset metric on $X$, and it generalises the Hausdorff
metric iff $d'(1e_{x},1e_{y})=d(x,y)\forall x,y\in X$.
\end{prop}
We will return later to the question of when this is complete.

For metrics on $A$, as before fix $M>0$ and define $\theta=\frac{\sup d}{M}$
when $d$ is bounded. We start with the functions $d_{A}$ and $d_{Am}$
from $A\times A$ to $R$ defined by
\[
d_{A}(re_{x},te_{z})=M|t-r|+\min(r,t)d(x,z)
\]

and
\[
d_{Am}(re_{x},te_{z})=\frac{d_{A}(re_{x},te_{z})}{\max(r,t)}\quad\textrm{or\ensuremath{\quad0\quad}when\quad}r=t=0
\]

Noting that (a) these are well-defined on $A\times A$, (b) they are
the respective restrictions to $A\times A$ of $d_{E}$ and $d_{Em}$,
and (c) they both agree with $d$ when $r=t=1$, it follows that they
are metrics on $A$ when $\theta\leq2$ and when $\theta\leq1$ respectively.
Actually there is a small surprise.
\begin{prop}
If $d$ is unbounded then $d_{A}$ and $d_{Am}$ are non-metrics for
all $M$. If $d$ is bounded, then $d_{A}$ and $d_{Am}$ are both
metrics iff $\theta\leq2$. \end{prop}
\begin{proof}
As $d_{A}(2e_{x},e_{x})+d_{A}(e_{x},2e_{z})-d_{A}(2e_{x},2e_{z})=2M-d(x,z)$,
if $d_{A}$ is a metric, $d$ must be bounded and $\theta\leq2$.
Use the same example for $d_{Am}.$

It only remains to show that $d_{Am}$ is a metric when $\theta\leq2$.
We fix $re_{x},te_{z}\in A$, assuming $r\leq t$. Now if $s\leq t$,
it is immediate that

\[
d_{Am}(re_{x},se_{y})+d_{Am}(se_{y},te_{z})\geq d_{Am}(re_{x},te_{z})
\]

so we will take $s>t$. Using the definition of $d_{Am}$,
\begin{equation}
st(d_{Am}(re_{x},se_{y})+d_{Am}(se_{y},te_{z})-d_{Am}(re_{x},te_{z}))\label{eq:D}
\end{equation}

\[
=M(t+r)(s-t)+rtd(x,y)+t^{2}d(y,z)-rsd(x,z)
\]

and using $t^{2}\geq rt$ we get that \eqref{eq:D} is at least as
large as

\[
Mt(s-t)+r(s-t)(M-d(x,z))
\]

which is non-negative provided $2M\geq\frac{2r}{r+t}d(x,z)$, whose
right side cannot exceed $\sup d=\theta M$. So $d_{Am}$ is a metric
when $\theta\leq2$.\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
If $r\leq t$, $M(t-r)\leq td_{Am}(re_{x},te_{z})=d_{A}(re_{x},te_{z})\leq tM\max(1,\theta)$.
Actually, $d_{Am}(re_{x},te_{z})$ is a convex combination of $d(x,z)$
and $M$ and therefore lies between them. \end{rem}
\begin{prop}
Let $r_{i}e_{x(i)}$ be a sequence in $A$. Then any of the following
is true with respect to $d_{A}$ iff it is true with respect to $d_{Am}$:
(i) $r_{i}e_{x(i)}$ is Cauchy; (ii) $r_{i}e_{x(i)}$ is convergent;
(iii) $r_{i}e_{x(i)}$ has limit $l\in A$.
\end{prop}
The proof is exactly as in \eqref{pro: sequence}.
\begin{prop}
(Main properties of $A$)\end{prop}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $d_{Am}$ and $d_{A}$ both induce the same topology on $A$, coinciding
with the quotient topology inherited from $X\times\mathbb{N}$.
\item $d_{A}$ and $d_{Am}$ are complete metrics iff $d$ is.
\item The subset $U$ of $A$ is compact iff each $U_{r}=U\cap A_{r}$ is
a compact subset of $A_{r}$, and almost all the $U_{r}$ are empty.\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}
(Clause 1) We have just seen that $d_{A}$ and $d_{Am}$ have the
same convergent sequences and limits, so they induce the same topology.

Let $re_{x},te_{z}\in A$ with $t>0$ and choose $\epsilon>0$. Now
$M|r-t|\leq d_{A}(re_{x},te_{z})<\epsilon$ implies $r=t$ when $\epsilon$
is sufficiently small, and indeed in this case
\[
d_{A}(te_{x},te_{z})<\epsilon\Leftrightarrow d(x,z)<\frac{\epsilon}{t}
\]

It follows that any sufficiently small open ball around $te_{z}$
in the $d_{A}$-topology is also an open ball in the quotient topology,
and vice versa.

The point $e_{0}$ is isolated in both topologies. So these three
topologies on $A$ coincide.

(Clause 2) By the preceding proposition $d_{A}$ is complete iff $d_{Am}$
is. As any Cauchy sequence eventually lies in a single $A_{r}=X\times\{r\}$,
it converges iff this is true for the same sequence regarded as a
sequence in $X$, and any limits also coincide.

(Clause 3) Suppose $U$ is compact. If infinitely many $U_{r}$ were
non-empty we could find a sequence in $U$ with no convergent subsequence
(compactness being equivalent to sequential compactness in metric
spaces). If $re_{x(i)}$ is a sequence in some $U_{r}$ then it has
a convergent subsequence in $U$ but this must converge to a point
of $U_{r}$. Conversely, if $U_{r}$ is compact in $A_{r}$ then it
is compact in $X$ and then $U$ is a finite union of compact sets,
and so compact.
\end{proof}
Let $d_{F}$ and $d_{Fm}$ be the Hausdorff metrics arising from $d_{A}$
and $d_{Am}$ respectively. Let us write $F'$ for the set of all
finite subsets of $A$.
\begin{prop}
$d_{F}$ and $d_{Fm}$ are metrics on $F'$ iff $\theta\leq2$, and
both coincide with the Hausdorff metric for the case of ordinary subsets.
They are complete metrics on $F'$ iff $d$ is.\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
$\theta\leq2$ is necessary for the triangle inequality for $d_{A}$
(and so for $d_{F}$) or for $d_{Am}$ (and so for $d_{Fm}$) to hold.
The rest of the statement is an immediate consequence of their definitions
and the stated properties of the Hausdorff metric.
\end{proof}

\section{The multiset model $G$}

We continue to suppose $\theta\leq2$. Of course the restrictions
of $d_{F}$ and $d_{Fm}$ to $F$ (multisets on $X$) need not be
complete. For instance, if $d(x_{i},x)$ is strictly decreasing to
zero and $y_{i}=x_{i+1}$, then the sequence $2e_{x_{i}}+3e_{y_{i}}$
is Cauchy in $d_{F}$ or $d_{Fm}$ but its limit is $\{2e_{x},3e_{x}\}\in F'\backslash F$.

We deal with this discrepancy in the following way. Observe that to
every $U\in F'$ there is a function $t_{U}:X\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$
defined by
\[
t_{U}(x)=\sum_{ae_{x}\in U}a
\]
and indeed if $U\in F$, $t_{U}$ is its representative in model $E$.
Define an equivalence relation $\sim$ on $F'$ by decreeing $U\sim V$
iff $t_{U}=t_{V}$. For example, if $x\neq y$ one $\sim$-class is
$\{e_{x},2e_{x},3e_{x},2e_{y}\},\{e_{x},5e_{x},2e_{y}\},\{2e_{x},4e_{x},2e_{y}\},\{6e_{x},2e_{y}\}$.
Obviously every class is finite, contains exactly one element of $F$,
and is a singleton iff $t_{U}(x)\leq2\forall x$.

We now write $G$ for $F'/\!\sim$ and $d_{G}$ for the quotient pseudometric
on $G$ corresponding to $d_{F}$. There are canonical bijections
among $G$, $F$ and $E$. We extend the notations $e_{0}$, $R()$
and $C()$ to $F'$ and $G$ in the obvious way. If $e\in G\backslash\{e_{0}\}$,
it follows that $d_{G}(e,e_{0})\geq M$ since $d_{A}(re_{x},e_{0})\geq M$
for all $re_{x}\in A,r\neq0$.

Now $d_{G}$ is definitely less than $d_{F}$ in general as

\[
d_{G}(3e_{x},3e_{y})\leq d_{F}(\{e_{x},2e_{x}\},\{e_{y},2e_{y}\})\leq2d(x,y)<3d(x,y)=d_{F}(3e_{x},3e_{y})
\]

The most important facts about $d_{G}$ are corollaries of the following
result.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:dGdFdH}If $e,f\in G\backslash\{e_{0}\}$, then $d_{G}(e,f)\geq d_{H}(R(e),R(f))$.\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $x\in R(e),y\in R(f)$ are such that $d(x,y)=d_{H}(R(e),R(f))$.
We can assume $x\notin R(f)$. Let $e=p_{0},p_{1},\ldots,p_{n},p_{n+1}=f$
be a sequence of elements of $G$, referring to the notation of \eqref{quotient}.
If any $p_{i}$ is $e_{0}$ then we have two or more terms $\geq M$
so the path length is at least $2M\geq\sup d\geq d(x,y)$ and we now
assume that all $R(j):=R(p_{j})$ are non-empty.

We will employ the observation that $d_{F}(u,v)\geq\min_{b\in R(v)}d(a,b)$
if $a\notin R(v)$. For any sequence $x_{0},x_{1},\ldots$, all in
$\cup_{j}R_{j}$, define $s_{i}$ by $x_{i}\in R(s_{i})$ where $s_{i}$
is maximal. Take $x_{0}=x$ and choose $x_{1}\in R(1+s_{0})$ such
that $d(x_{0},x_{1})$ is minimal. So the $d_{F}$-distance between
any member of $p_{s_{0}}$ and any member of $p_{1+s_{0}}$ is at
least $d(x_{0},x_{1})$.

If $x_{1}\in R(f)$ we are finished as our path is at least $d(x_{0},x_{1})\geq d(x,y)$.
Otherwise choose $x_{2}\in R(1+s_{1})$ such that $d(x_{1},x_{2})$
is minimal.

Again we are finished if $x_{2}\in R(f)$ as our path is (at least)
$d(x_{0},x_{1})+d(x_{1},x_{2})$. If not, choose $x_{3}\in R(1+s_{2})$
to minimise $d(x_{2},x_{3})$. As the $s_{i}$ are increasing we get
a sequence of terms from $x$ to some $z\in R(f)$ whose sum is at
least $d(x,y)$.\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
(1) $d_{G}$ agrees with the Hausdorff metric on finite subsets of
$X$.

(2) If $d$ is uniformly discrete then $d_{G}$ is a complete metric
on $G$.

(3) $d_{F}(e,f)\geq d_{H}(R(e),R(f))$.\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
(1) For finite subsets $e,f$ of $X$,
\[
d_{F}(e,f)\geq d_{G}(e,f)\geq d_{H}(R(e),R(f))=d_{H}(e,f)=d_{F}(e,f)
\]

(2) $d_{H}$ has the same lower bound as $d$. By clause (1), so does
$d_{G}$, making it a metric. $d_{G}$ is complete because it is uniformly
discrete.

(3) $d_{F}$ is at least as big as $d_{G}$.
\end{proof}
In the notation of the proposition, if we have $t_{e}(x)>t_{f}(x)$
and we define $s_{0}$ to be the maximal $s$ such that $t_{s}(x)>t_{1+s}(x)$,
we cannot use the same argument to show that $d_{G}$ is a metric
in general, because we might have $z=x$.

\section{Concluding remarks}

Aside from the potential applications mentioned at the start or described
in \cite{SIYS07}, these metrics might also be useful in voting theory.
An election is a multiset on the set $X$ of permitted ballot types.
For instance, if $X$ is the total orderings (permutations) of $n$
candidates, one well-known metric on $X$ is the \emph{Kendall $\tau$-distance}\cite[p.211]{DD09},
defined as the fewest transpositions required to change one into the
other.

Future work ought to look at possible applications and clarify the
relationships among $E,F$ and $G$.

\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}

Multiset metrics on bounded spaces