text:
# Sequential Decay Distortion of Goldhaber Model Widths for Spectator Fragments

thanks: On leave from Shanghai Institute of Nuclear Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, CHINAthanks: On leave from Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, CHINA

## Abstract

Momentum widths of the primary fragments and observed final fragments have been investigated within the framework of an Antisymmetrized Molecular Dynamics transport model code (AMD-V) with a sequential decay afterburner (GEMINI). It is found that the secondary evaporation effects cause the values of a reduced momentum width, $`\sigma _0`$, derived from momentum widths of the final fragments to be significantly less than those appropriate to the primary fragment but close to those observed in many experiments. Therefore, a new interpretation for experiemental momentum widths of projectile-like fragments is presented.

Momentum width, Fermi motion, Sequential Decay

Measurement of the momentum widths of projectile-like fragments (PLF) emitted in relatively peripheral nuclear collisions have long been viewed as a means of obtaining detailed information on the intrinsic Fermi momentum distribution in the nucleus Goldhaber ; Viyogi ; Greiner ; Reinhold ; Besliu ; Bertsch ; Murphy ; Gan ; Bauer ; Brady ; Dreute ; MORRISSEY ; GSI ; Gossiaux . This information is fundamental in testing theoretical models of the nucleus and, in recent years, has taken on further importance in calculations related to the production of secondary fragmentation beams now being employed to study both structure and reactions far from stability Geissel . Such studies, which explore a much broader range of neutron to proton asymmetry than previously accessible, are providing new insights into nuclear structure and nuclear astrophysics and offer the possibility of probing the nature of nucleonic matter in much greater detail see .

In this Letter, we re-examine the validity of the Goldhaber Model Goldhaber  within the framework of a non-equilibrium transport model, namely the AMD-V model of Ono et al Ono  and study the effects of sequential decay on the observed momentum widths of final-state spectator fragments with the help of an evaporation code GEMINI Charity . We find that the Goldhaber Model works well in describing the momentum widths of the emerging primary fragments produced in the spectator fragmentation. We find, further, that reduced momentum widths derived from the observed momentum widths of the final fragments are narrower than the reduced widths characterizing the primary fragment momentum distributions. This reflects the influence of the light particle evaporation from the primary fragments. Applying the Goldhaber Model without taking this evaporation contribution into account leads to an erroneous interpretation regarding the primary fragmentation step.

In the pioneering work of Goldhaber Goldhaber , it was suggested that the momentum widths of PLFs are determined by the intrinsic Fermi motion of the constituent nucleons which are removed from projectile during the break-up process. Assuming that ($`A_0K`$) nucleons are suddenly removed from a nucleus which originally has $`A_0`$ nucleons, a nucleus consisting of $`K`$ nucleons will emerge. For this fragment of $`K`$ nucleons, Goldhaber showed that the momentum width, $`\sigma `$, could be expressed as :

$$\sigma =\sigma _0\sqrt{\frac{K(A_0K)}{A_01}}$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _0`$, the reduced momentum width, is related to the intrinsic Fermi motion of a single nucleon. If the projectile nucleons have a mean square momentum in the projectile frame equal to (3/5)$`P_F^2`$, where $`P_F`$ is the Fermi momentum, then that a momentum dispersion with $`\sigma _0^2`$ = (1/5)$`P_F^2`$ is expected. Based upon electron scattering measurements of Fermi momenta Moniz  $`\sigma _0`$ is expected to be $``$ 112 - 116 MeV/c Goldhaber . However, experimental results favor values of $`\sigma _0`$ 90 MeV/c Viyogi ; Greiner ; Reinhold ; Besliu .

In an attempt to explain this difference, Bertsch Bertsch  treated the correlations between the momenta of individual nucleons localized in space and calculated a corrected reduced width for 40Ar fragmentation which was 17$`\%`$ smaller than Goldhaber’s prediction. Murphy Murphy  considered the fact that the fragment is also a Fermi gas, ie., that there also exists a phase space constraint on the nucleon momenta in the projectile fragments which was not taken into account in the Goldhaber Model Goldhaber , and predicted fragment momentum distributions which are narrower than those observed. In a purely kinematical semi-classical model Gan et al. Gan  showed that the momentum width of a fragment suddenly broken off from a Fermi distribution is sensitive to the single-particle distribution but the quantitative difference with the observed values still remains. Recently, Beşliu et al. Besliu  took into account the dependence of $`\sigma _0`$ on the apparent temperature of the PLFs, which are excited during the collision. In this case, the projectile fragmentation process is assumed to be a slower process and the width governed by the Fermi distribution of nucleon momenta in the excited projectile as discussed by Bauer Bauer . In contrast to most results for longitudinal momentum widths, Brady et al. observed broader transverse momentum widths than those predicted by the Goldhaber Model Brady ; Dreute , These were explained by a collective motion: a bounce-off which imparts an additional transverse momentum to the spectators and results in wider momentum widths, especially for heavier projectiles.

In recent years, several attempts have been made to provide a systematic phenomenological description of the available data MORRISSEY ; Reinhold ; GSI  and the basic theoretical models have been extended Besliu . In most of the theoretical work on the momentum widths of PLFs, analytical techniques have been employed to explore the problem. One paper, that of Gossiaux et al. Gossiaux , has employed a QMD model calculation to explore the properties of spectator matter in 600 MeV/nucleon collisions of Au with Au and concluded that the underlying physics is more complicated than that generally assumed in analytical approaches.

The initial stage of the reaction studied in this paper, 200 MeV/u 40Ar + 27Al, has been simulated using the AMD-V model Ono1 . AMD models have been very successfully used to study the static nature of light nuclei Horiuchi . In this model, calculation of the minimum energy states can be carried out to define initial ground states of the colliding nuclei.

In the AMD-V model the stochastic branching process of the wave packet diffusion is incorporated. The widths of the wave packets in each stochastic branch are kept constant and the dynamics of the widths of the wave packets calculated by the Vlasov equation is incorporated as a stochastic diffusion process of the centroids of the wave packets. This model was successfully applied to multifragmentation events in the 40Ca + 40Ca reaction at 35 MeV/u Wada  and 64Zn + 58Ni reactions Wada00  at 35 - 79 MeV/u. In the present calculations, the Gogny force Gogny , which gave the best fit in these previous analyses, was used as an effective interaction. This Gogny force gives a momentum-dependent mean field and an incompressibility of 228 MeV for infinite nuclear matter. We note further that in our initialization of the projectile and target ground states in the AMD-V model, we get an initial width of the nucleon momentum distribution of $``$ 105 MeV/c for 40Ar projectile and $``$ 101 MeV/c for the 27Al target. These values are slightly less than expected from electron scattering measurements of Fermi momenta, ie. 112 - 116 MeV/c Moniz , but are still in the reasonable range.

The calculation was started at t = 0, with a distance of 15 fm between the centers of the projectile and target in the beam direction. Each event was followed up to t = 300 fm/c. However, considering that we are initially interested in the properties of primary fragments, we analyze the AMD-V results at an earlier time, when the two dominant spectators just separate from each other and before significant evaporation can occur.

Calculations were carried out in the peripheral collision zone, ie. b = 6 - 8 fm. 10000 events are calculated. Primary fragment masses and their excitation energies were extracted at $`t_s`$ = 60 $`fm/c`$. Fragments were identified using a configuration space coalescence technique with a coalescence radius of 5 fm, but the size of the fragments depends only slightly on the coalescence radius.

The primary fragments which are isolated in this way are excited. In order to simulate experimental data as closely as possible, a modified version of the GEMINI statistical model code Charity  has been used as an afterburner to follow the de-excitation of these excited fragments. In this modified version, discrete levels of the excited states of light fragments with $`Z14`$ are taken into account and the Hauser-Feshbach formalism is extended to treat the particle decay from a parent nucleus up to 50 MeV excitation energy. In the calculation, care was taken to follow the entire de-excitation cascade so that the distribution of initial parent nuclei (primary fragments from AMD-V) leading to each observed final fragment could be derived and the contributions of nucleon evaporation and mass loss to the momentum widths of final fragments could be determined.

In order to study the primary fragments of spectator fragmentation, we first defined, in each event, the heaviest fragment with a positive parallel velocity in the center of mass as a projectile-like fragment and the heaviest fragment with a negative parallel velocity in the center of mass as a target-like fragment (TLF). We then analyzed the three components of the momenta of the PLF and TLF fragments. Since the the collisions are peripheral, the primary PLF and TLF can be cleanly separated.

These primary fragment momentum distributions can be described by a Gaussian shape characterized by a width $`\sigma `$. The primary fragment mass numbers and the three momentum widths, $`\sigma _{Px}`$, $`\sigma _{Py}`$ and $`\sigma _{Pz}`$ ($`Z`$ is in the beam direction and $`X`$ is in the direction of the impact parameter axis) are plotted in Fig. 1 as a function of the PLF and TLF fragment masses at b = 6-8 fm. The widths of the primary fragments are denoted by open circles and the dashed lines represent the results of fits to the Goldhaber Model expression (Eq.(1)). In order to obtain better fits, we allow both the initial mass $`A_0`$ and the reduced width, $`\sigma _0`$ to be free parameters. The fit parameters are shown in upper-right corner. The initial masses are close to the original masses of projectile or target and the average of the reduced widths of the three momentum components is $``$ 105 MeV/c for PLFs and 110 MeV/c for TLFs. The values of $`\sigma _0`$ are very close to the initial nucleon Fermi momentum widths of the AMD-V ground states as mentioned before. Consequently, it appears that the Goldhaber model works well for the primary fragments.

However, the calculation indicates that, the primary fragments are excited: the mean value of excitation energy is about 1.7 MeV/u and 2.7 MeV/u for PLFs and TLFs, respectively. To evaluate the effect of secondary particle emission on the masses and momentum widths we used the AMD-V results at $`t_s`$ as input to the GEMINI calculation. As a result of the subsequent statistical de-excitation the final mass distribution becomes broader but the PLF and TLF components can still be identified and the momentum widths for PLF and TLF final fragments can be determined.

The solid squares in Fig. 1 represent the momentum widths of the final fragments, observed after the secondary de-excitation. The results have also been fit with the Goldhaber Model expression (the solid line) and the extracted apparent primary mass $`A_0`$ and width $`\sigma _0`$ is shown on lower-left corner. The mass parameters remain close to the initial masses of the projectile and target but the $`\sigma _0`$ values become significantly smaller, manifesting mean values $``$ 83 MeV/c. Obviously, these values approach to the typical values of 90 MeV/c observed experimentally (recall that the AMD-V ground state has a slightly lower Fermi momentum than those from experiments). It appears that the sequential decay plays an important role in causing the reduced momentum width of the final fragments to be narrower than that of the intrinsic nucleon momentum width. This leads us a relatively simple explanation for the experimentally reported momentum widths of PLF fragments.

Why does the sequential decay make the reduced width decrease and not increase? In order to answer this question, we have tracked the secondary decay paths and obtained the distribution of parent nuclei (primary fragments) which lead to each of the observed final fragments. Fig. 2 shows some samples of the primary fragment distributions which contribute to some selected final fragments. Clearly, the farther removed the final fragment from the primary parent nuclei, the broader the distribution of primary fragments which contribute to that final fragment.

If we plot the observed momentum width for the final fragments as a function of their average primary fragment masses, as represented by the open squares in Fig. 1, we immediately see that there is a large increase of momentum width in comparison with the original primary fragment width, denoted by open circles. It is, of course, natural that the sequential decay will make the momentum distribution wider.

Knowing the parentage of a final fragment we can reconstruct the primary width distribution leading to that fragment. The reconstructed width for the average parent fragments can be written as: $`\sigma _{recons}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }_ip_i\sigma _{Prim}(i)^2}`$, where $`p_i`$ is the fractional contribution of primary fragments to the final observed fragments. The results are indicated by the solid circles in Fig. 1. As required by this procedure, the results fall on the curves defining the primary fragment momentum widths. The difference in widths represented by these points and those represented by the open squares reflect evaporation effects.

If we pursue the analogy to the Goldhaber Model, then from the decay calculations we can also define $`\sigma _0^{Evap}`$, a reduced width. This width characterizes the evaporation step and can readily be compared with the momentum width which results from the intrinsic nucleon momentum distribution from the primary step. We define the relationship between the width of the momentum distribution of final fragments of mass $`A_{obs}`$ and those of the primary fragments $`A_{Prim}(i)`$ which de-excite to produce $`A_{obs}`$ :

$$\sigma _{Aobs}^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_ip_i[\sigma _{Prim}^2+(A_{Prim}(i)A_{obs})(\sigma _0^{Evap})^2)]$$
(2)
where $`p_i`$ is the fractional contribution of $`A_{Prim}(i)`$ to the final observed fragments ($`A_{obs}`$) and $`\sigma _0^{Evap}`$ is the contribution of particle evaporation to the momentum width. Fig. 3 presents the mean value of $`\sigma _0^{Evap}`$ over Px, Py and Pz directions as a function of the final fragment mass. We see that $`\sigma _0^{Evap}`$ is generally in the range of 30-70 MeV/c, significantly lower than $`P_F/\sqrt{5}`$ which characterize the primary break-up.

For comparison, we also checked 40Ar + 27Al at b = 4 - 6 fm, the similar values and the same conclusion was drawn. In addition, we also checked our technique to extract $`\sigma _0`$ with the fixed $`A_0`$ as is typically done in experimental analysis of initial projectile and target masses in the fit procedure with Goldhaber Model rather than the free parameter of $`A_0`$. The conclusions are not changed.

In summary, the momentum widths of the primary fragments and final observed fragments produced in the reaction 200 MeV/nucleon 40Ar + 27Al were investigated using an AMD-V calculation with a statistical model afterburner. It is found that the Goldhaber Model works well for the primary fragments formed in spectator fragmentation. The momentum widths of the primary fragments are basically related to the initial Fermi momenta in the projectile or target. However, since the primary fragments are excited, they are de-excited by light particle evaporation. This secondary decay decreases the observed masses and increases the observed momentum widths of the primary fragments. As a consquence, it makes the reduced width parameter $`\sigma _0`$, derived from a Goldhaber Model fit to the data, narrower by almost 20 MeV/c than the initial Fermi momentum width, consistent with many experimental observations. Given that evaporation components can be experimentally determined from particle- fragment correlation measurements, even in very complex reactions Marie , this result suggests that observed width distributions could be corrected for secondary decay and the Fermi momentum distribution of the primary fragment could be probed in relatively low intensity radioactive beam experiments. This would allow the extension of such measurements over a much larger range in N/Z ratio and provide even more stringent tests of our microscopic models of asymmetric nuclear matter.

This work was supported by the the U.S. Department of Energy and the Robert A. Welch Foundation.


format: text

text:
# 1 The cone of distance matrices - the universum of the Polish spaces

## 1 The cone of distance matrices - the universum of the Polish spaces

Denote by $``$ a set of all infinite real matrices

$$=\{\{r_{i,j}\}_{i,j=1}^{\mathrm{}}:r_{i,i}=0,r_{i,j}0,r_{i,j}=r_{j,i},r_{i,k}+r_{k,j}r_{i,j},i,j,k=1\mathrm{}\}$$

We will call such matrices (finite or infinite) the distance matrices. Each such a matrix defines a semi-metric $`\rho `$ on an ordered countable set - for definiteness - on the set of naturals $`𝐍`$: $`\rho (i,j)=r_{i,j}`$. We allow zeros out from principle diagonal, so it is only semi-metric in general. If matrix has no zeros out of principle diagonal we will call it true distance matrix.

The set of all distance matrices is a weakly closed convex cone in the real linear space $`Mat_𝐍(𝐑)=𝐑_{}^{𝐍}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ which equipped with ordinary weak topology. We denote this cone as $``$ and will quote as the (topological) space of distance matrices. Subset of true distance matrix is every dense open strata in $``$.

Suppose now that $`(X,\rho )`$ is a complete separable metric (=Polish) space with metric $`\rho `$, and $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is an ordered dense countable set in it. Define the matrix $`r=\{r_{i,j}\}`$ where $`r_{i,j}=\rho (x_j,x_j),i,j=1\mathrm{}`$ is a distance matrix with positive elements out from diagonal; we interpret it as a metric on the set of naturals. Evidently this distance matrix includes all information about initial space $`(X,\rho )`$, because $`(X,\rho )`$ is canonical completion of the set of naturals with that metric.

Any invariant metric property of the space (like compactness, topological, homological properties etc,) could be expressed in terms of the distance matrix for any dense countable subsets of that space. Some of them is easy to rewrite (say, compactness) another more difficult (dimension).

General distance matrix (with possible zeros out of diagonal) defines on the set naturals the structure of semi-metric space. By completion of naturals in that case we mean the completion of corresponding quotient metric space of the classes of points with zero distances. Number of the classes we will call geometric rank of distance matrix or of the corresponding semi-metric space. For example zero matrix is a distance matrix of the naturals (or countable semi-metric space) with zero distance between each two points and “completion” of it is one point metric space. So finite metric spaces also could be considered in this setting.

The space of distance matrices $``$ is an universum of all separable complete metric spaces with a fixed dense countable subsets: we can look at $``$ as a “fiber bundle”, the base of which is a set of all individual Polish spaces and the fiber over given space is the set of all countable ordered dense subsets in this metric space. Because of universality of Urysohn space $`𝒰`$(see below) the set of all closed subsets of $`𝒰`$ could be considered as a base of that bundle.

Let $`\xi `$ is a partition of $``$ on the classes of matrices which produce the isometric completions of the set of naturals with that metric as complete Polish spaces. The quotient space over partition $`\xi `$ is the space of the classes of the Polish spaces up to isometry. As was conjectured in  and proved in the paper  that partition (or equivalence relation) is not ”smooth” so, the quotient has no good borel or topological structure and the problem of the classification of the Polish spaces up-to isometry is wild (non smooth) problem. In the same time the restriction of this problem to the case of compact Polish spaces is smooth (see ) and a space of all classes up to isometry of compact metric spaces has a natural topology.

The space $``$ plays role of ”tautology fibration” over the space of classes of isometrcal Polish spaces similar to ordinary topological constructions. We will see that the problem of classification of the metric space with borel probability measure is “smooth” problem and the complete invariant is a measure on $``$ with a special properties.

In this paper we study geometry of the space $``$ itself and describe its generic properties Polish spaces in terms of that cone, and prove that Urysohn space is generic. Then we consider the metric triples (Gromov’s mm-spaces), find its invariant and prove that probability measures on the space $``$. which are concentrated on so called universal matrices are also generic, so typical metric space with measure is also Urysohn space with measure. Roughly speaking - random choice of the Polish space gives you that remarkable space. More precise fromulation of this theorem will be done else where - this is the analogues in another categories of Erdos-Renyi theorem (see (,Ca) about random graphs.

## 2 Geometry and topology of the cone $``$

### 2.1 Convex structure

Let us denote the finite dimensional cone of distance matrices of order $`n`$ as $`_n=Mat_n(𝐑)`$. Cone $`_n`$ is polyhedral cone inside the positive orthant in $`Mat_n(𝐑)𝐑^{n^2}`$. Denote as $`𝐌_n^s(𝐑)𝐌_n^s`$ the space symmetric matrices with zeros on the principle diagonal, the cone $`_n`$ is contained in this space: $`_n𝐌_n^s`$ and the last space is evidently the linear hull of the cone: $`span(_n)=𝐌_n^s`$, because the interior of $`_n`$ in that space is not empty. It is not so evident that $`span()=𝐌_𝐍^s`$, where $`𝐌_𝐍^s`$ is the space of all real infinite symmetric matrices with zero principle diagonal (we do not need in weak closure of linear hull as it usually happened in infinite dimensional cases), but we will not use this fact.

Each matrix $`r_n`$ defines the (semi)metric space $`X_r`$ on the sets of $`n`$ points

Define projection

$$p_{m,n}:𝐌_m^s𝐌_n^s,m>n$$

which associates to the matrix $`r`$ of order $`m`$ its of NW-corner of order $`n`$. The cones $`_n`$ are preserved by $`p_{n.m}:p_{m,n}(_m)=_n`$ Projection $`p_{n,m}`$ are natural extends to the space of infinite symmetric matrices with zero diagonal - $`p:M_𝐍^sM_n^s(𝐑)`$ and $`p_n`$ are also preserved the cones: $`p_n()=_n`$. It is clear that $``$ is inverse limit as topological space (in weak topology) of the finite dimensional cones of $`_n`$ under projections $`\{p_n\}`$. We will omit the first index and denote $`p_{N,n}=p_n`$.

Let us consider a geometrical structure of $`_n`$ and $``$.

It is easy to describe the extremal rays (in the sense of convex geometry) of the convex polyhedral cone $`_n,n=2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. (for $`n=1`$ the cone $`_1`$ consist with one point - zero).

###### Lemma 1

Each extremal ray in $`_n,n>1`$ is a ray of type $`\{\lambda l\}_{\lambda 0}`$, where $`\lambda `$ runs over all real nonnegative numbers, and $`l`$ is a symmetric $`01`$\- distance matrix which corresponds to semi-metric space metric quotient of which has just two points. The same is true for $``$.

In another words all nonzero matrix $`l`$ which belongs to extremal ray is a distance matrix of the finite or countable semi-metric space which divides on two nonempty subset the distance between two points from the same subset is zero and between two points of the different subsets equal to one. The number of extremal rays of $`_n,n>1`$ is equal to $`2^{n1}1`$.

Proof. If the ray $`\{\lambda l_{\lambda 0}\},l`$ is extremal then the non zero matrix $`l`$ must have at least one zero coordinates out from diagonal. If we facotrize the space modulus zero distance we obtain a new metric space which can not contain a non degenerated triangles because existence of such triangles contradicts to extremality of the ray. Consequently the corresponding metric space has two points only.

The cones $`_n`$ as the topological spaces could be described in the different ways. They have very interesting stratifications as semi-algebraic sets and various systems of coordinates. In order to clarify topological structure of the cones we will use the system of the coordinates which is well-organized as a sets of vectors of entries of matrices, so called admissible vectors, which is very convenient for the natural construction and studying of Urysohn space and measures on it (see next paragraph).

### 2.2 Admissible vectors and structure of the $``$

Suppose $`r=\{r_{i,j}\}_1^n`$ is a distance matrix of order $`n`$, choose a vector $`a\{a_i\}_{i=1}^n𝐑^n`$ such that if we border a matrix $`r`$ with vector $`a`$ as the last column and the last row then the new matrix of order $`n+1`$ still will be also a distance matrix. We will call such a vector admissible vector for fixed distance matrix $`r`$ and denote the set of of all admissible vectors for $`r`$ as $`A(r)`$. For given $`aA(r)`$ denote as $`(r^a)`$, a distance matrix of order $`n+1`$ which is obtains from matrix $`r`$ with adding vector $`aA(r)`$ as the last row and column. It is clear that $`p_n(r^a)=r`$. The matrix $`r^a`$ has the form:

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& r_{1,2}& \mathrm{}& r_{1,n}& a_1\\ r_{1,2}& 0& \mathrm{}& r_{2,n}& a_2\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ r_{1,n}& r_{2,n}& \mathrm{}& 0& a_n\\ a_1& a_2& \mathrm{}& a_n& 0\end{array}\right)$$

The (semi)metric space $`X_{r^a}`$ corresponding to matrix $`r^a`$ is extension of of $`X_r`$ \- we add one new point $`x_{n+1}`$ and $`a_i,i=1\mathrm{}n`$ is a distance between $`x_{n+1}`$ and $`x_i`$. The admissibility of $`a`$ is equivalent to the following set of inequalities : vector $`a=\{a_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ must subtract to the series of triangle inequalities for all $`i,j,k=1\mathrm{}n`$; (matrix $`\{r_{i,j}\}_{i,j=1}^n`$ is fixed):

$$|a_ia_j|r_{i,j}a_i+a_j$$
(1)
So, for given distance matrix $`r`$ of order $`n`$ the set of admissible vectors is $`A(r)=\{\{a_i\}_{i=1}^n:|a_ia_j|r_{i,j}a_i+a_j,i,j=1\mathrm{}n\}`$. The set $`A(r)`$ is the intersection of cone $`_{n+1}`$ with affine subspace which consists with matrices of order $`n+1`$ with matrix $`r`$ as a NW-corner of order $`n`$. It is clear from the linearity of inequalities that set $`A(r)`$ is an unbounded closed convex polytope in $`𝐑^n`$. If $`r_{i,j}0,i,j=1\mathrm{}n1`$, then $`A(r)`$ is diagonal: $`A(r)=\mathrm{\Delta }_n\{\lambda ,\mathrm{}(n)\mathrm{}\lambda \}_{\lambda 0}𝐑_+^n`$. Let us describe its structure more carefully.

###### Lemma 2

For each true distance matrix $`r`$ of order $`n`$ the set of admissible vectors $`A(r)`$ is a closed convex polyhedron in orthant $`𝐑_+^n`$, namely this is a Minkowski sum:

$$A(r)=M_r+\mathrm{\Delta }_n,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n\{\lambda ,\mathrm{}(n)\mathrm{}\lambda \}_{\lambda 0}`$ is a half-line – positive diagonal in the space $`𝐑_+^n`$, and $`M_r=`$ conv(ext $`A(r))`$ is a compact convex polytope of the dimension $`n`$. This polytope is a convex hull of extremal points of the set $`A(r)`$.

The set $`A(r)`$ is homeomorphic to the product of the simplex and half-line, or, equivalently to the half-space $`R_+^n=\{(b_1,\mathrm{}b_n):b_n0\}`$) (this homeomorphism could be chosen as piecewise linear but not canonically). If $`r`$ is not true distance matrix of order $`n`$ and has geometric rank $`m<n`$ then $`A(r)`$ is homeomorphic to the product of $`(m1)`$-dimensional simplex and half-line.

Proof. The set $`A(r)𝐑^n`$ is intersection of finitely many of the closed subspaces, evidently it does not contain straight lines, so, because of general theorem of convex geometry $`A(r)`$ is a sum of the convex closed polytope and some cone with the vertex at origin. That convex polytope is the convex hull of the extremal points of convex set $`A(r)`$. But this cone must be one dimensional, namely - diagonal in $`𝐑^n`$ because if it contains any half-line differ from diagonal then the triangle inequality (left side) will violate. Dimension of $`A(r)`$ is a number which depends on matrix $`r`$ and could be less $`n`$ for degenerated $`r`$, evidently dimension of $`M_r`$ is equal to dimension of $`dimA(r)`$ or to $`dimA(r)1`$. The assertion about topological structure of $`A(r)`$ follows from what was claimed above.

The convex structure of polytopes $`M_r,A(r)`$ is very interesting and it seems never had been studied. For dimensions more than 3 combinatorial type of the polytope $`M_r`$ hardly depends on $`r`$. For our purpose here it is important only to establish topological isomorphisms of the special type with half-spaces for true distance matrices of the given order.

In dimension three the combinatorial type of polytopes $`M_r`$, and consequently combinatorial structure of the sets $`A(r)`$ is the same for all true distances matrices $`r`$.

Example For $`n=3`$ the description of the set $`A(r)`$ and its of extremal points is the following. Let $`r^a`$ is the matrix:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& r_{1,2}& r_{1,3}& a_1\\ r_{1,2}& 0& r_{2,3}& a_2\\ r_{1,3}& r_{2,3}& 0& a_3\\ a_1& a_2& a_3& 0\end{array}\right)$$

There are seven extremal points $`(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ of $`A(r)`$ : the first one is a vertex which is the closest to origin: $`(a_1,a_2,a_3)=(\frac{1}{2}(r_{1,2}+r_{1,3}r_{2,3},\frac{1}{2}(r_{1,2}r_{1,3}+r_{2,3}),\frac{1}{2}(r_{1,2}+r_{1,3}+r_{2,3}))`$;

three non degenerated extremal points: $`(\frac{1}{2}(r_{1,2}+r_{1,3}+r_{2,3}),\frac{1}{2}(r_{1,2}+r_{1,3}+r_{2,3}),\frac{1}{2}(r_{2,3}+r_{1,3}r_{2,3}))`$ and the rest two are cyclic permutations of that in the natural sense.

and three degenerated extremal points $`(r_{1,2},0,r_{2,3}),(0,r_{1,2},r_{2,3}),(r_{1,3},r_{2,3},0)`$ which defined the metric spaces with two distinguish points and with the third point which coincide with one of those.

If $`r_{1,2}=r_{1,3}=r_{2,3}=1`$ then those seven points are as follow

$`(1/2,1/2,1/2),(1,0,1),(0,1,1),(1,1,0),(3/2,1/2,1/2),(1/2,3/2,1/2),(1/2,1/2,3/2)`$.

It makes sense to mention that all non-degenerated extremal points defines the finite metric spaces which can not be isometrically embedded to Euclidean space. The cone $`_3`$ is simplicial cone of dimension 3, and for all matrices $`r_3`$ which does not belong to the boundary the set of admissible vectors $`A(r)`$ (extremal points of which we had defined above) have the same convex combinatorial type although they are no affine isomorphism between them.

### 2.3 Projections and isomorphisms

Suppose we have distance matrix $`r`$ of order $`N`$ and its NW-corner of order $`n<N`$ \- $`p_n(r)`$. Then we can define neglecting projection $`\chi _n^r`$ of $`A(r)`$ to $`A(p_n(r)`$: $`\chi _n^r:(b_1,\mathrm{}b_n,b_{n+1},\mathrm{}b_N)(b_1\mathrm{}b_n)`$. (We omit index $`N`$ in the denotation of $`\chi _n^r`$) The next simple lemmas play very important for our construction.

###### Lemma 3

Let $`r_n`$ is a distance matrix of order $`n`$ and two vectors $`a=(a_1,\mathrm{}a_n)A(r),b=(b_1,\mathrm{}b_n)A(r)`$ there exist real nonnegative number $`h𝐑`$ such that vector $`\overline{b}=(b_1,\mathrm{}b_n,h)A(r^a)`$.

The claim of this lemma is equivalent to the assertion that for each $`r`$ the projection $`\chi _n^r`$ defined above is epimorphism of $`A(r^a`$ to $`A(r)`$:

###### Corollary 1

For each $`r_n`$ and $`aA(r)`$ the map: $`\chi _{n+1,n}^r:(b_1,\mathrm{}b_n,b_{n+1})(b_1\mathrm{}b_n)`$ of $`A(r^a)A(r)`$ is epimorphism of $`A(r^a)`$ on $`A(r)`$.(by definition $`p_{n+1,n}(r^a)=r`$)

Proof. The assertion of lemma as we will see, is a simple geometrical observation: suppose we have two finite metric space $`X=\{x_1,\mathrm{}x_{n1},x_n\}`$ with metric $`\rho _1`$ and $`Y=\{y_1,\mathrm{}y_{n1},y_n\}`$ with metric $`\rho _2`$. Suppose the subspaces of the first $`n1`$ points $`\{x_1,\mathrm{}x_{n1}\}`$ and $`\{y_1,\mathrm{}y_{n1}\}`$ are isometric – $`\rho _1(x_i,x_j)=\rho _2(y_i,y_j),i,j=1,\mathrm{}n1`$,

then there exists the third space $`Z=\{z_1,\mathrm{}z_{n1},z_n,z_{n+1}\}`$ with metric $`\rho `$ and two isometries $`I_1,I_2`$ of both spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$ to the space $`Z,I_1(x_i)=z_i,I_2(y_i)=z_i,i=1,\mathrm{}n1,I_1(x_n)=z_n,I_2(y_n)=z_{n+1}`$. In order to prove existence of $`Z`$ we need to prove that it is possible to define only nonnegative number $`h`$ which will be the distance $`\rho (z_n,z_{n+1})=h`$ between $`z_n`$ and $`z_{n+1}`$ (images of $`x_n`$ and $`y_n`$ in $`Z`$ correspondingly) such that all triangle inequalities took place in the space $`Z`$. The existence of $`h`$ follows from the inequalities:

$$\rho _1(x_i,x_n)\rho _2(y_i,y_n)\rho _1(x_i,x_n)+\rho _1(x_i,x_j)\rho _2(y_i,y_n)=$$

$$=\rho _1(x_i,x_n)+\rho _2(y_i,y_j)\rho _2(y_i,y_n)\rho _1(x_i,x_n)+\rho _2(y_i,y_n)$$

for all $`i,j=1,\mathrm{}n1`$.

Consequently

$$\underset{i}{\mathrm{max}}|\rho _1(x_i,x_n)\rho _2(y_i,y_n)|mM\underset{j}{\mathrm{min}}(\rho _1(x_i,x_n)+\rho _2(y_i,y_n)).$$

So, a number $`h`$ could be chosen as an arbitrary number from the nonempty closed interval $`[m,M]`$ and we define $`\rho (z_n,z_{n+1})h`$; it follows from the definitions that all triangle inequalities are satisfied. Now suppose we have a distance matrix $`r`$ of order $`n1`$ and admissible vector $`aA(r)`$, so we have metric space $`\{x_1,\mathrm{}x_{n1},x_n\}`$ (first $`n1`$ points corresponds to matrix $`r`$ and all space - to extension matrix $`r^a`$. Now suppose we choose another admissible vector $`bA(r)`$, distance matrix $`r^b`$ defined space $`\{y_1,\mathrm{}y_{n1},y_n\}`$ where subset of first $`n1`$ points is isometric (the same) as space $`\{x_1,\mathrm{}x_{n1}\}`$. As we proved we can define space $`Z`$ whose distance metric $`\overline{r}`$ of order $`n+1`$ gives has needed property.

Now we can formulate the general assertion about projections $`\chi ^r`$.

###### Lemma 4

For each naturals $`N,n`$ and $`r_N`$ the map $`\chi _n^r`$ is epimorphism of $`A(r))`$ onto $`A(p_n(r))`$. In another words for each $`a=(a_1,\mathrm{}a_n)A(p_n(r))`$ there exist vector $`(b_{n+1},\mathrm{}b_N)`$ such that $`b=(a_1,\mathrm{}a_n,b_{n+1},\mathrm{}b_N)A(r)`$.

Proof. Previous proof shows how to define the first number $`b_{n+1}`$. But the projection $`\chi _n^r`$ as a map from $`A(r),r_N`$ to $`A(p_n(r)`$ is the product of projections $`\chi _n^r\mathrm{}\chi _{N1}^r`$ Previous lemma shows that all those factors are epimorphisms.

It is useful to consider each infinite distance matrix $`r\{r_{i,j}\}`$ as as a sequences of the admissible vectors of the increasing lengths

$$r(1)=\{r_{1,2}\},r(2)=\{r_{1,3},r_{2,3}\},\mathrm{}r(k)=\{r_{1,k+1},r_{2,k+1},\mathrm{}r_{k,k+1}\}\mathrm{},k=1,2\mathrm{},$$
(2)
with conditions $`r(k)A(p_k(r))`$, (remember that $`p_k(r)`$ is NW-projection of matrix $`r`$ on the space $`𝐌_k^s`$ which was defined above) - each vector $`r(k)`$ is admissible for the previous distance matrix. This is a realization of the infinite distance matrix using the projections of the cones. We can consider the following sequences of the cones and maps:

$$0=_1\stackrel{p_2}{}_2=𝐑_+\stackrel{p_3}{}_3\mathrm{}_{n1}\stackrel{p_n}{}_n\mathrm{}$$
(3)
where projections $`p_n`$ now is restriction of the projection $`p_n`$ (defined above) onto the cone $`_n`$. A preimage of the point $`r_{n1}`$ (fiber over $`r`$) is the set $`A(r)`$ which structure had been described in the lemma 2. The fibers are not even homeomorphic to each other for the various $`r`$ (even dimensions could be different), so the sequences (3) are not the sequences of fiber bundles in usual sense. But it defines a very interesting stratifications of all cones, and the corresponding complex structure on $``$. More careful studying of the stratification of the cones $`_n`$ and $``$ must take in account the combinatorial and semi-algebraic structures of its. We postpone the discussion on this interesting subject.

For our goals in this paper it is enough to consider the open cell (main strata) of each cones which is simply the set of distance matrices for which all triangle inequalities are strict inequalities. Denote this open part (interior) of the cone $`_n`$ as $`_n^0`$. The cone $`^0`$ is a set of all distance matrices for which any triangle inequalities are strict, it is every dense subset of $``$ Let $`r_n^0`$, denote as $`\dot{A}(r)`$ the interior of $`A(r)`$ (of those admissible vectors for which again all triangle inequalities are strict). So the cones $`^0`$ equipped with the structure of inverse limit. For each $`n`$ projection $`_{n1}^0\stackrel{p_n}{}_n^0`$ this is a trivial fibration because now all fibers are homeomorphic to each other and to open half-space, and the base is homeomorphic to affine space, because this is an open nonempty convex set. We can to refine this picture with the trivialization of this fibration because now all fibers for given $`n`$ are open cells of the same dimension.We obtain

###### Lemma 5

1.The structure of the cone $`^0`$ is described with the sequence of the maps:

$$0=_2^0=𝐑_+\stackrel{p_3}{}_3^0\mathrm{}_{n1}^0\stackrel{p_n}{}_n^0\mathrm{}^0$$
(4)
For each $`n`$ the map $`_{n1}^0\stackrel{p_n}{}_n^0`$ defines a trivial fiber bundle and natural decomposition: $`_n^0_{n1}^0\times \dot{𝐑}_+^{n1}`$ where $`\dot{𝐑}_+^{n1}`$ is open half-space, $`\pi _n`$ is the projection on the first summand in that decomposition; and the second factor is homeomorphic to $`\dot{A}(r)`$ for all $`r`$. So we have a realization of open strata:

$$^0\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\dot{𝐑}_+.$$

###### Remark 1

The topology which is induced on $`^0`$ from $``$ does not coincide with topology of inverse limit in (2), but we will not use it. The borel structure defined by the family of cylindric sets on that direct product coincides with borel structure which is induced on $`^0`$ from $``$. There is no canonical isomorphism in the theorem: there are many ways to identify the fibers with affine open half-spaces (or simply with open discs) according to lemma 2.

## 3 Universality and Urysohn space

### 3.1 Universal distance matrices

The following definition plays a crucial role.

###### Definition 1

The infinite true distance matrix $`r=\{r_{i,j}\}_{i,j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ called as universal matrix if the following condition is satisfied:

for each $`ϵ>0`$, each $`n𝐍`$ and for each vector $`a=\{a_i\}_{i=1}^nA(p_n(r))`$ there exists such $`m𝐍`$ that $`\mathrm{max}_{i=1\mathrm{}n}|r_{i,m}a_i|<ϵ.`$

In another words: for each $`n𝐍`$ the set of vectors $`\{\{r_{i,j}\}_{i=1}^n\}_{j=n+1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is every dense in the set of admissible vectors $`A(p_n(r))`$.

Let us denote the set of universal distance matrices as $``$

###### Theorem 1

The set of universal matrix in $``$ is nonempty and moreover - is an every dense $`G_\delta `$-set in weak topology of the cone $``$.

Proof. We will use representation of the lemmas of previous section for the construction of at least one universal true distance matrix in the cone $`_0`$.

Let us fixed sequence $`\{m_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of naturals in which each natural number occurs infinitely many times and with property: for each $`n,m_nn,m_1=1`$. For each finite distance matrix $`r_n`$ let us choose an ordered countable dense subset $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r=\{\gamma _k^r\}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\dot{A}(r)𝐑^n`$ and choose any metric in $`\dot{A}(r)`$, say Euclidean norm from $`𝐑^𝐧`$.

The first step consists with the choice of positive real number $`\gamma _1^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\dot{A}(0)=\dot{𝐑}_+^1`$ so we define a distance matrix $`r`$ of order $`2`$ with element $`r_{1,2}=\gamma _1^1`$.

Our method of the construction of the universal matrix $`r`$ used its representation as sequence of the admissible vectors $`\{r(1),r(2),\mathrm{}\}`$ of increasing lengths (see (2)), \- the index in the brackets is a dimension of the vector, -the conditions on the vectors are as follow: $`r(k)A(p_k(r_{k+1}))`$. The sequence of the corresponding matrices $`r_n,n=1\mathrm{}`$ are stabilized to the infinite matrix $`r`$. Suppose after $`n1`$-th step we obtain finite matrix $`r_{n1}`$, now we choose a new admissible vector $`r(n)\dot{A}(r_{n1})`$. The choice of this vector (denote it as $`a`$) is defined by condition: the distance in $`A(r_{m_n})`$ (in norm) between projection $`\chi _{m_n}^r(a)`$ of the vector $`a`$ onto subspace of admissible vectors $`A(r_{m_n})`$ and point $`\gamma _s^{m_n}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{r_{m_n}}A(r_{m_n})`$ must be less than $`2^n`$, here $`s=|i:m_i=m_n,1in|+1`$:

$$\chi _{m_n}^r(a)\gamma _s^{r_{m_n}}<2^n.$$

Remain that projection $`\chi _{m_n}^r`$ is epimorphism from $`A(r)`$ to $`A(p_{m_n}(r))`$, (lemma 4), so a vector $`aA(r_n)`$ with this properties does exist. Number $`s`$ is nothing more than the numbers of the points of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{r_{m_n}}`$ which occur on the previous steps of the construction. After countable many of steps we obtain the infinite distance matrix $`r`$.

Universality of $`r`$ is evident, because for each $`n`$ projection $`\chi _n^r`$ of vectors $`r(k),k=n+1\mathrm{}`$ is a dense set in $`A(r_n)`$ by construction. This proves the existence of universal matrix.

From the previous proof it is easy to extract by induction over $`n`$ the following very important property of any universal matrix $`r`$. Suppose $`r=\{r_{i,j}\}`$ is an arbitrary universal distance matrix, and $`q`$ is a finite distance matrix of order $`n2`$ and $`ϵ>0`$ then there exists a submatrix $`\{r_{i_s,i_t}\}_{s,t=1}^n`$ of matrix $`r`$, such that $`q\overline{q}<ϵ`$ (here $`.`$ -is an arbitrary norm in the space of matrices of order $`n`$). Indeed, because $`r^1=\{r_{1,1\}}=0`$ then $`A(r^1)=𝐑_+`$ and by universality $`\{r_{1,n}\}_n^{\mathrm{}}`$ must be dense in $`𝐑_+`$, so we can choose $`m_1`$ such that $`|r_{1,m_1}q_{1,2}|<ϵ`$, then because of density of the columns of length 2 we can choose $`m_2`$ such that $`(r_{1,m_2},r_{2,m_2})(q_{1,3},q_{2,3})<ϵ`$ etc.

We can say that for each $`n`$ the closure of the set of all submatrices $`q=\{r_{i_s,i_t}\}_{s,t=1}^n`$ of order $`n`$ over all choice of n-plies $`i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_n`$ of universal distance matrix $`r=\{r_{i,j}\}`$ coincides with the set $`_n`$ of all distance matrices of order $`n`$. Let us call this property a weak universality.

Now remark that the universality of the matrix is preserved under the action of any finite permutations which simultaneously permute rows and columns, also universality is preserved under the NW-shift which cancels the first row and first column of the matrices. Finally the set of universal matrices $``$ is invariant under the changing of the finite part of the matrix. (or - universality is stable property). Consequently, $``$ contains with the given matrix all its permutations and shifts. But because of the weak universality, the orbit of $`r`$ under group of permutations $`S_𝐍`$ is every dense in $``$ in weak topology.

Finally, the formula which follows directly from the definition of universality shows us immediately that the set of all universal matrices $``$ is a $`G_\delta `$-set:

$$=_{k𝐍}_{n𝐍}_{aA(r^n)}_{m𝐍,m>n}\{r:\underset{i=1,\mathrm{}n}{\mathrm{max}}|r_{i,m}a_i|<\frac{1}{k}\}.$$

###### Remark 2

The property of matrix to be universal is much more stronger than the property of weak universality - it is easy to give an example of non universal but weak universal matrix.

### 3.2 Urysohn space

Now we introduce a remarkable Urysohn space. In one of his last papers  Urysohn gave a concrete construction of the universal Polish space which we will call ”Urysohn space” and denote as $`𝒰`$. There are no the notion of universality in  because Urysohn did not consider infinite matrices at all but he actually have proved several theorems which we summarize as following theorem:

###### Theorem 2

(Urysohn ) There exist the Polish space with the properties:

1)(Universality) For each Polish space $`X`$ there exists the isometric embedding to $`𝒰`$;

2)(Homogeneity) For each two isometric finite subsets $`X=(x_1\mathrm{}x_m)`$ and $`Y=(y_1\mathrm{}y_m)`$ of $`𝒰`$ there exists isometry $`I`$ of whole space $`𝒰`$ which brings $`X`$ to $`Y`$;

3)(Uniqueness) Polish spaces with the previous properties is unique up to isometry

In our terminology Urysohn actually have proved

###### Theorem 3

Let $`r`$ is an arbitrary infinite universal distance matrix, consider the set of naturals $`𝐍`$ with metric $`r`$. Then the completion of the space $`(𝐍,r)`$ with respect to metric $`r`$ is Urysohn space

The proof of all three items of the theorem follows directly and easily from the universality of the matrix $`r`$ and does not use even the existence of universal matrices. That was a content of three main theorems in . We do not repeated here very natural Urysohn’s arguments and restrict ourself only with the hints. Universality of the matrix $`r`$ allows to construct a family of fundamental sequences such their limits (in completion) gives the finite set of points with the given a prori distance matrix. This gives universality (item 1). If we have two given finite isometric sets of the points of completion $`(x_1,\mathrm{}x_n)`$ and $`(y_1,\mathrm{}y_n)`$ we can include each of them to two countable dense subsets which are still isometric - this gives homogeneity (item 2). Uniqueness follows from the fact that in each space with the properties 1),2) it is possible to find countable dense subset with given universal matrix.

###### Remark 3

1.The inverse assertion is trivially true: the distance matrix of any countable ordered dense set in Urysohn space is an universal matrix. In another words, universality of the true distance matrix $`r`$ is necessary and sufficient condition for the metric on the naturals $`(𝐍,r)`$ to have as a completion Urysohn space.

2.Remark also, that if we use in our construction admissible vectors whose coordinates less or equal to 1 then we obtain universal metric space of diameter 1 with the same property of universality for Polish space with diameter $`1`$, this universal space was also mentioned in .

Urysohn’s paper begun with a very concrete example of the countable space with rational distance matrix (indeed that was an universal space over rationales - $`𝐐`$). More simple iterative method of the construction of the universal space was suggested in 80-th by Katetov, the similar idea was used later by Gromov in his book . Our method of construction of the universal matrix differs from all those, - it used geometry of the cone $``$ and as we will see in the next section allows interpret all the construction and Urysohn space in probabilistic. It also allows to study genericity of various property ties of Polish spaces.

As a result of the theorem 1 we obtain the remarkable fact that ”typical” (generic) distance matrix is universal matrix, and typical (generic) in our unversum $``$ Polish metric space is Urysohn space $`𝒰`$! In the next section we will prove the analog of this fact for metric spaces with measure.

## 4 Metric triples and its invariant - matrix distribution.

Suppose $`(X,\rho ,\mu )`$ Polish space with metric $`\rho `$ and with borel probability measure $`\mu `$. We will call metric triple (In  the author used term “mm-space”). Two triples $`(X_1,\rho _1,\mu _1)`$ and $`(X_2,\rho _2,\mu _2)`$ are equivalent if there exists isometry $`V`$ which preserve the measure

$$\rho _2(Vx,Vy)=\rho _2(x,y),V\mu _1=\mu _2$$

. We have mentioned before that the classification of the Polish space is non smooth problem. But the classification of metric triple has a good answer.

For triple $`T=(X,\rho ,\mu )`$ define the infinite product and Bernoulli measure $`(X^𝐍,\mu ^𝐍`$ and define the map $`F:X^𝐍`$ as follow:

$$F_T(\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}})=\{\rho (x_i,x_j)\}_{i,j=1}^{\mathrm{}}$$

The $`F_T`$-image of the measure $`\mu ^𝐍`$ which we denoted as $`D_T`$ will called matrix distribution of the triple $`T`$ :$`F_T\mu ^{\mathrm{}}D_T`$.

###### Lemma 6

Measure $`D_T`$ is borel probability measure on $``$ which is invariant and ergodic with respect to group of simultaneous permutations of rows and columns and to simultaneous shift in vertical and horizontal directions (NW-shift).

Proof. All facts follow from the same properties of measure $`\mu ^{\mathrm{}}`$ and because map $`F_T`$ commutes with action of the shifts and permutations.

Let us call a measure on the metric space non-degenerated if there are no nonempty open set of zero measure.

###### Theorem 4

Two metric triples $`T_1=(X_1,\rho _1,\mu _1)`$ and $`(X_2,\rho _2,\mu _2)`$ with non-degenerated measures are equivalent iff its matrix distributions are coincided: $`D_{T_1}=D_{T_2}`$ as the measures on the cone $``$.

Proof. The necessity of the coincidence of the matrix distribution is evident: if there exists the isometry $`V`$ between $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ which preserves measures then the infinite power $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ preserve the measures: $`V^{\mathrm{}}(\mu _1^{\mathrm{}})=\mu _2^{\mathrm{}}`$ and because of equality $`F_{T_1}X_1^{\mathrm{}}=F_{T_2}(V^{\mathrm{}}X_1^{\mathrm{}}`$ the image of these measure are the same $`D_{T_2}=D_{T_1}`$. Suppose now that $`D_{T_2}=D_{T_1}=D`$. Then $`D`$-almost all distance matrices $`r`$ are the images under the maps $`F_{T_1}`$ and $`F_{T_2}`$ say $`r_{i,j}=\rho _1(x_i,x_j)=\rho _2(y_i,y_j)`$ but this means that the identification of $`x_iX_1`$ and $`y_iX_2`$ for all $`i`$ is isometry $`V`$ between these countable sets $`V(x_i)=y_i`$. Now the main argument: by ergodic (with respect to NW-shift) theorem $`\mu _1`$-almost all sequences of $`\{x_i\}`$ and $`\mu _2`$-almost all sequences $`\{y_i\}`$ are uniformly distributed on $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ correspondingly. This means that the $`\mu _1`$ measure of each ball $`B^l(x_i)\{zX_1:\rho _1(x_i,z)<l\}`$ equal to

$$\mu _1(B^l(x_i))=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}1_{\rho _1(x_k,x_i)l}$$

which is equal because of isometry $`V`$ ($`r_{i,j}=\rho _1(x_i,x_j)=\rho _2(y_i,y_j)`$ \- see above) to the $`\mu _2`$ measure of the ball: $`B^l(y_i)\{uX_2:\rho _2(y_i,u)<l\}`$

$$\mu _2(B^l(y_i))=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}1_{\rho _2(y_k,y_i)l}=\mu _1(B^l(x_i))$$

But both measures are non-degenerated, consequently each sequences $`\{x_i\}`$ and $`\{y_i\}`$ are every dense in its own space and because both measures are borel it is enough to conclude their coincidence if we established that the measures of the all such balls are the same.

###### Corollary 2

Matrix distribution is complete invariant of the equivalence of metric triples with non-degenerated measures.

Firstly this theorem as “Reconstruction theorem” in another formulation had been proved in the book  pp.117-123 by Gromov. He formulated its in the terms of finite dimensional distributions of what we called matrix distribution and proved using analytical method. He asked me in 1997 about this theorem and I suggested the proof which is written here (see also in ) and which he had quoted (pp.122-123) in the book. Gromov has invited the readers to compare two proofs, one of which is rather analytical (Weierstrass approximations) and another (above) in fact uses only the reference on the ergodic theorem. One of the explanations of this difference is the same as in all applications of ergodic theorem - it helps us to substitute the methods of space approximation onto operations with infinite (limit) orbits. In our case the consideration of infinite matrices and cone $``$ with invariant measures gives a possibility to reduce the problem to the investigation of ergodic action of infinite groups.

## 5 Properties of matrix distributions and random metrics on the naturals

A matrix distribution of the metric triple $`T=(X,\rho ,\mu )`$ is by definition a measure $`D_T`$ on the cone $``$. It means that we can consider it as random (semi)metric on the naturals. Namely, we choose independently the points $`\{x_i\}`$ of metric space $`X`$ with measure $`\mu `$ as a distribution and and look at their distance matrix $`\{r_{i,j}\}=\{\rho (x_i,x_j)\}`$.

Each distance matrix define the metric on $`𝐍`$ and consequently the Polish space which is completion of naturals with that metric. But if we have some probability measure on $``$ then we need to put some condition on this measure in order it corresponds to some metric triple, or in another words - in order almost with respect to that measure distance matrices define the same (isometric) completion of naturals.

As we mentioned all measure $`D_T`$ must be invariant and ergodic with respect to action of infinite symmetric group and to NW-shift. But this is not enough and not all restriction to which it satisfies. We mention necessary and sufficient conditions (see ) for that.

###### Theorem 5

Let $`D`$ \- a probability measure on the cone $``$,which is invariant and ergodic with respect to action of infinite symmetric group (=group of all finite permutations of the naturals). The following condition is necessary and sufficient in order $`D`$ is matrix distribution for some metric triple $`T=(X,\rho ,\mu )`$ or $`D=D_T`$:

for each $`ϵ>0`$ there exists integer $`N`$ such that

$$D\{r=\{r_{i,j}\}:\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{|\{j:1jn,\mathrm{min}_{1iN}r_{i,j}<ϵ\}|}{n}>1ϵ\}>1ϵ$$

The following more stronger condition is equivalent to the compactness of metric space: if for each $`ϵ>0`$ there exists integer $`N`$ such that

$$D\{r=\{r_{i,j}\}:\text{for all}j>N,\underset{1iN}{\mathrm{min}}r_{i,j}<ϵ\}>1ϵ,$$

then $`D=D_T`$ where $`T=(X,\rho ,\mu )`$ and $`(X,\rho )`$ is compact.

The second condition is simply retelling of the existence of $`ϵ`$-net for each positive $`ϵ`$ in the metric compactum; the first one expresses well-known property of metric space with measure: the set of full measure is sigma-compact, or for each $`ϵ`$ there exist a compact of measure $`>1ϵ`$. The subset in the outer brackets in the first condition is rather complicate borel set.

###### Remark 4

As it follows from the general theorem about classification of the measurable functions (see ), description of the $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$-invariant measures and previous theorem any measure which is concentrated on $``$, is $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$-invariant, ergodic, and simple -  \- is already a matrix distribution for some metric on metric space with measure and consequently satisfied to the above condition.

The detales will be considered elsewhere.

Now let us consider the arbitrary measures on the cone $``$, or - an arbitrary random metrics on the naturals and choose some denotations.

Denotations. Denote $`𝒱`$ the set of all probability borel measures <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1we use later on term “measure” in the meaning - “borel probability measure” on the cone $``$ and equip it with weak topology,- this is a topology of inverse limit of the sets of probability measures on the finite dimensional cones $`_n`$ with its usual weak topology. The convergence in this topology is convergence on the cylindric sets with open bases.

Let $`𝒟`$ be the subset in $`𝒱`$ of the measures each of which is a matrix distributions for some metric triple and equip it with induced topology from $`𝒱`$. This set was described above in the theorem 5 in a constructive way and, as claimed in the last remark, coinsides with $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$-invariant and ergodic simple measures from $`𝒱`$.

The set $`𝒫`$ is a subset of $`𝒱`$ of measures each of which concentrated on the set of universal distance matrices: $`\nu 𝒫`$ iff $`\nu ()=1`$, and finally

$`𝒬𝒟`$ consists with the measures which corresponds to the metric triples $`T=(X,\rho ,\mu )`$ in which $`(X,\rho )`$ is Urysohn space. We have imbeddings

$$𝒫𝒱𝒟𝒬𝒫;𝒬=𝒫𝒟$$

Remark that the set of non-degenerated measures is of course every dense $`G_\delta `$ set in $`𝒱`$

###### Theorem 6

1.The subset $`𝒫𝒱`$ is every dense $`G_\delta `$ in $`𝒱`$. This means that for generic measures $`\nu `$ on $``$ $`\nu `$-almost all distance matrices $`r`$ for $`\nu 𝒫`$ are universal and consequently $`\nu `$-almost all distance matrix $`r`$ defines the metric on the naturals such that completion of naturals with respect to this metric is the Urysohn space.

2.The subset $`𝒬𝒟`$ is every dense $`G_\delta `$-set in $`𝒟`$. This means that generic metric triple $`T=(X,\rho ,\mu )`$ has Urysohn space as the space $`(X,\rho )`$.

Proof. The first claim follows from the theorem 1 which claimed in particular that the set of distance matrices which are universal is a set of type $`G_\delta `$ in $``$, and from a general fact that the set all measures on separable metrizable space such that the given every dense $`G_\delta `$-set (in our case - $``$) has measure 1, is in its turn every dense $`G_\delta `$-set in the space of all measures in weak topology. The second claim follows from the fact that intersection of $`G_\delta `$-set with any subspace in Polish space is also $`G_\delta `$-set in induced topology.

Now we can give a probabilistic interpretation of our construction of universal matrix and Urysohn space. Namely, we will give a family of measures from the set $`𝒫`$.

Example.

Let $`\gamma `$ is a continuous measure on open half-line $`\dot{𝐑}_+^1`$ with full support - for example Gaussian measure in the half-line. We will define inductively the measure $`\nu `$ on cone of distance matrices $``$ (indeed on $`^0`$) by construction of its finite dimensional projection on the cones $`_n^0`$ as follow. The distribution of the entry $`r_{1,2}`$ is distribution $`\gamma `$. So we have defined the measure on $`_2^0`$, denote it as $`\nu _2`$. Suppose we already define the joint distribution of the entries $`\{r_{i,j}\}_{i,j=1}^n`$ which means that we define a measure $`\nu _n`$ on $`_n^0`$. By lemma 5 the open cone $`_{n+1}^0`$ is homeomorphic to direct product of $`_n^0`$ and open half-space $`𝐑_+^n`$, but we use only the structure of fibratoin: projection $`_n^0\stackrel{p_{n+1}}{}_{n+1}^0`$ \- gives us this structure with the fibers - interior of $`A(r)`$. So in order to define a masure on $`_{n+1}^0`$ with the given measure $`\nu _n`$ on the base $`_n^0`$ it is enough to define the conditional measures on the fibers. Choose each $`r_n`$ and represent the set of admissible vectors $`A(r)`$ as Minkowski sum:

$$A(r)=M_r+\mathrm{\Delta }_n,$$

(see 2.2) or as projection of the direct product $`\pi :M_r\times \mathrm{\Delta }_nM_r+\mathrm{\Delta }_n=A(r)`$. Consider product measure on $`M_r\times \mathrm{\Delta }_n:\gamma _r=m_r\times \gamma `$ where $`m_r`$ is normalized Lebesgue measure on the compact polytope $`M_r`$ and measure $`\gamma `$ was define before, and its projection $`\pi \gamma _r`$ on $`A(r)`$. We define conditional measure on $`A(r)`$ as $`\pi \gamma _r`$.

So we can define a measure on $`_{n+1}`$ denote it $`\nu _{n+1}`$ with given projection $`\nu _n`$ on $`_n^0`$ and with the given set of conditional measures $`\pi \gamma _r`$ on the fibers $`A(r)`$. By definition $`\{\nu _n\}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a concordant systems of cylindric measures on $``$ with respect to projections. $`_n^0\stackrel{p_{n+1}}{}_{n+1}^0`$. Consequently applying Kolmogoroff’s theorem we obtain the true measure $`\nu `$ on $``$. The proof that for $`\nu `$-almost matrices $`r`$ are universal repeats the arguments of the proof of theorem 1, so $`\nu 𝒫`$. This construction indeed is pure combinatorial - we choose randomly a new points of metric space and if we do this sufficiently “random” we obtain in completion the Urysohn space. That is similar to the mentioned Erdos theorem about random graphs. The detales will be done elsewhere.

We can varied the parameters of this construction, but of course it does not give in general a measure from the set $`𝒟`$ (matrix distribution) because it could be not $`S_𝐍`$-invariant, and consequently not from the set $`𝒬`$. It means that these measures does not define a measure on Urysohn space. What we did with this construction is a random countable every dense subset in Urysohn space. A very interesting problem is: how to obtain non degenerated measure on Urysohn space?

The natural but indirect method is to try to construct a measure on $``$ which subtract to all conditions of the theorem 5. We know a few things about geometry, topology and other structures of Urysohn space $`𝒰`$ and about group of its isometries in order to make a direct constructions. Here is a concrete question about measures on it: is it possible to define a measure on $`𝒰`$ such that distance matrix of randomly and independently chosen $`n`$ points has a given (for example Gaussian in the cone $`_n`$) distribution? Even the case $`n=4`$ is interesting. Another important problem - calculation of the matrix distributions for concrete metric triples. Even finite dimensional distributions for compact Lie groups with Haar measure or for some simple manifolds, as I know, never was found.