![Arxiv:1902.08747V2 [Math.MG] 9 Jul 2019 O H E Falnneaiera Numbers](http://data.docslib.org/img/43e824d4e2eb3100e26fb63755b9568b-1.webp)
arXiv:1902.08747v2 [math.MG] 9 Jul 2019 o h e falnneaiera numbers. 1.1. real Definition nonnegative all of set the for pcsb sn futaercpedutaercpeevn fu ultrametric-pseudoultrametric-preserving c of which using Th spaces by pseudoultrametric paper. spaces cha the of are of characteristic functions goal constructive main preserving the ultrametric-pseudoultrametric is metr the properties generalized characteristic other such some of character and to semimetrics extended pseudoultrametrics, be can functions ultrametric-preserving erc eanltl tde se[0 n 4]ol o eut related results for only [41] and [40] preserv and (see which tions studied functions 4, little [1, of me remain mathematicians properties The metrics the other but Doboˇs and [54]. J. Termwittipong 52,53,58,60,64] by I. studied and detailed Ponsgriiam were P. by obtained recently fo language natural a 49–51]. 36–38, 33, gives 26–28, 24, structures 23, 17, 10, tree-like 6, [2, and scien trees [3,9,18–20,22,30,31,39 computer of in and use studied been psychology have spaces linguistics, ultrametric physics, mathematics, in inequality metric A od o all for holds ealsm entosfo h hoyo ercsae.I htf what In spaces. metric of theory the from definitions some Recall h rsn ae smil oiae ycaatrzto fultram of characterization by motivated mainly is paper present The d various with connected closely is spaces ultrametric of theory The 2010 yaaoywt rageieult ( inequality triangle with analogy By e od n phrases. and words Key ( ( ( iii iv ( ii i ( ) ) ) ) ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics rsrigfntosi ecie.W loitoueaconc a introduce cha also Pongsriiam–Termwuttipong We of described. form is dual ultrametric functions preserving and A ultrametric found. an are of tion composition a properties as structural resented The found. are functions preserving n s tt hrceieteutaercspaces. ultrametric the characterize to it use and Abstract. d d d . d d b ( ( ( : mtis.I hsrgr,w oeta Ponsgriiam–Termwittipong that note we regard, this In -metrics). ( ,y x, ,y x, ,y x, ,y x, X x , ) = ) ) × y 0) = ) ≤ ≤ , X A z NUTAERCPEEVN FUNCTIONS ULTRAMETRIC-PRESERVING ON hrceiain fpedutaercpeevn func pseudoultrametric-preserving of Characterizations d d max ∈ metric → ( ( ,z x, ,x y, X ⇔ R { lrmti,pedutaerc suoerc ultramet pseudometric, pseudoultrametric, ultrametric, . d + ) ); + ( ( x ,z x, sa lrmti on ultrametric an is naset a on d = ( ) ,y z, y d , ); ( ). ,y z, X ) LKI DOVGOSHEY OLEKSIY } 54E35. safunction a is 1. iii Introduction ,ieult ( inequality ), X 1 if d : X fpedutaerc hc a erep- be can which pseudoultrametrics of × p of ept iv pedutaercpeevn func- -pseudoultrametric-preserving X sotncle the called often is ) pca yemtiso generalized or metrics type special e ztoso ucin hc preserve which functions of izations → atrzto fteultrametric- the of racterization 4–95–66,2.Nt htthe that Note ,43–49,54–56,61,62]. cin sgvni rpsto 2.5. Proposition in given is nctions k ecito futaercspaces ultrametric of description r sprtn aiyo functions of family -separating atrzdi rpsto ..A 2.4. Proposition in racterized nb bandfo ultrametric from obtained be an R + c.Dtcinaddescription and Detection ics. suoercpeevn and pseudometric-preserving e ,7 ,1–6 1 5 9 5 42, 35, 29, 25, 21, 12–16, 8, 7, 5, in n semimetric- and tions uhta o all for that such losw write we ollows e ieetpoete of properties Different ce. i-rsrigfunction. ric-preserving omti-rsrigfunc- metric-preserving to rcin finvestigations of irections ti-rsrigfunctions etric-preserving rcpeevn functions tric-preserving hrceiainof characterization togtriangle strong R x + , y =[0 := , z ∈ , ∞ X ) : 2 OLEKSIY DOVGOSHEY
Using the description of ultrametric-metric-preserving functions from [54] we obtain also a new characteristic property of ultrametric spaces in Theorem 2.12 and it is one of the main results of the paper.
2. Ultrametrics, Pseudoultrametrics and Semimetrics The useful generalization of the concept of metric (ultrametric) is the concept of pseudometric (pseudoultrametric). Definition 2.1. Let X be a set and let d: X × X → R+ be a symmetric function such that d(x, x) = 0 holds for every x ∈ X. The function d is a pseudometric (pseudoultrametric) on X if it satisfies the triangle inequality (the strong triangle inequality). If d is a pseudometric (pseudoultrametric) on X, then we will say that (X, d) is a pseudometric (pseudoultrametric) space. Every ultrametric space is a pseudoultrametric space but not conversely. In contrast to ul- trametric spaces, pseudoultrametric spaces can contain some distinct points with zero distance between them.
Example 2.2. Let X = {x1, x2, x3} and let d: X × X → R be symmetric and satisfy
d(x1, x1)= d(x2, x2)= d(x3, x3)= d(x1, x2)=0 and d(x1, x3)= d(x2, x3)= t, t> 0. Then d is a pseudoultrametric on X but d is not an ultrametric. The next definition is a modification of Definition 1 from [54]. Definition 2.3. A function f : R+ → R+ is pseudoultrametric-preserving (ultrametric- pseudoultrametric-preserving) if f ◦ d is a pseudoultrametric for every pseudoultrametric (ultra- metric) space (X, d). Recall that f : R+ → R+ is increasing if (a > b) ⇒ (f(a) > f(b)) holds for all a, b ∈ R+. Proposition 2.4. The following conditions are equivalent for every function f : R+ → R+. (i) f is increasing and f(0) = 0 holds; (ii) f is pseudoultrametric-preserving; (iii) f is ultrametric-pseudoultrametric-preserving. Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii). Suppose that f is increasing and f(0) = 0holds. Let(X, d) be a pseudoultramet- ric space. Then f ◦ d is nonnegative and symmetric. The equalities d(x, x) = 0 and f(0) = 0 imply f(d(x, x)) = 0. Since f is increasing, the strong triangle inequality for d implies this inequality for f ◦ d. Thus (X,f ◦ d) is a pseudoultrametric space. (ii) ⇒ (iii). This is evidently valid. (iii) ⇒ (i). Let f : R+ → R+ be ultrametric-pseudoultrametric-preserving. Then f ◦ d is a pseudoultrametric for every ultrametric space (X, d). Thus f(0) = f(d(x, x)) =0 holds. If f is not increasing, then there are a, b ∈ R+ such that 0
Let X = {x1, x2, x3} and let d be an ultrametric on X such that
d(x1, x2)= d(x1, x3)= b and d(x2, x3)= a. (2.2) Then (2.1) and (2.2) imply
max{f(d(x1, x2)),f(d(x1, x3))} = f(b) max{f(d(x1, x2)),f(d(x1, x3))} 0= f(0) 6 f(r) 6 f(r0)=0. Thus, f(r) = 0 holds for every r ∈ [0, r0). Conversely, suppose (Y,ρ) is a pseudoultrametric space such that ρ is not an ultrametric and there is r0 > 0 for which ρ(x, y) = 0 holds whenever x, y ∈ Y and ρ(x, y) < r0. Write ∗ r = inf{ρ(x, y): x, y ∈ Y and ρ(x, y) > 0}. Then the inequality r∗ > 0 holds. Let us define a function d: Y 2 → R as follows ρ(x, y) if ρ(x, y) > 0, r∗ d(x, y)= 2 if ρ(x, y) = 0 and x 6= y, 0 if x = y. A direct calculation shows that d is an ultrametric on Y and the equality ρ = f ∗ ◦ d holds for f ∗ : R+ → R+ defined as 1 ∗ ∗ 0 if t ∈ 0, r , f (t)= 2 t t> 1 r∗. ( if 2 Proposition 2.4 implies that f ∗ is ultrametric-pseudoultrametric-preserving. Let X be a nonempty set and let d: X × X → R be nonnegative. Wilson [63] says that (X, d) is a semimetric space and d is a semimetric on X if, for all x, y ∈ X, the following conditions are satisfied: (i) d(x, y) = 0 if and only if x = y; (ii) d(x, y)= d(y, x). The term semimetric (= semi-metric) is used mainly in general topology. Very often the semi- metrics are called dissimilarities or simply distances. (See [11, p. 15].) Definition 2.6. A function f : R+ → R+ is semimetric-preserving if f ◦d is a semimetric for every semimetric space (X, d). 4 OLEKSIY DOVGOSHEY The function f : R+ → R+ is said to be amenable if f −1({0})= {0}. Proposition 2.7. The following conditions are equivalent for every function f : R+ → R+. (i) f is semimetric-preserving. (ii) f is amenable. Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii). Let us prove the truth of ⌉(ii) ⇒⌉(i), where ⌉ is the negation symbol. If f is not amenable, then f(0) > 0 (2.3) or there is t> 0 such that f(t)=0 (2.4) holds. Let X = {x1, x2} and let d(x1, x1)= d(x2, x2) = 0 and d(x1, x2)= t. Then d is an ultrametric on X. Equality (2.4) implies f(d(x1, x2)) = 0, similarly from (2.3) it follows that f(d(x1, x1)) = f(d(x2, x2)) > 0. Thus f ◦ d is not semimetric-preserving. (ii) ⇒ (i). It follows directly from the definitions. Definition 2.8 ([54]). A function f : R+ → R+ is ultrametric-preserving if f ◦ d is an ultrametric for every ultrametric space (X, d). We also say that f : R+ → R+ is ultrametric-metric-preserving if f ◦ d is a metric for every ultrametric space (X, d). The following theorem as well as Theorem 2.11 was obtained by P. Pongsriiam and I. Termwut- tipong in [54]. To make the present paper self-contained and to show how semimetric-preserving and pseudoultrametric-preserving functions can be used for investigation of ultrametric-preserving functions, we give new proofs of these theorems. Theorem 2.9. A function f : R+ → R+ is ultrametric-preserving if and only if f is amenable and increasing. Proof. Let f : R+ → R+ be amenable and increasing. Then, by Proposition 2.4, f is pseudoultrametric-preserving and, by Proposition 2.7, f is semimetric-preserving. It is easy to see that, for every nonempty set X and every function d: X2 → R, d is an ultrametric on X if and only if d is simultaneously a pseudoultrametric on X and a semimetric on X. Hence, f is ultrametric-preserving. Now let f be ultrametric-preserving. If f is not increasing, then there is an ultrametric d such that f ◦ d is not a pseudoultrametric (see the proof of Proposition 2.4). Similarly, if f is not amenable, then we can find an ultrametric d for which f ◦ d is not a semimetric (see the proof of Proposition 2.7). This complete the proof. Example 2.10. Let (X, d) be an ultrametric space and let t ∈ (0, ∞). The function f : R+ → R+ with x if x ∈ [0,t), f(x)= (t if x ∈ [t, ∞), is amenable and increasing. By Theorem 2.9, f ◦ d is an ultrametric. Theorem 2.11 ([54]). Let f : R+ → R+ be amenable. Then the following statements are equiva- lent. (i) The function f is ultrametric-metric-preserving. ON ULTRAMETRIC-PRESERVING FUNCTIONS 5 (ii) The inequality f(a) 6 2f(b) (2.5) holds whenever 0 6 a 6 b. Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii). Let f be ultrametric-metric-preserving and let 0 6 a 6 b. (2.6) Note that (2.5) is trivial if a = 0. Suppose a> 0. Then there is an ultrametric space (X, d) with X = {x1, x2, x3} and such that a = d(x1, x2) 6 d(x2, x3)= d(x3, x1)= b. (2.7) Since f is ultrametric-metric-preserving, (X,f ◦ d) is a metric space. Applying the triangle in- equality to the metric f ◦ d, we can simply prove that 2max{f(d(x1, x2)),f(d(x2, x3)),f(d(x3, x1))} 6 f(d(x1, x2)) + f(d(x2, x3)) + f(d(x3, x1)). (2.8) The last inequality is equivalent to 2max{f(a),f(b)} 6 f(a)+2f(b). (2.9) Inequality (2.6) and the trivial inequality 2f(a) 6 2max{f(a),f(b)} imply inequality (2.5). (ii) ⇒ (i). Let (ii) hold. Let us consider an arbitrary nonempty ultrametric space (X, d). We prove that (X,f ◦ d) is a metric space. Since f is amenable and nonnegative, it suffices to show that the triangle inequality holds for f ◦ d. The triangle inequality holds for f ◦ d if and only if we have inequality (2.8) for arbitrary triple x1, x2, x3 ∈ X. Since d is an ultrametric, for given x1, + x2, x3 ∈ X, there are a, b ∈ R such that (2.7) and (2.6) hold. Consequently it suffices to prove that (2.9) holds whenever we have (2.5), (2.6) and(2.7). Inequality (2.9) is trivial if max{f(a),f(b)} = f(b). To complete the proof it suffices to note that if max{f(a),f(b)} = f(a), then (2.9) is equivalent to (2.5). The following characterization of ultrametrics is, in fact, dual to Theorem 2.9 and Theorem 2.11. Theorem 2.12. Let (X, d) be a metric space. Then the following statements are equivalent. (i) (X, d) is an ultrametric space. (ii) (X,f ◦ d) is a metric space for every amenable and increasing function f : R+ → R+. (iii) (X,f ◦ d) is a metric space for every amenable function f : R+ → R+ which satisfies the inequality f(a) 6 2f(b) whenever 0 6 a 6 b. Proof. The implication (i) ⇒ (iii) follows from Theorem 2.11. It is clear that f(a) 6 2f(b) holds for every increasing function f : R+ → R+ and all a, b ∈ R+ with a 6 b. Consequently (iii) implies (ii). (ii) ⇒ (i). Let (ii) hold. If d is not an ultrametric, then we can find distinct points x1, x2, x3 ∈ X such that d(x1, x2) > max{d(x1, x3), d(x2, x3)}. (2.10) 6 OLEKSIY DOVGOSHEY Write a := max{d(x1, x3), d(x2, x3)} and b := d(x1, x2) + + and consider fa,b : R → R such that 0 if t =0, 1 fa,b(t)= 2 a if t ∈ (0,a], (2.11) b if t ∈ (a, ∞). Then fa,b is increasing and amenable. It follows from the definition of fa,b and (2.10) that 1 fa,b(d(x1, x2)) = fa,b(b)= b and fa,b(d(x1, x3)) = fa,b(d(x2, x3)) = a. (2.12) 2 By statement (ii), fa,b ◦d is a metric on X. Now using (2.12) and the triangle inequality we obtain 1 1 b = fa,b(d(x1, x2)) 6 fa,b(d(x1, x3)) + fa,b(d(x2, x3)) = a + a = a. 2 2 Thus b 6 a contrary to (2.10). Analyzing the proof of Theorem 2.12 we obtain the following corollary. Corollary 2.13. Let (X, d) be a metric space. Then d is an ultrametric if and only if fa,b ◦ d is a metric for all strictly positive a and b, where fa,b is defined by (2.11). Let A and B be two sets and let F be a family of mappings from A to B. Recall that F is said to separate points on A if for every two distinct a1, a2 ∈ A there is f ∈F such that f(a1) 6= f(a2) (see, for example, [57], Definition 7.30). Definition 2.14. Let F be a set of increasing and amenable functions f : R+ → R+ and let + k ∈ (1, ∞). Then F is k-separating if for every two t1, t2 ∈ R with t1 < t2, there is f ∈F such that kf(t1) a := max{d(x1, x3), d(x2, x3)}, and b := d(x1, x2), and b>a> 0. Since F is 2-separating, there is f ∈F such that 2f(a) f(d(x1, x3)) 6 f(a) and f(d(x2, x3)) 6 f(a). (2.14) From (2.13) and (2.14) we obtain f(d(x1, x3)) + f(d(x2, x3)) Suppose now that F is not 2-separating. Then it follows from Definition 2.14 that there are t1, + t2 ∈ R such that 0 2t3 > t2 (2.16) holds. Since every f ∈F is increasing, the condition t3 ∈ (t1,t2) and (2.15) imply the inequality 2f(t3) > f(t2) (2.17) for every f ∈F. Let X = {x1, x2, x3} and let d: X × X → R be a function such that d(x1, x1)= d(x2, x2)= d(x3, x3) = 0 and d(x1, x2)= t2 and t3 = d(x1, x3)= d(x2, x3). Then we have max{d(x1, x2), d(x1, x3), d(x2, x3)} = d(x1, x2)= t2 6 2t3 = d(x1, x3)+ d(x2, x3). Hence, (X, d) is a metric space. From (2.16) and the definition of d it follows that (X, d) is not an ultrametric space. To complete the proof it suffices to note that (2.17) implies the triangle inequality for f ◦ d with every f ∈F. Example 2.16. For every α ∈ (0, ∞) and every t ∈ R+, we write α fα(t)= t . (2.18) + + It is clear that every function fα : R → R defined by (2.18) is increasing and amenable. Let F := {fα : α ∈ (0, ∞)}. The limit relation α t1 lim =0 α→∞ t 2 holds if 0 6 t1 References [1] BERNIG, A.—FOERTSCH, T.,—SCHROEDER, V.: Non standard metric products, Beitr¨age zur Algebra and Geometrie 44 (2003), 499–510. [2] BESTVINA, M.: R-trees in topology, geometry and group theory, In Daverman, R. J.—Sher, R. B., eds., Handbook of Geometric Topology, 55–91. Nort-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002. [3] BEYRER, J.—SCHROEDER, V.: Trees and ultrametric m¨obius structures, P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. 9 (2017), 247–256. [4] BORS´ıK, J.—DOBOS,ˇ J.: Functions whose composition with every metric is a metric, Math. Slovaca 31 (1981), 3–12. [5] BORS´ıK, J.—DOBOS,ˇ J.: On metric preserving functions, Real Anal. Exchange 13 (1988), 285–293. [6] CARLSSON, G.—MEMOLI,´ F.: Characterization, stability and convergence of hierarchical clustering methods, J. Machine Learn. Res. 11 (2010), 1425–1470. [7] CORAZZA, P.: Introduction to metric-preserving functions, Amer. Math. Monthly 104 (1999), 309–323. [8] DAS, P. P.: Metricity preserving transforms, Pattern Recognition Letters 10 (1989), 73–76. [9] DELHOMME,´ C.—LAFLAMME, C.—POUZET, M.,—SAUER, N.: Indivisible ultrametric spaces, Topology and its Applications 155 (2008), 1462–1478. 8 OLEKSIY DOVGOSHEY [10] DEMAINE, E. D.—LANDAU, G. M.,—WEIMANN, O.: On Cartesian Trees and Range Minimum Queries, In Proceedings of the 36th International Colloquium, ICALP 2009, Rhodes, Greece, July 5-12, 2009, Part I, vol. 5555 of Lecture notes in Computer Science, 341–353. Springer-Berlin-Heidelberg, 2009. [11] DEZA, M. M.—DEZA, E.: Encyclopedia of Distances. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2009. [12] DOBOS,ˇ J.: A survey of metric-preserving functions, Questions Answers Gen. Topology 13 (1995), 129–134. [13] DOBOS,ˇ J.: On modification of the Euclidean metric on reals, Tatra Mt. Math. Publ. 8 (1996), 51–54. [14] DOBOS,ˇ J.: Metric Preserving Functions. Stroffek,ˇ Koˇsice, Slovakia, 1998. [15] DOBOS,ˇ J.—PIOTROWSKI, Z.: Some remarks on metric-preserving functions, Real Anal. Exchange 19 (1994), 317–320. [16] DOBOS,ˇ J.—PIOTROWSKI, Z.: A note on metric preserving functions, Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 19 (1996), 199–200. [17] DORDOVSKYI, D.—DOVGOSHEY, O.,—PETROV, E.: Diameter and diametrical pairs of points in ultra- metric spaces, P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. 3 (2011), 253–262. [18] DOVGOSHEY, O.—DORDOVSKYI, D.: Ultrametricity and metric betweenness in tangent spaces to metric spaces, P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. 2 (2010), 109–113. [19] DOVGOSHEY, O.—MARTIO, O.: Blow up of balls and coverings in metric spaces, Manuscripta Math. 127 (2008), 89–120. [20] DOVGOSHEY, O.—MARTIO, O.: Products of metric spaces, covering numbers, packing numbers and char- acterizations of ultrametric spaces, Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures. Appl. 54 (2009), 423–439. [21] DOVGOSHEY, O.—MARTIO, O.: Functions transferring metrics to metrics, Beitr¨age zur Algebra und Ge- ometrie 54 (2013), 237–261. [22] DOVGOSHEY, O.—PETROV, E.: Subdominant pseudoultrametric on graphs, Sb. Math 204 (2013), 1131– 1151. [23] DOVGOSHEY, O.—PETROV, E.: From isomorphic rooted trees to isometric ultrametric spaces, P-adic Num- bers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. 10 (2018), 287–298. [24] DOVGOSHEY, O.—PETROV, E.: Properties and morphisms of finite ultrametric spaces and their represent- ing trees, P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. 11 (2019), 1–20. [25] DOVGOSHEY, O.—PETROV, E.,—KOZUB, G.: Metric products and continuation of isotone functions, Math. Slovaca 64 (2014), 187–208. [26] DOVGOSHEY, O.—PETROV, E.,—TEICHERT, H.-M.: On spaces extremal for the Gomory-Hu inequality, P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. 7 (2015), 133–142. [27] DOVGOSHEY, O.—PETROV, E.,—TEICHERT, H.-M.: How rigid the finite ultrametric spaces can be?, Fixed Point Theory Appl. 19 (2017), 1083–1102. [28] FIEDLER, M.: Ultrametric sets in Euclidean point spaces, Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra 3 (1998), 23–30. [29] FOERTSCH, T.—SCHROEDER, V.: Minkowski versus Euclidean rank for products of metric spaces, Adv. Geom. 2 (2002), 123–131. [30] GOMORY, R. E.—HU, T. C.: Multi-terminal network flows, SIAM 9 (1961), 551–570. [31] GROOT, J. D.: Non-Archimedean metrics in topology, Proc. A.M.S. 7 (1956), 948–956. [32] GURVICH, V.: Metric and ultrametric spaces of resistances, Discrete Appl. Math. 158 (2010), 1496–1505. [33] GURVICH, V.—VYALYI, M.: Characterizing (quasi-)ultrametric finite spaces in terms of (directed) graphs, Discrete Appl. Math. 160 (2012), 1742–1756. [34] GVISHIANI, A. D.—GURVICH, V. A.: Metric and ultrametric spaces of resistances, Commun. Moscow Math. Soc., Russ. Math. Surveys 42 (1987), 235–236. [35] HERBURT, I.—MOSZYNSKA,´ M.: On metric products, Colloq. Math. 62 (1991), 121–133. [36] HOLLY, J. E.: Pictures of ultrametric spaces, the p-adic numbers, and valued fields, Amer. Math. Monthly 108 (2001), 721–728. [37] HUGHES, B.: Trees and ultrametric spaces: a categorical equivalence, Adv. Math. 189 (2004), 148–191. [38] HUGHES, B.: Trees, ultrametrics, and noncommutative geometry, Pure Appl. Math. Q. 8 (2012), 221–312. [39] IBRAGIMOV, Z.: M¨obius maps between ultrametric spaces are local similarities, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 37 (2012), 309–317. [40] KHEMARATCHATAKUMTHORN, T.—PONGSRIIAM, P.: Remarks on b-metric and metric-preserving functions, Mathematica Slovaca 68 (2018), 1009–1016. [41] KHEMARATCHATAKUMTHORN, T.—PONGSRIIAM, P.,—SAMPHAVAT, S.: Further remarks on b- metrics, metric-preserving functions, and other related metrics, International Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science 14 (2019), 473–480. [42] KHEMARATCHATAKUMTHORN, T.—TERMWUTTIPONG, I.: Metric-preserving functions, w-distances and Cauchy w-distances, Thai J. Math. 5 (2007), 51–56. ON ULTRAMETRIC-PRESERVING FUNCTIONS 9 [43] KIRK, W. A.—SHAHZAD, N.: Some fixed point results in ultrametric spaces, Topology Appl. 159 (2012), 3327–3334. [44] LEMIN, A. J.: On isosceles metric spaces, Functional Analysis and its Applications (1984), 26–31. [45] LEMIN, A. J.: On the stability of the property of a space being isosceles, Russ. Math. Surveys 39 (1984), 283–284. [46] LEMIN, A. J.: Proximity on isosceles spacesProximity on isosceles spaces, Russ. Math. Surveys 39 (1984), 143–144. [47] LEMIN, A. J.: Isometric embedding of isosceles (non-Archimedean) spaces in Euclidean spaces, Soviet Math. Dokl. 32 (1985), 740–744. [48] LEMIN, A. J.: An application of the theory of isosceles (ultrametric) spaces to the Trnkova-Vinarek theorem, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 29 (1988), 427–434. [49] LEMIN, A. J.: The category of ultrametric spaces is isomorphic to the category of complete, atomic, tree-like, ∗ real graduated lattices LAT , Algebra Universalis 50 (2003), 35–49. [50] PETROV, E.: Weak similarities of finite ultrametric and semimetric spaces, P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. 10 (2018), 108–117. [51] PETROV, E.—DOVGOSHEY, A.: On the Gomory-Hu inequality, J. Math. Sci. 198 (2014), 392–411. [52] PIOTROWSKI, Z.—VALLIN, R. W.: Functions which preserve Lebesgue spaces, Comment. Math. Prace Mat. 43 (2003), 249–255. [53] POKORNY,´ I.: Some remarks on metric-preserving functions, Tatra Mt. Math. Publ. 2 (1993), 65–68. [54] PONGSRIIAM, P.—TERMWUTTIPONG, I.: Remarks on ultrametrics and metric-preserving functions, Ab- str. Appl. Anal. 2014 (2014), 9. [55] QIU, D.: Geometry of non-Archimedian Gromov–Hausdorff distance, P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. 1 (2009), 317–337. [56] QIU, D.: The structures of Hausdorff metric in non-Archimedian spaces, P-adic Numbers Ultrametr. Anal. Appl. 6 (2014), 33–53. [57] RUDIN, W.: Principles of Mathematical Analysis, International Series in Pure & Applied Mathematics. McGraw-Hill, 1976. [58] TERMWUTTIPONG, I.—OUDKAM, P.: Total boundedness, completeness and uniform limits of metric- preserving functions, Ital. J. Pure Appl. Math. 18 (2005), 187–196. [59] TYSON, J. T.—WU, J.-M.: Characterizations of snowflake metric spaces, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn-M. 30 (2005), 313–336. [60] VALLIN, R. W.: Continuity and differentiability aspects of metric preserving functions, Real Anal. Exchange 25 (1999/2000), 849–868. [61] VAUGHAN, J.: Universal ultrametric spaces of smallest weight, Topology Proc. 24 (1999), 611–619. [62] VESTFRID, I.: On the universal ultrametric space, Ukrainin Math. J. 46 (1994), 1890–1898. [63] WILSON, W. A.: On semi-metric spaces, Am. J. Math. 53 (1931), 361–373. [64] WILSON, W. A.: On certain types of continuous transformations of metric spaces, American Journal of Mathematics 57 (1935), 62–68. Institute of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics of NASU Dobrovolskogo str. 1, Slovyansk 84100, Ukraine E-mail address: [email protected]