CHARACTERIZATIONS OF URYSOHN UNIVERSAL

ULTRAMETRIC SPACES

YOSHITO ISHIKI
arXiv:2303.17471v1 [math.MG] 30 Mar 2023

Abstract. In this paper, using the existence of equidistant sub-

sets in closed balls, we characterize the injectivity of ultramet-
ric spaces for finite ultrametric spaces, which also characterize
Urysohn universal ultrametric spaces. As applications, we first
observe that the countable power of the countable discrete space
equipped with a canonical metric (the Baire space) is the Urysohn
universal ultrametric space. Next we prove that the hyperspace
consisting of all non-empty compact subsets of the (standard) Urysohn
universal ultrametric spaces (X, d) is isometric to (X, d). We also
establish that all complete ultrametric spaces injective for all finite
ultrametric space contain the Urysohn universal ultrametric space.

1. Introduction
For a class C of metric spaces, we say that a metric space (X, d) is
C-injective if for all pair (Y, e) and (Z, h) of metric spaces in C and
isometric embeddings φ : Y → Z and f : Y → X, there exists an iso-
metric embedding F : Z → X such that F ◦ φ = f . We denote by
F the class of all finite metric spaces. Urysohn constructed a separa-
ble complete F-injective metric space and proved its uniqueness up to
isometry, which space is today called the Urysohn universal (metric)
space. Let (U, ρ) denote the Urysohn universal metric space. Our main
subjects of this paper are non-Archimedean analogues of (U, ρ). For
more information of (U, ρ) and related topics, we refer the readers to,
for instance, [1] [10], [4], [7], [8], [14], [11] and [12].
To explain our main results and backgrounds, we prepare some no-
tations and notions. We say that a set R is a range set if it is a
subset of [0, ∞) and contains 0. A metric on a set X is said to be
an ultrametric if it satisfies the so-called strong triangle inequality
d(x, y) ≤ d(x, z) ∨ d(z, y) for all x, y, z ∈ X, where ∨ stands for the
maximal operator on R. For a range set R, an ultrametric space (X, d)
is R-valued if d(x, y) ∈ R for all x, y ∈ R. For a range set R, we denote
by N(R) the class of all finite R-valued ultrametric spaces.
For a countable range set R, we say that an ultrametric (X, d) is
the R-Urysohn universal ultrametric space if it is a separable complete
N(R)-injective R-valued ultrametric space. As is the case of (U, ρ),
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 54E35, Secondary 51F99.
Key words and phrases. Urysohn universal ultrametric spaces.
1
2 YOSHITO ISHIKI

we can prove the uniqueness of the R-Urysohn universal ultrametric

space up to isometry (see [3]). Since for an uncountable range set
R all N(R)-injective ultrametric space are non-separable, mathemati-
cians often treated only the case where R is countable to guarantee
the separability. In [6], for an uncountable range set R, the author
introduced the R-petaloid ultrametric space and proved its uniqueness
up to isometry. For the definition of the petaloid spaces, see Section
2. Based on this result, even when R is uncountable, we also say that
(X, d) is the R-Urysohn universal ultrametric space if it is R-petaloid
ultrametric space. Namely, in this paper, we define the R-Urysohn
universal ultrametric space as follows:
Definition 1.1. Let R be a range set. When R is countable, the R-
Urysohn universal ultrametric space is a (unique) separable complete
N(R)-injective R-valued ultrametric space. When R is uncountable,
the R-Urysohn universal ultrametric space is the R-petaloid ultramet-
ric space.
We now explain our main results. In this paper, we first characterize
the N(R)-injectivity using the existence of equidistant sets in closed
balls (see Theorem 3.2). We next explain applications of Theorem. We
denote by ω0 the set of all non-negative integers. Remark that ω0 = Z≥0
as a set. We also denote by ω0 ω0 the set of all maps from ω0 into ω0
(in this paper, we often use set-theorists’ notations). Using a strictly
decreasing sequence convergent to 0, we can define an ultrametric on
ω0
ω0 as follows:
Definition 1.2. Let α : ω0 → (0, ∞) be a map such that limn→∞ α(n)
and α(n + 1) < α(n) for all n ∈ ω0 . We define an ultrametric σα by
σα (x, y) = α(v(x, y)), where v(x, y) = min{ n ∈ ω0 | x(n) 6= y(n) }.
Remark that dα certainly generates the product topology on ω0 ω0 .
This metric space is known as the (0-dimensional) Baire space and the
case of α(n) = (n + 1)−1 is famous. Using Theorem 3.2, we observe
that the space (ω0 ω0 , σα ) is N(R)-injective, where R = {0} ∪ { α(n) |
n ∈ ω0 }. Namely, (ω0 ω0 , σα ) is the R-Urysohn universal ultrametric
space (see Theorem 3.3).
For a metric space (X, d), we denote by K(X) the set of all non-
empty compact subsets of X. We also denote by HD d the Hausdorff
distance on K(X) induced from d (for the precise definition, see Sec-
tion 4). As a main result, we show that for every range set R, and
for the R-Urysohn universal ultrametric space (W, h), the hyperspace
(K(W ), HDh ) is also the R-Urysohn universal ultrametric space (see
Theorem 4.5).
We also establish that for every range set R, every complete N(R)-
injective ultrametric space contains a subspace isometric to the R-
Urysohn universal ultrametric space (see Theorem 5.1). This result
confirms the validity of the petaloid spaces.
 URYSOHN 3

The organization of this paper is as follows: In Section 2, we prepare

basic notations and notions. We shall explain the petaloid ultrametric
space. In Section 3, the we characterize the N(R)-injectivity using the
existence of an equidistant subsets of closed balls (see Theorem 3.2).
We also prove Theorem 3.3. In Section 4, we prove that the hyper
space of compact subsets of the R-Urysohn universal ultrametric space
(X, d) is isometric to (X, d) (see Theorem 4.5). Section 5 is devoted
to proving that all complete N(R)-injective ultrametric spaces contain
the R-Urysohn universal ultrametric space (see Theorem 5.1).

2. Preliminaries
κ ∈ ω0 or κ = ω0 . For a metric space (X, d), for a ∈ X, and for
r ∈ (0, ∞), we denote by B(a, r) the closed ball centered at a of radius
r.
The proofs of next three lemmas are presented in [13, Propositions
18.2, 18.4 and 18.5].
Lemma 2.1. Let (X, d) be an ultrametric space. Then the following
are true:
(1) for all x, y, z ∈ X, the inequality d(x, z) < d(z, y) implies
d(z, y) = d(x, y).
(2) For all a ∈ X, r ∈ (0, ∞), and for all q ∈ B(a, r) we have
B(a, r) = B(q, r).
(3) For all a, b ∈ X, and for r, l ∈ (0, ∞), if B(a, r) ∩ B(b, l) 6= ∅,
then we have B(a, r) ⊆ B(b, l) or B(b, r) ⊆ B(a, r).
A subset E of [0, ∞) is said to be semi-sporadic if there exists a
strictly decreasing sequence {ai }i∈Z≥0 in (0, ∞) such that limi→∞ ai = 0
and E = {0} ∪ { ai | i ∈ Z≥0 }. A subset of [0, ∞) is said to be tenuous
if it is finite or semi-sporadic (see [5]). For a range set R, we denote by
TEN(R) the set of all tenuous range subsets of R. In this paper, we
often represent a restricted metric as the same symbol to the ambient
one. We now provide the definition of the petaloid ultrametric space
that is introduced in [6] by the author.
Definition 2.1. Let R be an uncountable range set. We say that
a metric space (X, d) is R-petaloid if it is an R-valued ultrametric
space and there exists a family {Π(X, S)}S∈TEN(R) of subspaces of X
satisfying the following properties:
(P1) The set Π(X, {0}) is a singleton.
(P2) If S ∈ TEN(R) satisfies S 6= {0}, then (Π(X, S), d) is a sepa-
rable complete
S N(S)-injective S-ultrametric space.
(P3) We have S∈TEN(R) Π(X, S) = X.
(P4) If S, T ∈ TEN(R), then Π(X, S) ∩ Π(X, T ) = Π(X, S ∩ T ).
(P5) If S, T ∈ TEN(R) and x ∈ Π(X, T ), then d(x, Π(X, S)) belongs
to (T \ S) ∪ {0}.
4 YOSHITO ISHIKI

We call the family {Π(X, S)}S∈TEN(R) an R-petal of X, and call Π(X, S)

the S-piece of the R-petal {Π(X, S)}S∈TEN(R) . We simply write Π(S) =
Π(X, S) when the whole space is clear by the context.
Lemma 2.2. Let R be a range set, and (X, d) be the R-petaloid ul-
trametric space. Then for all S ∈ TEN(R), and for all x ∈ X, there
exists p ∈ Π(X, S) such that d(x, Π(X, S)) = d(x, p).
Proof. The lemma is reduced from the property that Π(X, S) is the
S-Urysohn universal ultrametric space (the property (P2)) and [13,
Propositions 20.2 and 21.1]. 
Remark 2.1. In the preprint of [6], as the property (P6), the author
assumed the statement of Lemma 2.2. However, as shown above, it is
reduced from the property (P2).
3. Characterizations
We write n < ω0 if n ∈ ω0 . Thus, κ ≤ ω0 means that
Definition 3.1. For a cardinal κ, and for a range set R, we denote
by N(R, κ) the class of all R-valued ultrametric spaces (X, d) such
that Card(X) < κ. Remark that in the case of κ = ω0 , then N(R, κ)
coincides with the class N(R).
For a metric space (X, d), and r ∈ (0, ∞), a subset A of X is said to
be r-equidistant if for all distinct x, y ∈ A we have d(x, y) = r.
Definition 3.2. Let κ ≤ ω0 and R be a range set. An R-valued metric
space (X, d) is said to be (R, κ)-haloed if for all a ∈ X and r ∈ R \ {0},
there exists an r-equidistant subset A of B(a, r) such that κ ≤ Card(A).
Definition 3.3. Let κ ≤ ω0 and R be a range set. An R-valued
ultrametric space (X, d) is (R, κ)-avoidant if for all a ∈ A, and r ∈
R \ {0}, and for all subset A of B(a, r) with Card(A) < κ, there exists
p ∈ B(a, r) such that d(x, p) = r for all x ∈ A.
By the definitions, we obtain the next equivalences:
Lemma 3.1. Let (X, d) be an ultrametric space and R be a range set.
Then the following statements are true.
(1) The ultrametric space (X, d) is (R, ω0 )-haloed if and only if
(X, d) is (R, n)-haloed for all n ∈ ω0 .
(2) The ultrametric space (X, d) is (R, ω0 )-avoidant if and only if
(X, d) is (R, n)-avoidant for all n ∈ ω0 .
(3) The ultrametric space (X, d) is N(R, ω0 )-injective if and only if
(X, d) is N(R, n)-injective for all n ∈ ω0 .
Theorem 3.2. Let n ∈ ω0 and R be a range set. Let (X, d) be an R-
valued ultrametric space. Then the following statements are equivalent
to each other.
 URYSOHN 5

(A1) The space (X, d) is (R, n)-haloed;

(A2) The space (X, d) is (R, n)-avoidant
(A3) The space (X, d) is N(R, n + 1)-injective.
As a consequence, we also observe that the following statements are
equivalent:
(B1) The space (X, d) is (R, ω0 )-haloed;
(B2) The space (X, d) is (R, ω0 )-avoidant
(B3) The space (X, d) is N(R, ω0 )-injective.
Proof. Let n ∈ ω0 and R be a range set. Let (X, d) be an ultrametric
space. As a strategy, we prove (A1) =⇒ (A2), (A2) =⇒ (A3), and
(A3) =⇒ (A1).
First assume that (X, d) is (R, κ)-haloed. To show that (X, d) is
(R, κ)-avoidant, take a ∈ X, r ∈ R and take a subset A of B(a, r) with
Card(A) < κ. Since (X, d) is (R, κ)-haloed, we can find a subset H
of B(a, r) such that Card(H) = κ and d(x, y) = r for all x, y ∈ H.
Since d is an ultrametric, and since Card(A) < Card(H), there exists
p ∈ H such that p 6∈ U(x, r) for all x ∈ A. Then the point p satisfies
d(x, p) = r for all x ∈ A.
Next assume that (X, d) is (R, κ)-avoidant. Take an R-valued ul-
trametric space (Y ⊔ {θ}, e) with Card(Y ⊔ {θ}) < n + 1, and take
an isometric map φ : Y → X. To prove the N(R, n + 1)-injectivity,
we need to prove that there exists an isometry Φ : Y ⊔ {θ} → X.
Put r = miny∈Y e(y, θ) and take q ∈ Y such that r = e(q, θ). In
this situation, we have r ∈ R. Put A = φ(Y ) ∩ B(φ(q), r). Since
(X, d) is (R, n + 1)-avoidant and since Card(A) < n, there exists
t ∈ B(φ(q), r) such that d(a, t) = r for all a ∈ A. We now prove
that d(φ(y), t) = e(y, θ) for all y ∈ Y . In what follows, we use (1) in
Lemma 2.1 without citation. If e(y, q) ≤ r, then by the minimality of
r, we have e(y, θ) = r. By the definition of t, we have d(φ(y), t) = r.
Thus d(φ(y), t) = e(y, θ). If r < e(y, q), then we have e(y, θ) = e(y, q).
We also have φ(y) 6∈ B(φ(q), r) = B(t, r) (see (2) in Lemma 2.1). Thus
we obtain r < d(φ(y), t). Hence, using r = d(φ(q), t), we also obtain
d(φ(y), t) = d(φ(y), φ(q)) = e(y, q) = e(y, θ). Namely, d(φ(y), t) =
e(y, θ) We define an isometry Φ : Y ⊔ {θ} → X by Φ(x) = x for all
x ∈ Y and Φ(θ) = t. Therefore the space (X, d) is N(R, κ)-injective.
We now prove the implication (A3) =⇒ (A1). Take a ∈ X, and
r ∈ R \ {0}. By induction, we construct {Ai }i<κ such that
(1) we have Ai ⊆ B(a, r) for all i < n + 1;
(2) for all i < n + 1, we have Card(Ai ) = i + 1;
(3) for all i < n, we have Ai ⊆ Ai+1 .
Take s ∈ B(a, r) and put A0 = {s}. Fix l < n + 1 and we assume that
we have already constructed {Ai }i<l . Define an ultrametric e on A⊔{θ}
by e|A2 = d and d(x, θ) = r for all x ∈ A. We also define an isometric
map φ : A → X by φ(a) = a. Using the N(R, κ)-injectivity, we obtain
6 YOSHITO ISHIKI

p ∈ B(a, r) such that d(φ(x), p) = e(x, θ) = r. Put Al = Al−1 ⊔ {p}.

Then An is r-equidistant, and hence (X, d) is (R, κ)-haloed.
The latter part can be deduced from the former part and Lemma
3.1. This finishes the proof. 
Theorem 3.3. Let α satisfies that limn→∞ α(n) = 0 and α(n + 1) <
α(n) for all n ∈ ω0 and put R = {0} ∪ { α(n) | n ∈ ω0 }. Then the
space (ω0 ω0 , σα ) is N(R, κ)-injective. Namely, it is isometric to the
R-Urysohn universal ultrametric space.
Proof. Since R is countable, according to Theorem 3.2, it suffices to
show that the space (ω0 ω0 , σα ) is (R, ω0 )-haloed. Take a = (a(i))i∈ω0 ∈
ω0
ω0 and k ∈ ω0 . For each n ∈ ω0 , we define b(n) = (b(n, i))i∈ω0 by
(
a(i) k ≤ i;
b(n, i) =
n otherwise.
Then we have b(n) ∈ B(a, rk ) and d(b(n), b(m)) = rk for all distinct
n, m ∈ ω0 . Therefore we conclude that the space is (R, ω0 )-haloed. 

4. Hyperspaces
For a metric space (X, d), and for a subset A of X, we write d(x, A) =
inf a∈A d(x, a). For a metric space (X, d), we denote by K(X) the set
of all non-empty compact subsets of X. We also denote by HDd the
Hausdorff distance on K(X) induced from d. More precisely, we define
HD d (A, B) = max{supa∈A d(a, B), supb∈B d(b, A)}.
Let (X, d) be an ultrametric space, and r ∈ (0, ∞). For A ∈ K(X)
we denote by hAic(r) the set { B(a, r) | a ∈ A }. Remark that it is can
happen that B(a, r) ∈ hAic(r) contains some elements of X \ A. By
(3) in Lemma 2.1 and the compactness of A, the set hAic(r) is finite.
The next theorem is an analogue of [9, Theorem 5.1] and [5, Corollary
2.30].
Proposition 4.1. Let (X, d) be an ultrametric space. Then for all
subsets A and B of X, the value HD d (A, B) is equal to the minimum
r ∈ R such that hAic(r) = hBic(r) .
Proof. Let u be the infimum of r ∈ R such that hAic(r) = hBic(r) . Put
S = d(A2 )∪d(B 2 ). Then S is tenuous (see [5, Corollary 2.28]). If u 6∈ S,
then we can take a, b ∈ S such that u ∈ (a, b) and (a, b) ∩S = ∅. In this
setting, we have B(x, r) = B(x, a) for all x ∈ A∪B and for all r ∈ (u, b).
Thus, we have hAic(a) = hBic(a) , which is a contradiction. Therefore
u ∈ S, and hence u ∈ R. We also notice that u is the minimum. By
the definition of the Hausdorff distance, we have HD d (A, B) ≤ u. To
obtain the opposite inequality, take arbitrary l with HD d (A, B) < l.
Then we see that supa∈A d(a, B) ≤ l and supb∈B d(b, A) ≤ l. Then
hAic(l) = hBic(l) . Hence u ≤ HDd (A, B). This completes the proof. 
 URYSOHN 7

Corollary 4.2. Let R be a range set and (X, d) be an ultrametric. The

the following two statements are true:
(1) The metric HD d is an ultrametric on K(X).
(2) If (X, d) is R-valued, then so is (K(X), HDd ).
Proposition 4.3. Let n ∈ ω0 , R be a range set, and (X, d) be an
(R, n)-haloed ultrametric space. Then the space (K(X), HDd ) is (R, 2n −
1)-haloed.
Proof. Put Mn = {0, . . . , n − 1} and define an ultrametric e on Mn by
e(a, b) = r for all distinct a, b ∈ Mn . First we see that Card(K(Mn )) =
2n −1. Hence we only need to prove that (K(Mn ), HDe ) is r-equidistant.
Take A, B ∈ K(Mn ) with A 6= B. It is clear that d(A, B) ≤ r. We
may assume that S there exists k ∈ A with k 6∈ B. Then for all l < r,
we have k 6∈ b∈B B(b, l). Thus Proposition 4.1 implies that that
d(A, B) = r. 
Corollary 4.4. If a range set R is at most countable and (X, d) is the
R-Urysohn universal ultrametric space, then (K(X), HDd ) is the R-
Urysohn universal ultrametric space. Namely, it is isometric to (X, d).
Proof. Due to Corollary 4.2 and Proposition 4.3, the space (K(X), HDd )
is an R-valued N(R, ω0 )-injective ultrametric space. Similarly to [2,
Proposition 7.3.7], we see that (K(X), HDd ) is complete. To prove the
separability, take a countable dense subset A of X. Then the set of all
non-empty subset of A is dense in (K(X), HDd ). Thus, it is separable.
Therefore (K(X), HDd ) is the R-Urysohn universal ultrametric space
and isometric to (X, d). 
For a metric space (X, d) and for r ∈ (0, ∞), a subset of A is called
an r-net if for all distinct x, y ∈ A we have r < d(x, y). An r-net is
maximal if it is maximal with respect to the inclusion ⊆.
Theorem 4.5. Let R be a range set, and let (X, d) be the R-Urysohn
universal ultrametric space. Then the space (K(X), HDd ) is the R-
Urysohn universal ultrametric space and isometric to (X, d).
Proof. Corollary 4.2 implies that (K(X), HDd ) is R-valued. The case
where R is at most countable is proven in Corollary 4.4.
We now treat the case where R is uncountable. Remark that in this
case, (X, d) is the R-petaloid space (see Section 1). We define a petal
on (K(X), HDd ) as follows: For every S ∈ TEN(R), we define
Π(K(X), S) = { A ∈ K(X) | A ⊆ Π(X, S) }.
By this definition, the properties (P1) and (P4) are satisfied.
Since each Π(X, S) is the S-Urysohn universal ultrametric space and
S is at most countable, according to Corollary 4.4, the property (P2)
is true. Due to [6, Proposition 2.8.], the property (P3) is satisfied.
8 YOSHITO ISHIKI

We now show that the property (P5) is true for (K(X), HDd ). Take
S, T ∈ TEN(R) with S 6= T and B ∈ Π(K(X), T ). Let L stand
for the distance between B and Π(K(X), S). We shall show that L
belongs to {0} ∪ (T \ S). We may assume that B 6∈ Π(K(X), S). Then
B ⊆ Π(X, T ) and B 6⊆ Π(X, S). We put H = { d(y, Π(X, S)) | y ∈ B }.
Due to (P5) for (X, d), we see that H ⊆ {0} ∪ (T \ S). Put h = max H
and take z ∈ B such that d(z, Π(X, S)) = h. The existence of h is
guaranteed by the fact that H is a subset of the tenuous set T . Note
that h ∈ T \ S. We also take a maximal finite h-net Q of B with z ∈ Q.
For all p ∈ Q, take v(p) ∈ Π(X, S) with d(p, v(p)) = d(p, Π(X, S)) (see
Lemma 2.2). Put V = { v(p) | p ∈ Q }. Then HD d (B, V ) ≤ h.
For the sake of contradiction, suppose that there exists F ∈ Π(X, S)
with HD d (B, F ) < h. Put l = HD d (B, F ). Then Proposition 4.1
implies that hBic(l) = hF ic(l) . Hence there exists f ∈ F such that
d(z, f ) ≤ l < h (see (2) in Lemma (2)). This is a contradiction to the
fact that h = inf x∈Π(X,S) d(z, x). Thus, for all F ∈ Π(X, S), we have
h ≤ HD d (B, F ) and HD d (B, V ) = h. This means that L = h and
h ∈ T \ S. This finishes the proof. 

5. Existence theorem
This section is devotes to the proof of the following theorem:
Theorem 5.1. Let R be a range set. Let (X, d) be a complete R-valued
N(R, ω0 )-injective ultrametric space. Then (X, d) contains a subspace
F isometric to the R-Urysohn universal ultrametric space. Moreover,
for every compact subset K of X satisfying that d(K 2 ) ⊆ R, we can
take F so that K ⊆ F .
In what follows, the symbols R, (X, d) and K are the same objects
as the statement in Theorem 5.1.
Definition 5.1. We say that a family {Ω[a, r]}a∈X,r∈R\{0} of subsets
of X is an R-seed of X if the following conditions are satisfied for all
a ∈ X, and r ∈ R \ {0}:
(1) We have a ∈ Ω[a, r];
(2) the set Ω[a, r] is r-equidistant;
(3) we have Card(Ω[a, r]) = ℵ0 .
Remark that since (X, d) is (R, ω0 )-haloed, there exists an R-seed
(see Theorem 3.2).
Definition 5.2. Fix an R-seed {Ω[a, r]}a∈X,r∈R\{0} and a point P ∈ X.
For S ∈ TEN(R), we say that a point x ∈ X is an S-heir of P if there
m−1
exists sequences {vi }m i=0 in X and {ri }i=0 in S such taht
(1) v0 = P ;
(2) vm = x;
(3) vi+1 ∈ Ω[vi , ri ] for all i ∈ {0, . . . , m − 1};
 URYSOHN 9

(4) vi 6= vi+1 for all i ∈ {0, . . . , m − 1};

(5) if 2 ≤ m, then ri+1 < ri for all i ∈ {0, . . . , m − 2}.
m−1
In this case, the pair {vi }mi=0 and {r}i=0 is called an R-inheritance of
p from o with length n + 1. If m = 0, then we consider that {ri }m−1
i=0 be
the empty sequence.
Remark that the point P is the unique S-heir from P that has the
S-inheritance of length 1.
Definition 5.3. For an R-seed {Ω[a, r]}a∈X,r∈R\{0} , and a point P ∈ X,
we denote by A(S) the set of all S-heirs of P . We also denote by E(S)
the closure of A(S) in X.
Notice that since X is complete, E(S) is nothing but the completion
of A(S) for all S ∈ TEN(R).
Proposition 5.2. Let S, T ∈ TEN(R), and x and y be S-heir and
m−1 n−1
T -heir of P , respectively. Let ({vi }m n
i=0 , {ri }i=0 ) and ({wi }i=0 , {li }i=0 )
be S-inheritance and T -inheritance of x and y, respectively. In this
situation, the next three statements are true:
(1) If there exists k ∈ ω0 with k ≤ min{m, n} and xi = yi for all
i ≤ k, then ri = li for all i < k.
(2) If k ∈ ω0 satisfies that
(a) vi = wi for all i ≤ k;
(b) vk+1 6= wk+1 ,
then we have max{rk , lk } = d(x, y).
(3) If m < n and vi = wi for all i ≤ m, then we have d(x, y) = lm .
Proof. Since ri = d(vi , vi+1 ) and li = d(wi , wi+1 ), under the assumption
of (1) we see that ri = li for all i < k This finishes the proof of (1).
We next prove (2). By the definition of heirs and the strong trian-
gle inequality, we have d(vk+1, x) ≤ d(vk , vk+1 ) ∨ · · · ∨ d(vm−1 , vm ) ≤
maxi=k+1,...,m−1 ri < rk . Similarly, we also have d(wk+1, y) < lk . Since
d(vk , vk+1 ) = rk and d(wk , wk+1) = lk , we have d(x, y) = max{rk , lk }.
Thus the strong triangle inequality implies that d(x, y) = max{rk , lk }.
This proves the statement (2).
Under the assumption of (3), we obtain d(wm , wm+1 ) = lm and
d(wm+1 , y) < lm . Hence d(x, y) = d(wm , y) = lk . This finishes the
proof. 
Lemma 5.3. For each S ∈ TEN(R), the space (E(S), d) is the S-
Urysohn universal ultrametric space.
Proof. Since A(S) is countable, the space E(S) is separable. From (2)
and (3) in Proposition 5.2, it follows that (E(S), d) is R-valued. We
now show that (E(S), d) is (S, ω0 )-haloed. It suffices to show that for
all a ∈ A(S) and for all r ∈ S \ {0}, there exists an r-equidistant subset
m−1
of B(a, r). Let ({vi }m
i=0 , {ri }i=0 ) be an S-inheritance of a. we divide
the proof into three cases.
10 YOSHITO ISHIKI

Case 1. [r > r0 ]: In this case, the set Ω[P, r] is contained in E(S).

Indeed, for all q ∈ Ω[P, r], Define {wi }1i=0 and {li }0i=0 by w0 = P ,
w1 = q, and l0 = r. Then ({wi }1i=0 , {li }0i=0 ) is an S-inheritance of q
from P . Hence Ω[P, r] ⊆ E(S). By the statement (2) in Proposition
5.2, we obtain Ω[P, r] ⊆ B(a, r). Thus Ω[P, r] is a desired r-equidistant
subset.
Case 2. [There exists k such that rk > r > rk+1 ]: To prove Ω[vk , r] ⊆
E(S), for each q ∈ Ω[vk , r], we define ({wi }k+1 k
i=0 , {li }i=0 ) by
(
vi if i ≤ k;
wi =
q if i = k + 1.
and (
ri if i ≤ k;
li =
r if i = k + 1.
Then ({wi }k+1 k
i=0 , {li }i=0 ) is an S-inheritance of q from P , and hence
Ω[vk , r] ⊆ E(S). By the statement (2) in Proposition 5.2, we obtain
Ω[vk , r] ⊆ B(a, r). Thus Ω[vk , r] is a desired r-equidistant subset.
Case 3. [ri > r for all i = 0, . . . , m − 1]: In a similar way to the cases
explained above, we observe that Ω[a, r] ⊆ B(a, r).
Thus, we conclude that (E(S), d) is (S, ω0 )-haloed. Due to Theorem
3.2, the space (E(S), d) is N(S, ω0 )-injective, and hence it is the S-
Urysohn universal ultrametric space. 
Lemma 5.4. Let S, T ∈ TEN(R). Let x be a T -heir of P , and
m−1
({vi }m
i=0 , {ri }i=0 ) be a T -inheritance of x. If x 6∈ E(S), then there
exists i such that ri ∈ T \ S.
Proof. If all ri were in S, we would have x ∈ E(S). 
Lemma 5.5. Let S, T ∈ TEN(R) with S 6= T , and x ∈ E(T ). Then
the value d(x, E(S)) belongs to {0} ∪ (T \ S).
Proof. We may assume that x 6∈ E(S). Put L = d(x, E(S)). Take
a sufficient close point z ∈ A(T ) to x so that L = d(z, E(S)) and
m−1
z ∈ E(T ) \ E(S). Let ({vi }m
i=0 , {ri }i=0 ) be a T -inheritance of z from
P . Note that since L > 0, we especially have z 6= P . Thus 0 < m.
Let k be the minimal number such that rk ∈ T \ S. The existence of
k is guaranteed by Lemma 5.4. From (2) in Proposition 5.2, it follows
that for all y ∈ A(S), we have d(z, y) ≥ rk . If k = 0, we define q = P ;
otherwise q = vk−1 . Then Proposition 5.2 implies that d(z, q) = rk .
Therefore we conclude that L = rk ∈ T \ S. 
We now provide the proof of Theorem 5.1.
Proof of Theorem 5.1. We only need to prove the latter part of The-
orem 5.1 in the case where R is uncountable. Choose a point P such
that P ∈ K and choose an R-seed {Ω[a, r]}a∈X,r∈R\{0} so that
 URYSOHN 11

(A) If a ∈ K, then for all r ∈ R\{0} the set K ∩Ω[a, r] is a maximal

r-net of K.
This Sis possible since K is compact and d(K 2 ) ⊆ R. We define
F = S∈TEN(R) E(S). We also define a petal of F by Π(F, S) = E(S).
By this definition, we confirm that the properties (P1), (P3), and (P4)
are satisfied. Using Lemma 5.3, the property (P2) is true. Lemma 5.5
proves the property (P5). Therefore (F, d) is the R-petaloid ultramet-
ric space. Since F is complete (see [6, Proposition 2.9]), due to the
assumption (A), we see that K ⊆ F . This completes the proof. 
Question 5.6. Let R be a range set, and (X, d) be the R-Urysohn
universal ultrametric space. Is there exist a natural isometry between
(X, d) and (K(X), K(d))?
Question 5.7. Is (K(U), HDρ ) isometric to (U, ρ)?
References
1. S. A. Bogatyı̆, A universal homogeneous ultrametric on the space irrational
numbers, Vestnik Moskov. Univ. Ser. I Mat. Mekh. (2000), no. 6, 20–24, 86.
2. D. Burago, Y. Burago, and S. Ivanov, A course in metric geometry, Graduate
Studies in Mathematics, vol. 33, American Mathematical Society, Providence,
RI, 2001.
3. S. Gao and C. Shao, Polish ultrametric Urysohn spaces and their isometry
groups, Topology Appl. 158 (2011), no. 3, 492–508.
4. M. Hušek, Urysohn universal space, its development and Hausdorff ’s approach,
Topology Appl. 155 (2008), no. 14, 1493–1501.
5. Y. Ishiki, Constructions of Urysohn universal ultrametric spaces, (2023),
arXiv:2302.00305.
6. , Uniqueness and homogeneity of non-separable Urysohn universal ul-
trametric spaces, (2023), arXiv:2302.00306.
7. M. Katětov, On universal metric spaces, General topology and its relations
to modern analysis and algebra, VI (Prague, 1986), Res. Exp. Math., vol. 16,
Heldermann, Berlin, 1988, pp. 323–330.
8. J. Melleray, Some geometric and dynamical properties of the Urysohn space,
Topology Appl. 155 (2008), no. 14, 1531–1560.
9. F. Mémoli and Z. Wan, On p-metric spaces and the p-Gromov-Hausdorff dis-
tance, p-Adic Numbers Ultrametric Anal. Appl. 14 (2022), no. 3, 173–223.
10. L. Nguyen Van Thé, Structural Ramsey theory of metric spaces and topological
dynamics of isometry groups, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 206 (2010), no. 968, 155
pages.
11. V. Pestov, Ramsey-Milman phenomenon, Urysohn metric spaces, and extremely
amenable groups, Israel J. Math. 127 (2002), 317–357.
12. , Dynamics of Infinite-dimensional Groups, University Lecture Series,
vol. 40, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2006.
13. W. H. Schikhof, Ultrametric Calculus, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Math-
ematics, vol. 4, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006, Reprint of the
1984 original [MR0791759].
14. V. Uspenskij, The Urysohn universal metric space is homeomorphic to a Hilbert
space, Topology Appl. 139 (2004), no. 1-3, 145–149.

(Yoshito Ishiki)
12 YOSHITO ISHIKI

Photonics Control Technology Team

RIKEN Center for Advanced Photonics
2-1 Hirasawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan
Email address: yoshito.ishiki@riken.jp