## LOW DISTORTION EMBEDDINGS BETWEEN C K ( ) SPACES

## ANTON ´ IN PROCH ´ ZKA A † AND LUIS S ´ NCHEZ-GONZ ´ LEZ A A ‡

Abstract. We show that, for each ordinal α &lt; ω 1 , the space C ([0 , ω α ]) does not embed into C K ( ) with distortion strictly less than 2 unless K ( α ) = . ∅

/negationslash

## 1. Introduction

A mapping f : M → N between metric spaces ( M,d ) and ( N,ρ ) is called Lipschitz embedding if there are constants C , C 1 2 &gt; 0 such that C d x, y 1 ( ) ≤ ρ f ( ( x , f ) ( y )) ≤ C d x, y 2 ( ) for all x, y ∈ M . The distortion dist( f ) of f is defined as inf C 2 C 1 where the infimum is taken over all constants C , C 1 2 which satisfy the above inequality. We say that M embeds into N with distortion D (in short M↪ → D N ) if there exists a Lipschitz embedding f : M → N with dist( f ) ≤ D (in short f : M↪ → N ). In this case, if the target space N is a Banach space, we may always assume (by

D changing f ) that C 1 = 1. The N -distortion of M is defined as c N ( M ) := inf { D : M↪ → D N } . The main result of this article (Theorem 1) implies in particular that, for every countable ordinal α and every β &lt; ω α , the space C ([0 , ω α ]) does not embed into the space C ([0 , β ]) with distortion strictly less than 2. On the other hand, it has been shown by Kalton and Lancien [15] that every separable metric space embeds into c 0 with distortion 2. Since every C K ( ) contains c 0 as a closed subspace, our result gives c C ([0 ,β ]) ( C ([0 , ω α ])) = 2 if β &lt; ω α .

It is a well known theorem of Mazurkiewicz and Sierpi´ski (see [13, Theorem 2.56]) that every n countable ordinal interval [0 , β ] (every countable Hausdorff compact in fact) is homeomorphic to the interval [0 , ω α · n ] where for some α &lt; ω 1 and 1 ≤ n &lt; ω . Thus the corresponding spaces of continuous functions are isometrically isomorphic. We do not know, whether one has c C ([0 ,ω α · m ]) ( C ([0 , ω α · n ])) = 2 for 1 ≤ m&lt;n&lt;ω but we get as a byproduct of the proof of our main result that, for every 1 ≤ D &lt; 2 and every 1 ≤ m &lt; ω , there is 1 ≤ n &lt; ω such that for all α &lt; ω 1 the space C ([0 , ω α · n ]) does not embed into the space C ([0 , ω α · m ]) with distortion D (Proposition 13).

Metric spaces M and N are called Lipschitz homeomorphic if there is a surjective Lipschitz embedding from M onto N . Such embedding is then called Lipschitz homeomorphism . The theorem of Amir [3] and Cambern [8] is the following generalization of Banach-Stone theorem: Let K and L be two compact spaces. If there exists a linear isomorphism f : C K ( ) → C L ( ) such that dist( f ) &lt; 2, then K and L are homeomorphic. A result of Cohen [9] shows that the constant 2 above is optimal but at the present it is not clear whether one could draw the same conclusion under the weaker hypothesis of f : C K ( ) → C L ( ) being a Lipschitz homeomorphism

The second named author was partially supported by MICINN Project MTM2012-34341 (Spain) and FONDECYT project 11130354 (Chile). This work started while L. S´nchez-Gonz´lez held a post-doc posia a tion at Universit´ Franche-Comt´. e e

such that dist( f ) &lt; 2. The results of Jarosz [14], resp. Dutrieux and Kalton [11], resp. G´ orak [12], show that K and L are homeomorphic if there is a Lipschitz homeomorphism f : C K ( ) → C L ( ) such that dist( f ) &lt; 1+ ε ( ε &gt; 0 universal but small), resp. dist( f ) &lt; 17 / 16, resp. dist( f ) &lt; 6 / 5. The main result of this article also implies that if K and L are two countable compacts, then assuming the existence of a Lipschitz homeomorphism f : C K ( ) → C L ( ) with dist( f ) &lt; 2 implies that K and L have the same height (Corollary 14).

The proof of the main result consists in identifying a uniformly discrete subset of C ([0 , ω α ]) which does not embed into C ([0 , β ]) with distortion strictly less than 2 if β &lt; ω α . The uniform discreteness allows to translate the above results into the language of uniform and net homeomorphisms (Corollary 14). Also, using Zippin's lemma, it permits to prove that if the Szlenk index of a Banach space X satisfies Sz( X ) ≤ ω α , then C ([0 , ω ω α ]) does not embed into X with distortion strictly less than 2 (Theorem 15). This can be understood as a refinement of our result in [18] that C ([0 , 1]) does not embed into any Asplund space with distortion strictly less than 2. The underlying idea of the proof there is basically the same as here (and originates in fact in [1] and in [4]) but the proof is not obscured by the technicalities that are necessary in the present article.

Finally, let us recall the following result of Bessaga and Pe/suppress lczy´ski n [7, 13]: Let ω ≤ α ≤ β &lt; ω 1 . Then C ([0 , α ]) is linearly isomorphic to C ([0 , β ]) iff β &lt; α ω . It is a longstanding open problem whether C ([0 , β ]) can be Lipschitz homeomorphic to a subspace of C ([0 , α ]) if β &gt; α ω . Our results described above imply that the distortion of any such Lipschitz homeomorphism onto a subspace must be at least 2.

Besides this Introduction, the paper features two more sections. In Section 2 the main theorem is stated and proved. In Section 3 we state and prove its various consequences.

## 2. Main theorem

Theorem 1. For every ordinal α &lt; ω 1 there exists a countable uniformly discrete metric space M α ⊂ C ([0 , ω α ]) such that M α does not embed with distortion strictly less than 2 into C K ( ) if K ( α ) = ∅ .

We start by defining finite metric graphs that do not embed well into /lscript n ∞ if n is small. We then 'glue' them together infinitely many times, via a relatively natural procedure that we call sup-amalgamation. The sup-amalgamation is done in a precise order which will be encoded by certain trees on N .

## 2.1. Construction of 3-level metric graphs.

Definition 2. Let C , . . . , C 1 h be pairwise disjoint sets. We put

$$M ( C _ { 1 }, \dots, C _ { h } ) = \{ 0 \} \text{ first level}$$

$$\begin{smallmatrix} \cdot & \cdot \cdot \cdot \\ & \cdot \cup \bigcup _ { i = 1 } ^ { h } C _ { i } \text{ second level} \\ & \cup F ( C _ { 1 }, \dots, C _ { h } ) \text{ third level} \\ & \cdot \sim \cdot \quad \cdot \cdot \cdot & \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \end{smallmatrix}$$

where F C , . . . , C ( 1 h ) = {{ c , . . . , c 1 h } : c i ∈ C i } . We turn M C ,..., C ( 1 h ) into a graph by putting an edge between x, y ∈ M C ,..., C ( 1 h ) iff x = 0 and y ∈ ⋃ C i or x ∈ ⋃ C i , y ∈ F C , . . . , C ( 1 h ) and x ∈ y . We consider the shortest path distance d on M C ,..., C ( 1 h ).

Lemma 3. Let C , . . . , C 1 h be pairwise disjoint sets and let us assume that C 1 = { 1 2 , } . We denote F = F C , . . . , C ( 1 h ) . Then there is an isometric embedding f : M C ,..., C ( 1 h ) → /lscript ∞ ( F ) which satisfies

- · f ( 0 ) = 0 ,
- · f ( x )( β ) ∈ {± } 1 for all x ∈ ⋃ h i =1 C i and all β ∈ F , · f (1)( β ) = 1 and f (2)( β ) = -1 for all β ∈ F .

Proof. We define first a mapping g : M C ,..., C ( 1 h ) → /lscript ∞ ( F ) as g x ( )( β ) = d x, β ( ) -d ( 0 , β ). It is clearly 1-Lipschitz. Given x, y ∈ M C ,..., C ( 1 h ), we can always find A, B ∈ F such that d A, B ( ) = d A, x ( ) + d x, y ( ) + d y, B ( ). We have g x ( )( B ) -g y ( )( B ) = d x, B ( ) -d y, B ( ) = d x, B ( ) + d x, A ( ) -d A, B ( ) + d x, y ( ) ≥ g x, y ( ). So g is an isometry. Observe that g ( 0 ) = 0 and also g satisfies the second additional property. Now since 1 ∈ β iff 2 / β ∈ for any β ∈ F , we have that g (1)( β ) = +1 iff g (2)( β ) = -1 for all β ∈ F . We thus define

$$\cdot \, + \, \Pi \, \mathcal { Y } \, \Sigma _ { J } \, & = \, \mathcal { Y } \, \sigma _ { J } \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Smega \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Salpha \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sphi \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sbeta \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \S alpha \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sig \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigs \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigm \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sg \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sappa \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Ssigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Lambda \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \SIG \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Siga \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sgo \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sega \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Spsc \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Svg \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \$$

for all x ∈ M C ,..., C ( 1 h

$$A ( C _ { 1 }, \dots, C _ { h } ). & & \Box$$

## 2.2. Sup-amalgam of metric spaces.

/negationslash

Definition 4. Let (( M,d i i )) i ∈ I be a collection of metric spaces of uniformly bounded diameter. Let us assume that there is a set A and a distinguished point 0 ∈ A such that A ⊂ M i for every i ∈ I . A product ( P, d ) is the set P = ∏ i ∈ I M i equipped with the metric d x, y ( ) = sup i ∈ I d i ( x i , y ( ) ( )). i The set M A ⊂ P defined by x ∈ M A iff either x i ( ) = x j ( ) ∈ A for all i, j ∈ I or there exists exactly one i ∈ I such that x i ( ) / A ∈ and for all j = i we have x j ( ) = 0 , equipped with the metric d , is called the sup-amalgam of ( M i ) with respect to A . We denote it ( M i ) i ∈ I /A .

/negationslash

Standing assumption SA1: Even though the definition admits the possibility that d i and d j for i = j are different on A , in what follows we will always assume that d i /harpoonupright A × A = d j /harpoonupright A × A . In that case there is a canonical isometric copy of A in M A which we will denote by A again. Standing assumption SA2: We will also assume from now on that for each i ∈ I we have that d i ( x, y ) ≥ 1 for all x, y ∈ M i and d i ( x, 0 ) ≤ 1 for each x ∈ A . Then, for each i ∈ I , the canonical copy of M i in M A is isometric to M i .

Proof: We only need to show that for x ∈ A and y ∈ M i \ A we have d i ( x, y ) = d x, y ( ). This is equivalent to saying that d j ( x, 0 ) ≤ d i ( x, y ) for all j ∈ I . /square

Lemma 5. a) Let A be a finite set. Let ( M n n ) ∈ N be a sequence of metric spaces of uniformly bounded diameter such that 0 ∈ A ⊂ M n for every n ∈ N . We assume SA1 and SA2. If for each n ∈ N there is an ordinal α n &lt; ω 1 and an isometric embedding f n : M n → C ([0 , α n ]) so that for each n ∈ N we have

- · f n ( 0 ) = 0 ,
- · f n ( x )( β ) ∈ {± } 1 for each x ∈ A \ { 0 } =: A ∗ and β ∈ [0 , α n ] ,

then there are N ≤ 2 | A ∗ | and an isometric embedding f : M A → C ([0 , ( ∞ ∑ n =1 α n ) · N ]) such that b) Let us assume moreover that 1 2 , ∈ A and that for every n ∈ N we have f n (1)( β ) = 1 and f n (2)( β ) = -1 for all β ∈ [0 , α n ] . Then we have f (1)( β ) = 1 and f (2)( β ) = -1 for all ∞ .

$$f ( 0 ) & = 0 \text{ and } f ( x ) ( \beta ) \in \{ \pm 1 \} \text{ for each } x \in A _ { * } \text{ and } \beta \in [ 0, ( \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } \alpha _ { n } ) \cdot N ]. \\ b ) & \text{ Let us assume moreover theta } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{\ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text
 }$$

$$\ a n a _ { \ } J _ { n } ( 2 ) ( \rho ) = - 1 \ J o r \\ \beta & \in [ 0, ( \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { n } \alpha _ { n } ) \cdot N ]. \\ c ) \ F i n a l l y, \ a s s u m e \ \eta$$

c) Finally, assume moreover that A = { 0 , 1 2 , } . Then N = 1 .

Proof. Let us consider the restriction g of the product mapping

↦

$$\text{Cluster the resource in} \, y \, o l \, o r \, p o u c t \, m a p p i n g \\ \prod _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } M _ { n } \ni x \mapsto \left ( f _ { n } ( x ( n ) ) \right ) _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } \in \left ( \bigoplus _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } C ( [ 0, \alpha _ { n } ] ) \right ) _ { \infty } \\ \text{The manner in} \, a \, \text{is also both on} \, \text{atom} \, a / \mathfrak { m } = 0 \, \text{and for each} \, \mathcal { m } \, \mathcal { m }$$

to the set M A . The mapping g is clearly an isometry, g ( 0 ) = 0 and for each x ∈ M A \ A we have g x ( ) ∈ C ([0 , ∞ ∑ n =1 α n ]) as it has exactly one non-zero entry. Notice that g a ( ) ∈ C ([0 , ∞ ∑ n =1 α n )) for

$$& y ( \psi ) \searrow \times \{ \psi, \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } \omega _ { n } \} \circ \imath \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.c.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coc-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{www.coco-go.co.uk}, \quad \text{\ } \int _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } \Delta _ { n } \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \quad. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,.. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,.$$

/negationslash

The set T ε ∩ [0 , η ] is clopen for each η &lt; ∑ α n and each ε ∈ I . Let ( J ε ) ε ∈ I be mutually disjoint copies of [0 , ∞ ∑ n =1 α n ], say J ε = [0 , ∑ ∞ n =1 α n ] ×{ } ε . If x ∈ A ∗ , we define f ( x ) as the continuous function on ⋃ ε ∈ I J ε such that f ( x )( β ) = ε x ( ) when β ∈ J ε . If x ∈ M A \ A ∗ we choose η &lt; ∑ α n such that g x ( )( γ ) = 0 for γ &gt; η and we define f ( x ) as the continuous function on ⋃ ε ∈ I J ε such that for each ε ∈ I we have

Let us consider I = { ε ∈ {± } 1 A ∗ : T ε = ∅ } . The sets ( T ε ) ε ∈ I are a disjoint cover of [ 0 , ∞ ∑ n =1 α n ) .

$$\in \i \, \text{we have} \\ f ( x ) ( ( \beta, \varepsilon ) ) & = \begin{cases} g ( x ) ( \beta ) & \text{when $\beta \in T_{\varepsilon} \cap [0,\eta]$} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$

Notice that we have f ( 0 ) = 0 and f ( x )( β ) ∈ {± } 1 for x ∈ A ∗ and β ∈ ⋃ ε ∈ I J ε . Let us check that f is an isometry. Using that g is an isometry and the definition of f and T ε , it is obvious that

$$\text{that} \\ d ( x, y ) = \| g ( x ) - g ( y ) \| = \sup \left \{ | f ( x ) ( \beta ) - f ( y ) ( \beta ) | \, \colon \beta \in \bigcup _ { \varepsilon \in I } \overline { T _ { \varepsilon } \times \{ \varepsilon \} } \right \}. \\ \text{On the other hand  checkin} \sigma \text{ the four.} \text{subsibilities} \, ( r \in \ A. \ or \ r \not \in \ A. \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \text{and} \, ( n \in \ A. \ or \ n \not \in \ A. \, \text{or} \, n$$

On the other hand, checking the four possibilities ( x ∈ A ∗ or x / A ∈ ∗ ) and ( y ∈ A ∗ or y / ∈ A ∗ ), and remembering SA2, we see that | f ( x )( β ) -f ( y )( β ) | ≤ d x, y ( ) if β / ∈ ⋃ ε ∈ I T ε ×{ } ε .

Thus, f is an isometry from M A into C ( ⋃ ε ∈ I J ε ) . It is clear that ⋃ ε ∈ I J ε is homeomorphic to

The hypothesis in b) means that ε (1) = 1 and ε (2) = -1 for every ε ∈ I . Now the definition of f on A ∗ gives the conclusion of b).

$$\sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } \alpha _ { n } \right ) \cdot N ] \text{ where } N \coloneqq | I |. \text{ Hence } f \, maps \, \text{isometrically } M _ { A } \, \text{into } C ( [ 0, ( \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } \alpha _ { n } ) \cdot N ] ). \\ \text{The hypothesis in } b ) \, \text{means that } \varepsilon ( 1 ) = 1 \, \text{and } \varepsilon ( 2 ) = - 1 \, \text{for every } \varepsilon \in I. \text{ Now the definition}$$

The hypothesis in b) and c) mean that I = { } ε where ε (1) = 1, ε (2) = -1. So N = 1. /square

Given a metric space M , a mapping f : M → C K ( ), points a, b ∈ M and a constant 1 ≤ D &lt; 2 we denote

$$X _ { a, b } ^ { f } \coloneqq \{ x ^ { * } \in K \, \colon | \langle x ^ { * }, f ( a ) - f ( b ) \rangle | \geq 4 - 2 D \} \,.$$

The duality above means the evaluation at the point x ∗ ∈ K . Wedo not indicate the dependence on D since it will always be clear from the context, which D we have in mind.

$$& \text{Lemma} \, 6. \, \text{Let} \, C _ { 1 }, \dots, C _ { h } \, \text{be pairwise disjoint finite sets, we denote} \, A = \{ 0 \} \cup \bigcup _ { i = 1 } ^ { h } C _ { i }. \, \text{Let} \\ & ( M _ { n } ) _ { n \in \mathbb { N } } \, \text{be a sequence of metric spaces of uniformly bounded diameter such that} \, A \subset M _ { n } \, \text{for} \,.$$

( M n ) n ∈ N be a sequence of metric spaces of uniformly bounded diameter such that A ⊂ M n for every n ∈ N (and they satisfy SA1 and SA2). Let 1 ≤ D &lt; 2 and let K be a Hausdorff compact. We assume that for each n ∈ N there is an ordinal α n &lt; ω 1 and an integer β n ∈ N such that every f n : M ↪ n → D C K ( ) satisfies

/negationslash

$$\begin{array} { c } \left | \bigcap _ { i = 1 } ^ { h } X _ { a _ { i }, b _ { i } } ^ { f _ { n } } \cap K ^ { ( \alpha _ { n } ) } \right | \geq \beta _ { n } \\ \text{Then the sup-amalgam $M_{A}$ } = \end{array}$$

∣ ∣ for all a i = b i ∈ C i ⊂ M n . Then the sup-amalgam M A = ( M n ) ∞ n =1 /A satisfies for every f : M ↪ A → D C K ( ) ,

- a) if α m &lt; lim n α n = α for all m ∈ N , then

/negationslash

/negationslash

$$\bigcap _ { i = 1 } ^ { h } X _ { a _ { i }, b _ { i } } ^ { f } \cap K ^ { ( \alpha ) } \neq \emptyset$$

for all a i = b i ∈ C i ⊂ M A . b) if α n = α for all n ∈ N , then

/negationslash for all a i = b i ∈ C i ⊂ M A .

Proof. Let f : M ↪ A → D C K ( ). Then f n := f /harpoonupright M n is an embedding of M n into C K ( ) with dist( f n ) ≤ D , and the conclusion follows. /square

$$\aleph, \, & t h e n \\ \left | \bigcap _ { i = 1 } ^ { h } X _ { a _ { i }, b _ { i } } ^ { f } \cap K ^ { ( \alpha ) } \right | \geq \sup \beta _ { n } \\ M _ { A }. \\ \text{Then } \, & f _ { n } \ \coloneqq \ f \ \restriction _ { M _ { n } } \ \text{is an embed}$$

Clearly, we do not cover all the possibilities in the above lemma, but these two are the interesting for us.

2.3. Iterative construction of M α . We use trees here in a very basic fashion as index sets. For the notation, check [13]. For two finite sequences m = ( m , . . . , m 1 h ) and n = ( n , . . . , n 1 l ), we write m n /frown = ( m , . . . , m 1 h , n 1 , . . . , n l ) for their concatenation. We omit the parentheses for the sequences of length one, thus ( n ) is written as n . Let us construct for every ordinal α &lt; ω 1 the tree T α +1 on N as follows:

- · T 1 = N
- · if α is limit, we choose some α n ↗ α and put T α +1 = N ∪ ∞ ⋃ n =1 n T /frown α n +1
- · if α is non-limit, we put T α +1 = N ∪ ∞ ⋃ n =1 n T /frown α

where n T /frown α = { n m /frown : m ∈ T α } . Clearly, for each α , the tree T α +1 is well founded. Further, let us define a derivation on trees as follows:

$$T ^ { \prime } = \{ ( n _ { 1 }, \dots, n _ { h } ) \in T \, \colon ( n _ { 1 }, \dots, n _ { h - 1 }, k ) \text{ is not maximal in } T \text{ for some } k \in \mathbb { N } \}$$

There is an index o naturally tied to this derivation. We put T (0) = T , T ( α +1) = ( T ( α ) ) ′ and T ( α ) = ⋂ β&lt;α T ( β ) whenever α is a limit ordinal. We put o T ( ) = inf { α : T ( α ) = ∅ } if the set is nonempty, otherwise o T ( ) = ∞ . We do not intend to characterize the trees for which o T ( ) &lt; ∞ . Instead, we will compute the index of the trees T α +1 above. It is worth noting that for every α, β and n ∈ T ( β ) α +1 the set of successors of n in T ( β ) α +1 is either empty or equal to { n k /frown : k ∈ N } . Lemma 7. For each α &lt; ω 1 we have o T ( α +1 ) = α +1 .

Proof. We have clearly o T ( 1 ) = 1 since all the nodes are maximal, and are mutual siblings. Assume the claim to be true for all β &lt; α , we try to prove it for α . If α = β +1 is non-limit, ∞

α + 1. Finally assume that α is limit, we have T α +1 = N ∪ ∞ ⋃ n =1 n T /frown α n +1 . It is thus clear that

$$& \text{assume the claim to be true for all } \beta < \alpha, \, \text{we try to prove it for } \alpha. \, \text{if } \alpha = \beta + 1 \, \text{is non-limit}, \\ & \text{we have } T _ { \alpha + 1 } = \mathbb { N } \cup \bigcup _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } n ^ { \wedge } T _ { \beta + 1 }. \, \text{It is thus clear that } T _ { \alpha + 1 } ^ { ( \beta + 1 ) } = T _ { 1 } \, \text{and so } o ( T _ { \alpha + 1 } ) = \beta + 1 + 1 = \\ & \wedge + 1 \, \mathbb { m } \colon \, \underset { \alpha + 1 } { \mathbb { m } + \wedge \colon \, \colon + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha +\alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha - \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \beta + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha + \alpha +
 \end{cases}$$

$$T _ { \alpha + 1 } ^ { ( \alpha _ { m } + 1 ) } = & \, \, \mathbb { N } \cup \bigcup _ { n = m + 1 } ^ { \infty } \ n \, \overset { \sim } { T } _ { \alpha _ { n } + 1 } ^ { ( \alpha _ { m } + 1 ) } \text{ for all } m \in \mathbb { N }. \, \text{ Hence } T _ { \alpha + 1 } ^ { ( \alpha ) } = T _ { 1 }, \text{ and so } o ( T _ { \alpha + 1 } ) = \alpha + 1. \quad \square \\ & \text{For each node of a tree } T _ { \lambda + 1 } \text{ it will be important to know how many derivations it takes till}$$

Lemma 8. For each α &lt; ω 1 and each n ∈ T α +1 the ordinal r α +1 ( n ) := inf { β : n ∈ max T ( β ) α +1 } is isolated ( 0 or successor).

For each node of a tree T α +1 it will be important to know how many derivations it takes till the node becomes maximal.

Proof. Induction on α . Clearly true for α = 0 (we have r 1 ( n ) = 0 for each n ∈ T 1 ). Assume the claim to be true for α . Then r α +1+1 ( n ) = o T ( α +1 ) = α +1 for all n ∈ N by the construction of the tree T α +2 and by Lemma 7. Further, for each n ∈ N and each n ∈ T α +1 , the ordinal r α +1+1 ( n n /frown ) = r α +1 ( n ) is isolated by the inductive hypothesis. In the case when α is limit and the claim has been proved for all β &lt; α , we have r α +1 ( n ) = o T ( α n +1 ) = α n +1 for all n ∈ N by the construction of the tree T α +1 and by Lemma 7. Further, for each n ∈ N and each n ∈ T α n +1 , the ordinal r α +1 ( n n /frown ) = r α n +1 ( n ) is isolated by the inductive hypothesis. /square

Definition 9. Let ( A i ) ∞ i =0 be a sequence of countably infinite pairwise disjoint sets which will be fixed from now on. Suppose that A i = { a , a i 1 i 2 , . . . } and denote A k i = { a , . . . , a i 1 i k } for all i ≥ 0 and k ≥ 1. We assume that A 2 0 = { 1 2 , } . To shorten the notation we put

$$M _ { \overline { n } } ^ { 0 } = M ( A _ { 0 } ^ { 2 }, A _ { 1 } ^ { n _ { 1 } }, \dots, A _ { h } ^ { n _ { h } } )$$

for each n = ( n , . . . , n 1 h ) ∈ N h .

Let us fix µ &lt; ω 1 from now on. The tree T = T µ +1 encodes a construction of a metric space. First we consider all the maximal elements max T of T . We thus have a collection M 0 = { M 0 n : n ∈ max T } . Each space in this collection is finite. Once M α = { M α n : n ∈ max T ( α ) } has been defined, we pass to the collection M α +1 = { M α +1 n : n ∈ max T ( α +1) } as follows. For every n = ( n , . . . , n 1 h ) ∈ max T ( α +1) we put

When α &lt; µ is a limit ordinal, we define the elements of M α = { M α n : n ∈ max T ( α ) } as M α n = lim β&lt;α M β n . This definition makes sense since for every n ∈ max T ( α ) there is β 0 &lt; α such that n ∈ max T ( β ) for all β 0 ≤ β &lt; α . Indeed, by Lemma 8, we may take β 0 = r µ +1 ( n ). It is isolated, so β 0 &lt; α .

$$& \text{every } n = ( n _ { 1 }, \dots, n _ { h } ) \in \max { 1 } \stackrel { \lambda \cdots \nu } { \lambda \nu } \text{ we put } \\ & M _ { \pi } ^ { \alpha + 1 } = \begin{cases} ( M _ { \pi ^ { \alpha } } ^ { \alpha } ) _ { k = 1 } ^ { \infty } / ( \{ 0 \} \cup A _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } \cup A _ { 1 } ^ { n _ { 1 } } \cup \dots \cup A _ { h } ^ { n _ { h } } ) & \text{if } \overline { n } \in \max { T } ^ { ( \alpha + 1 ) } \sum { \lambda } { T } ^ { ( \alpha ) } \\ M _ { \pi } ^ { \alpha } & \text{if } \overline { n } \in \max { T } ^ { ( \alpha + 1 ) } \cap \max { T } ^ { ( \alpha ) }. \\ \cdots & \cdots \end{cases}$$

At the end of the day we have M µ = { M µ n : n ∈ N } which we glue into a single space M µ +1 ∅ = ( M µ n ) ∞ n =1 / ( { 0 } ∪ A 2 0 ).

Lemma 10. For every 1 ≤ α ≤ µ +1 for every n = ( n , . . . , n 1 h ) ∈ max T ( α ) (or rather n = ∅ in the case α = µ + 1 ) there are N ≤ 2 2+ n 1 + ... + n h and an isometric embedding f : M α n → C ([0 , ω α · N ]) such that f ( 0 ) = 0 , f (1) ≡ 1 and f (2) ≡ -1 . When α = µ +1 , we have N = 1 .

Proof. By the definition of the spaces in M 0 , we get the claim for α = 1 using Lemma 3 and Lemma 5 a)-b) (here the ordinals α n are finite so the spaces C ([0 , α n ]) and /lscript ∞ ( α n ) are isometric). For α &gt; 1, the proof is a standard transfinite induction argument exploiting Lemma 5 a)-b). Finally, when α = µ + 1, the definition of M µ +1 ∅ shows that also the part c) of Lemma 5 applies. /square

Lemma 11. (i) For each 1 ≤ D &lt; 2 there exists a constant C D = ( log ( /floorleft D 2 -D /floorright +1 )) -1 &gt; 0 such that for every α ≤ µ and every n = ( n , . . . , n 1 h ) ∈ max T ( α ) and every f : M ↪ α n → D C K ( ) we have

/negationslash

$$& \varkappa \quad - \,, \quad \varkappa \quad - \,, \quad \varkappa \quad - \,, \\ & \quad \left | X _ { 1, 2 } ^ { f } \cap \bigcap _ { i = 1 } ^ { h - 1 } X _ { a _ { i }, b _ { i } } ^ { f } \cap K ^ { ( r _ { \mu + 1 } ( \pi ) ) } \right | \geq C _ { D } \log ( n _ { h } ) \\ & \quad _ { i } ^ { n _ { i } }, \, 1 \leq i \leq h - 1 \, \left ( \text{with the obvious meaning when } h = 1 ). \\ & \leq D < 2 \ a n d \ e v e r y \ f \, \colon M _ { \emptyset } ^ { \mu + 1 } \underset { \sim } { \hookrightarrow } C ( K ) \ w e \ h a v e$$

∣ ∣ for all a i = b i ∈ A n i i , 1 ≤ i ≤ h -1 (with the obvious meaning when h = 1 ). (ii) For each 1 ≤ D &lt; 2 and every f : M µ +1 ∅ ↪ → D C K ( ) we have

/negationslash

$$X _ { 1, 2 } ^ { f } \cap K ^ { ( \mu + 1 ) } \neq \emptyset.$$

Proof. We will proceed by a transfinite induction on α . We assume the result to be true for every β &lt; α and we want to prove it for α . Clearly it is enough to prove the claim for

α = r µ +1 ( n ). Indeed, if α &gt; r µ +1 ( n ) then M α n and M r µ +1 ( n ) n are the same, and the result follows by the inductive hypothesis.

In the case 0 &lt; α = r µ +1 ( n ), the node n just became maximal, i.e. n ∈ max T ( α ) \ max T ( β ) where α = β + 1 (remember Lemma 8). This means that the immediate successors { n k /frown : k ∈ N } of n in T ( β ) are all maximal in T ( β ) and M α n = ( M β n /frown k ) ∞ k =1 / ( { 0 } ∪ A 2 0 ∪ A n 1 1 ∪ . . . ∪ A n h h ) .

By the inductive hypothesis we have for every k ∈ N and every f k : M β n /frown k ↪ → D C K ( ) that

/negationslash

By the construction of T µ +1 it is clear that we have two types of non-maximal nodes n ∈ T µ +1 : a ) those for which ( r µ +1 ( n k /frown )) k ∈ N is a strictly increasing sequence of ordinals and

$$\text{By one unique.} \text{nypometesis we have for every } \kappa \in \mathbb { v } \text{ and every } J _ { k } \colon \mathbb { N } _ { \ n \sim k } \overset { \sim } { \to } \cup \mathbb { N } \\ ( 1 ) & \left | X _ { 1, 2 } ^ { f _ { k } } \cap \bigcap _ { i = 1 } ^ { h } X _ { a _ { i }, b _ { i } } ^ { f _ { k } } \cap K ^ { ( r _ { \mu + 1 } ( \overline { n } \sim k ) ) } \right | \geq C _ { D } \log ( k ) \\ \text{for every choice} \, a _ { i } \neq b _ { i } \in A _ { i } ^ { n _ { i } }, \, 1 \leq i \leq h. \\ \text{By the construction of} \, T _ { \mu + 1 } \text{ it is clear that we have two types of non-maximal} \, \mathbb { n } \\ \lambda \, \text{thooc for which} \, \text{$(\mp\sim\lambda$} \, \cdots$} \, \text{$\sim$} \, \text{atrix$b$} \, \text{inocoincase} \, \text{on each of and in} \, \mathbb { n }.$$

- b ) those for which it is a constant sequence.

The case a) means that β is a limit ordinal and sup { r µ +1 ( n k /frown ) : k ∈ N } + 1 = r µ +1 ( n ) by the definition of r µ +1 ( n ). The case b) means that β is a successor and for all k ∈ N we have r µ +1 ( n k /frown ) + 1 = r µ +1 ( n ).

Let f be an embedding such that d x, y ( ) ≤ ‖ f ( x ) -f ( y ) ‖ ≤ Dd x, y ( ). Remembering (1), we apply Lemma 6 to get

/negationslash

/negationslash

$$X _ { 1, 2 } ^ { f } \cap \bigcap _ { i = 1 } ^ { h } X _ { a _ { i }, b _ { i } } ^ { f } \cap K ^ { ( r _ { \mu + 1 } ( \overline { n } ) ) } \neq \emptyset \\ A _ { i } ^ { n _ { i } }, \, 1 \leq i \leq h. \text{ Notice that since sup} \, \{ r _ { \mu + }$$

for every choice a i = b i ∈ A n i i , 1 ≤ i ≤ h . Notice that since sup { r µ +1 ( n ) : n ∈ N } = µ , we can put formally r µ +1 ( ∅ ) = µ +1, and so the above also proves (ii).

/negationslash

Now we need to pass from 'non-empty' to 'larger than C D log( n h )'. We may assume that f ( 0 ) = 0. Let a i = b i ∈ A n i i be fixed for 1 ≤ i ≤ h -1. By the above there exists

/negationslash

$$x _ { a, b } ^ { * } & \in X _ { 1, 2 } ^ { f } \cap \bigcap _ { i = 1 } ^ { h - 1 } X _ { a _ { i }, b _ { i } } ^ { f } \cap X _ { a, b } ^ { f } \cap K ^ { ( r _ { \mu + 1 } ( \overline { n } ) ) } \\ \intertext {. We set. } \Gamma & = \left \{ x ^ { * }, \colon a. b \in A ^ { n _ { h } } a \neq h \right \}. \text{ Now}$$

for each a = b ∈ A n h h . We set Γ = { x ∗ a,b : a, b ∈ A n h h , a = b } . Now { 〈 ( f ( a , γ ) 〉 ) γ ∈ Γ : a ∈ A n h h } ⊂ B /lscript ∞ (Γ) (0 , D )

/negationslash is (4 -2 D )-separated set of cardinality n h . We thus get that | Γ | ≥ C D log( n h ).

/negationslash

It remains to prove what happens if α = 0. So let f : M ↪ 0 n → D C K ( ) and let a i = b i ∈ A n i i ,

1 ≤ i ≤ h , be given. We put A = { } ∪ { 1 a i : 1 ≤ i ≤ h } and B = { } ∪ { 2 b i : 1 ≤ i ≤ h } . We get by the triangle inequality that each x ∗ ∈ K such that |〈 x , f ∗ ( A ) -f ( B ) 〉| = ‖ f ( A ) -f ( B ) ‖ satisfies

$$x ^ { * } \in X _ { 1, 2 } ^ { f } \cap \bigcap _ { i = 1 } ^ { h } X _ { a _ { i }, b _ { i } } ^ { f }. \\ \text{ove we get the desired ineq}$$

Now by the same argument as above we get the desired inequality.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0211v1-figure-6e2ae2fc-371c-4709-a30e-c01e0588c451.jpg)

1 2 ,

Proof of Theorem 1. Let α &lt; ω 1 be given. If it is isolated, say α = µ +1, we put M α := M µ +1 ∅ . This space embeds isometrically into C ([0 , ω α ]) by Lemma 10. By Lemma 11 (ii) we see that if M µ +1 ∅ ↪ → D C K ( ), D &lt; 2, then K ( α ) = ∅ .

/negationslash

Finally, if α is a limit ordinal we choose µ n ↗ α and we put

$$M _ { \alpha } = ( M _ { \emptyset } ^ { \mu _ { n } + 1 } ) _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } / ( \{ 0 \} \cup A _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ).$$

/negationslash

Since ∑ µ n = α and since M µ n +1 ∅ embeds isometrically into C ([0 , ω µ n +1 ]) for every n ∈ N , Lemma 5 shows that M α embeds isometrically into C ([0 , ω α ]). If f : M ↪ α → D C K ( ), D &lt; 2, then X f 1 2 , ∩ K ( µ n +1) = ∅ for each n ∈ N . This is a decreasing set of compact sets. Hence X f ∩ K ( α ) = ∅ . /square

/negationslash

## 3. Concluding remarks

/negationslash

Remark 12. Let α &lt; ω 1 and let K be a Hausdorff compact space such that K ( α ) = ∅ . We denote by C 0 ( K ) the closed subspace of C K ( ) of the functions whose restrictions on K ( α ) are identically zero. An inspection of above proof shows that C ([0 , ω α ]) does not embed with distortion strictly less than 2 into C 0 ( K ). In particular, C ([0 , ω α ]) does not embed with distortion strictly less than 2 into C 0 ([0 , ω α ]). For α = 1 the last statement means that c does not embed with distortion strictly less than 2 into c 0 . This also follows from [15, Proposition 3.1] as an easy but entertaining exercise.

Proposition 13. Let 1 ≤ D &lt; 2 be given. Then for every 1 ≤ m&lt;ω there is 1 ≤ n &lt; ω such that for all α &lt; ω 1 the space C ([0 , ω α · n ]) does not embed into the space C ([0 , ω α · m ]) with distortion D .

Proof. We find k ∈ N such that C D log( k ) &gt; m and we put n = 2 2+ k . Suppose first that α is a successor ordinal. Notice that if we consider k as an element of max T ( α ) α +1 , we have r α +1 ( k ) = α . By Lemma 11, the space M α k as defined in Definition 9 does not embed with distortion D into C ([0 , ω α · m ]). On the other hand, it embeds isometrically into C ([0 , ω α · n ]) by Lemma 10. If α is a limit ordinal, we replace A 2 0 by A k 0 in Definition 9 and we consider the space

˜ M α := ( M α l +1 ∅ ) ∞ l =1 / ( { 0 } ∪ A k 0 ) . As above, we see that ˜ M α embeds isometrically into C ([0 , ω α · n ]). By repeating the proof of Lemma 11 we get that ˜ M α does not embed with distortion D into C ([0 , ω α · m ]). We leave the details to the reader. /square

We recall that if X and Y are Banach spaces and u : X → Y is uniformly continuous, the following Lipschitz constant of u at infinity

$$l _ { \infty } ( u ) = \inf _ { \eta > 0 } \sup _ { \| x - x ^ { \prime } \| \geq \eta } \frac { \| u ( x ) - u ( x ^ { \prime } ) \| } { \| x - x ^ { \prime } \| }$$

is finite (sometimes called Corson-Klee lemma, see [5, Proposition 1.11]). The uniform distance between X and Y is d U ( X,Y ) = inf l ∞ ( u ) · l ∞ ( u -1 ), where the infimum is taken over all uniform homeomorphisms between X and Y .

A net in a Banach space X is a subset N of X such that there exist a, b &gt; 0 which satisfy

/negationslash

- · for any x, x ′ ∈ N with x = x ′ , we have ‖ x -x ′ ‖ ≥ a and,
- · for any x ∈ X , there exists y ∈ N with ‖ x - ‖ ≤ y b .

We say that two Banach spaces are net-equivalent when they have Lipschitz homeomorphic nets. The net distance between X and Y is the number d N ( X,Y ) = inf dist( f ) where the infimum is taken over all mappings f : N → M with N ⊂ X and M ⊂ Y being nets. Finally d L ( X,Y ) = inf dist( f ) where the infimum is taken over all Lipschitz homeomorphisms f : X → Y . It is well known and easy to see that for any couple of Banach spaces X and Y we have

$$d _ { N } ( X, Y ) \leq d _ { U } ( X, Y ) \leq d _ { L } ( X, Y ).$$

/negationslash

Corollary 14. Let γ = α &lt; ω 1 and n, m ∈ N . Then d N ( C ([0 , ω γ · n ]) , C ([0 , ω α · m ])) ≥ 2 .

This corollary answers partially Problem 2 in [12].

Proof. In fact, we are going to prove the stronger claim that for β &lt; ω α and for every net N in C ([0 , ω α ]) there is no Lipschitz embedding f : N → C ([0 , β ]) such that dist( f ) &lt; 2.

/negationslash

Let us suppose that such f and N exist. Assume that N is an ( a, b )-net and consider a mapping π : C ([0 , ω α ]) → N such that ‖ x -π x ( ) ‖ ≤ b . Let us consider M α as a subset of C ([0 , ω α ]) which we can by Theorem 1. Since d x, y ( ) ≥ 1 for all x = y ∈ M α , we have, for λ &gt; 2 , that dist( b π /harpoonupright λM α ) ≤ ( 1 + 2 b λ ) ( 1 + 2 b λ -2 b ) . Thus it is clear that for λ large enough we have dist( g ) &lt; 2 for the embedding g : M α → C ([0 , β ]) defined as g x ( ) = 1 λ f ( π λx ( )) for x ∈ M α . According to Theorem 1, such embedding cannot exist. Contradiction. /square

Finally, we will give a lower bound on the Szlenk index of a Banach space X that admits a certain M α with distortion strictly less than 2 (for the definition and properties of the Szlenk index, the reader can consult [13, 16]).

Theorem 15. Let X be an Asplund space and assume that M ω α embeds into X with distortion strictly less than 2 for an ordinal α &lt; ω 1 . Then Sz( X ) ≥ ω α +1 .

For the proof we will need the following version of Zippin's lemma as presented in [6, page 27], see also [19, Lemma 5.11].

Zippin's lemma. Let X be a separable Banach space with separable dual and let 1 2 &gt; ε &gt; 0 . Then there exist a compact K , an ordinal β &lt; ω Sz X, ( ε 8 )+1 , a subspace Y of C K ( ) , isometric to C ([0 , β ]) and an embedding i : X → C K ( ) with ‖ ‖ ‖ i i -1 ‖ &lt; 1 + ε such that for any x ∈ X we have

$$\text{dist} ( i ( x ), Y ) \leq 2 \varepsilon \left \| i ( x ) \right \|.$$

Proof. Let us assume that M ω α ↪ → D X with D &lt; 2. Let ε &gt; 0 be small enough so that D ′ = D (1 + ε ) &lt; 2 and also that for η := 2 εD ′ we have 1 + 4 ε 1 -2 η D &lt; ′ 2. Let K and β &lt; ω Sz( X, ε 8 )+1 be as in Zippin's lemma. Then M ω α embeds into C K ( ) with distortion D &lt; ′ 2 via some embedding g such that d x, y ( ) ≤ ‖ g x ( ) -g y ( ) ‖ ≤ Dd x,y ′ ( ) and, without loss of generality, that g ( 0 ) = 0. Thus for every x ∈ M ω α we have ‖ g x ( ) ‖ ≤ 2 D ′ . We know that for each x ∈ M ω α there is f ( x ) ∈ C ([0 , β ]) such that ‖ g x ( ) -f ( x ) ‖ ≤ η . This implies that ‖ g x ( ) -g y ( ) ‖ -2 η ≤ ‖ f ( x ) -f ( y ) ‖ ≤ ‖ g x ( ) -g y ( ) ‖ +2 . Now since 1 η ≤ d x, y ( ) we have d x, y ( )(1 -2 η ) ≤ ‖ f ( x ) -f ( y ) ‖ ≤ d x, y ( ) D ′ (1 + 4 ε . )

This proves that f is a Lipschitz embedding of M ω α into C ([0 , β ]) with distortion strictly less than 2 and so, according to Theorem 1, we have β ≥ ω ω α . This implies that Sz( X &gt; ω ) α and so Sz( X ) ≥ ω α +1 by [13, Theorem 2.43]. /square

An interesting immediate consequence of the above theorem is the fact that, for every γ &lt; α &lt; ω 1 and for every equivalent norm |·| on C ([0 , ω ω γ ]), the space M ω α does not embed with distortion strictly less than 2 into ( C ([0 , ω ω γ ]) , |·| ).

## References

- [1] I. Aharoni, Every separable metric space is Lipschitz equivalent to a subset of c + 0 , Israel J. Math. 19 (1974), 284-291.
- [2] F. Albiac and N. Kalton, Topics in Banach space theory , Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 233, Springer, New York, 2006.
- [3] D. Amir, On isomorphisms of continuous function spaces , Israel J. Math. 3 1965 205-210.
- [4] F. Baudier, A topological obstruction for small-distortion embeddability into spaces of continuous functions on countable compact metric spaces , arXiv:1305.4025 [math.FA]
- [5] Y. Benyamini and J. Lindenstrauss, Geometric nonlinear functional analysis , AMSColloquium publications, Volume 48.
- [6] Y. Benyamini, An extension theorem for separable Banach spaces , Israel J. Math. 29 (1978), no. 1, 24-30.
- [7] C. Bessaga and A. Pe/suppress lczy´ski, n Spaces of continuous functions. IV. On isomorphical classification of spaces of continuous functions , Studia Math. 19 (1960), 53-62.
- [8] M. Cambern, On isomorphisms with small bound , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 18 1967 1062-1066.
- [9] H.B. Cohen, A bound-two isomorphism between C X ( ) Banach spaces , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 50, 1975, 215-217.
- [10] R. Deville, G. Godefroy and V. Zizler, Smoothness and renormings in Banach spaces, Pitman Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics 64 (Longman Scientific &amp; Technical, Harlow, 1993).
- [11] Y. Dutrieux and N. Kalton, Perturbations of isometries between C K ( ) -spaces , Studia Math. 166 (2005), no. 2, 181-197.
- [12] R. G´ orak, Coarse version of the Banach-Stone theorem , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 377 (2011), no. 1, 406-413.
- [13] P. H´jek, V. Montesinos-Santaluc´ ıa, J. Vanderwerff and V. Zizler. a Biorthogonal systems in Banach spaces . CMS Books in Mathematics/Ouvrages de Math´ ematiques de la SMC, 26. Springer, New York, 2008.
- [14] K. Jarosz, Nonlinear generalizations of the Banach-Stone theorem , Studia Math. 93 (1989), 97-107.
- [15] N. Kalton and G. Lancien, Best constants for Lipschitz embeddings of metric spaces into c 0 , Fund. Math. 199 (2008), no. 3, 249-272.
- [16] G. Lancien, A survey on the Szlenk index and some of its applications , Rev. R. Acad. Cien. Serie A Mat., 100(1-2), 2006, 209-235.
- [17] A. Pe/suppressczy´ski l n and Z. Semadeni, Spaces of continuous functions. III. Spaces C (Ω) for Ω without perfect subsets , Studia Math. 18 (1959), 211-222.
- [18] A. Proch´zka and L. S´nchez, a a Low distortion embeddings into Asplund Banach spaces , arXiv:1311.4584.
- [19] H. Rosenthal, The Banach Spaces C K ( ), in Handbook of the geometry of Banach spaces, Vol. 2, 1823, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2003.
- [20] M. Zippin, The separable extension problem , Israel J. Math. 26 (1977), no. 3-4, 372-387.
- † Universit´ Franche-Comt´ e, Laboratoire de Math´matiques UMR 6623, 16 route de Gray, e e 25030 Besanc ¸on Cedex, France

E-mail address : antonin.prochazka@univ-fcomte.fr

- ‡ Departamento de Ingenier´ ıa Matem´tica, Facultad de CC. F´ ısicas y Matem´ticas, Univera a sidad de Concepci´n, Casilla 160-C, Concepci´n, Chile o o

E-mail address : lsanchez@ing-mat.udec.cl
Antonín Procházka Luis Sánchez-González
Low distortion embeddings between $C(K)$ spaces
We show that, for each ordinal $\alpha<\omega_1$, the space
$C([0,\omega^\alpha])$ does not embed into $C(K)$ with distortion strictly less
than $2$ unless $K^{(\alpha)}\neq \emptyset$.