Groupoid Metrization Theory pp 110  Cite as
Introduction
Abstract
In this chapter we state a general metrization theorem, in the algebraic setting of groupoids, and explain its relationship to several classical results in analysis such as the Macías–Segovia metrization theorem for quasimetric spaces, the Aoki–Rolewicz theorem for quasinormed vector spaces, and the Alexandroff–Urysohn metrization theorem for uniform spaces. The metrization theorem in question is quantitative in nature and involves starting from a given quasisubadditive function defined on the underlying groupoid. We also indicate that our general metrization theorem is sharp.
Keywords
Hardy Space Topological Vector Space Uniform Space Homogeneous Type Normed Vector SpaceThis monograph has two distinct, yet closely interrelated, parts. In the first part (consisting of Chaps. 1 – 3) we develop a metrization theory in the abstract setting of groupoids that, among other things, contains as particular cases the Aoki–Rolewicz theorem for locally bounded topological vector spaces and a sharpened version of the Macías–Segovia metrization theorem for quasimetric spaces. We also indicate how this theory can be used to provide a conceptually natural proof of the Alexandroff–Urysohn metrization theorem for uniform topological spaces. For this portion of our work, the methods employed are predominantly functionalanalytic/algebraic, and the bulk of our results actually hold in the more general context of semigroupoids.
In the second part (comprised of Chaps. 4– 6) we present a multitude of applications of our metrization theory to the area of analysis on quasimetric spaces (with a special emphasis on the structure and role of Hölder functions in such a setting), function space theory (covering topics such as completeness, embeddings, pointwise convergence, and separability of certain large classes of function spaces equipped with locally bounded, yet nonlocally convex, topologies), as well as classical functional analysis, dealing with open mapping and closedgraphtype theorems, and uniform boundedness principles, among other things, in settings where the notions of vector space and norm are significantly weakened. While precise details will be given later, here we wish to note that all our results hold in the class of quasiBanach spaces. Regarding the significance of this category of spaces, in [67] N. Kalton writes that “There are sound reasons to want to develop understanding of these spaces, but the absence of one of the fundamental tools of functional analysis, the Hahn–Banach theorem, has proved a very significant stumbling block. However, there has been some progress in the nonconvex theory and arguably it has contributed to our appreciation of Banach space theory.”
1.1 Overview
In general, a topological space is said to be metrizable provided it is homeomorphic to a metric space. More transparently, a topological space (X, τ) is said to be metrizable if there exists a metric d on X with the property that the topology induced by d on X coincides with τ. As such, metrization theorems are results that give sufficient conditions for a topological space to be metrizable.

The Alexandroff–Urysohn metrization theorem for uniform spaces (topology),

The Macías–Segovia metrization theorem for quasimetric spaces (harmonic analysis), and

The Aoki–Rolewicz theorem for quasinormed vector spaces (functional analysis).
The formal statement of the first theorem above is as follows (the reader is referred to future chapters for definitions clarifying the terminology employed here).
Theorem 1.1 (Alexandroff–Urysohn).
Let X be a topological space. Then X is metrizable if and only if X is Hausdorff and the topology on X is induced by a uniform structure on X that has a countable fundamental system of entourages.
A related version of this theorem states that a uniform space is pseudometrizable (i.e., its topology is induced by a pseudometric) if and only if its uniformity has a countable base. See the discussion in J. Kelley’s book [71, Note 14, p. 186], where it is indicated that Theorem 1.1 originates in [4] (cf. also the discussion in Comment 2.82 in the last part of Sect. 2.2, which further underscores the prominent role of this classical result).
While the fact that the topology induced by a given quasidistance on a quasimetric space is metrizable is readily implied^{1} by Theorem 1.1 (something that was known long before Macías and Segovia’s work in [79]), Macías and Segovia’s main contribution was to bring to prominence the quantitative aspects of this result (in the setting of quasimetric spaces). This is apparent from an inspection of the statement of their theorem, which plays a basic role in the area of analysis on spaces of homogeneous type and which we recall below (as a slight reformulation of [79, Theorem 2, p. 259]).
Theorem 1.2 (MacíasSegovia).
 (1)The function \({(\rho _{{\ast}})}^{\alpha } : X \times X \rightarrow[0,+\infty )\) satisfiesHence, \({(\rho _{{\ast}})}^{\alpha }\) is a distance on X that induces the same topology on X as the original quasidistance ρ. In particular, this topology is metrizable.$$\begin{array}{rcl} \rho _{{\ast}}{(x,y)}^{\alpha } \leq\rho _{ {\ast}}{(x,z)}^{\alpha } + \rho _{ {\ast}}{(z,y)}^{\alpha },\qquad \forall \,x,y,z \in X.& & \end{array}$$(1.3)
 (2)The function ρ _{∗} satisfies the following Höldertype regularity condition of order α:$$\begin{array}{c} \vert \rho _{{\ast}}(x,z)  \rho _{{\ast}}(y,z)\vert \leq\frac{1} {\alpha }\,\max \left \{\rho _{{\ast}}{(x,z)}^{1\alpha },\rho _{ {\ast}}{(y,z)}^{1\alpha }\right \}\rho _{ {\ast}}{(x,y)}^{\alpha }, \\ \forall \,x,y,z \in X\end{array}$$(1.4)
Ever since its original inception, Theorem 1.2 has played a pivotal role in analysis on spaces of homogeneous type since the natural setting for analysis in this context is that of quasimetric spaces. As noted earlier, the latter spaces are in fact metrizable, but it is a rather subtle matter to associate metrics, inducing the same topology, in a way that brings out the quantitative features of the quasimetric space in question in an optimal manner. The seminal work on this topic done by R. Macías and C. Segovia has been very influential in the study of spaces of homogeneous type. In particular, Theorem 1.2 is a popular result that has been widely cited; see, e.g., the discussion in the monographs [32] by Christ, [114] by Stein, [123] by Triebel, [59] by Heinonen, [56] by Han and Sawyer, [38] by David and Semmes, and [39] by Deng and Han, to name a few. Strictly speaking, Macías and Segovia’s original statement of this theorem has 3c ^{2} in place of c(2c + 1) in (1.2) but, as indicated in the discussion in Comment 2.83 at the end of Sect. 2.2, the number c(2c + 1) is the smallest constant for which their approach works as initially intended.
On to a different topic. It is well known that there are many function spaces of basic importance in partial differential equations that are not Banach but merely quasiBanach. Indeed, this is the case for significant portions of the following familiar scales of spaces: Lebesgue spaces, weak Lebesgue spaces, Lorentz spaces, Hardy spaces, weak Hardy spaces, Lorentzbased Hardy spaces, Besov spaces, Triebel–Lizorkin spaces, and weighted versions of these spaces (among many others). In the context of quasinormed spaces, the Aoki–Rolewicz theorem reads as follows (the original references are [7, 103], and an excellent, timely exposition may be found in [69]).
Theorem 1.3 (Aoki–Rolewicz).
Even though, strictly speaking, Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 are distinct results, it is inescapable that, at least formally, they share some basic characteristics (e.g., in [3, p. 319], the Macías–Segovia result is referred to as “an analogue” of the Aoki–Rolewicz theorem). This becomes even more apparent if Theorem 1.3 is reformulated in a (slightly more general, as it turns out) manner that places more emphasis on the quantitative aspects of the phenomenon at hand. For the reader’s convenience, we will first momentarily digress for the purpose of recalling some basic facts and terminology from the theory of topological vector spaces.
A topological vector space is said to be locally bounded provided there exists a (topologically) bounded neighborhood of the zero vector. Recall that, in this context, being bounded means that the set in question is absorbed by each neighborhood of zero (and not that it is geometrically bounded, in the sense of having a finite diameter). Specifically, E is (topologically) bounded if and only if for every neighborhood V of the zero vector there exists a real number \(\lambda _{{\ast}} > 0\) such that \(E \subseteq \lambda V\) for every scalar \(\lambda> \lambda _{{\ast}}\). Also (cf., e.g., [74, (1) p. 159]), a topological vector space X is locally bounded if and only if there exists a quasinorm \(\\cdot \\) on X that yields the same topology on X as the original one (which amounts to the condition that the balls \(\{y \in X :\,\ y\ < r\}\), \(r \in(0,+\infty )\), constitute a fundamental system of neighborhoods for the zero vector). Moreover, a set in a quasinormed space is bounded in the topology induced by the quasinorm if and only if it has finite diameter with respect to the quasinorm. Hence, a quasiBanach space is a complete, locally bounded topological vector space. Let us also recall that a set E in a vector space is said to be balanced if \(\lambda E \subseteq E\) for every scalar λ with \(\vert \lambda \vert \leq1\). Remarkably, a quasinormed vector space is locally convex if and only if it is linearly isomorphic to a normed vector space (local convexity signifies the existence of a fundamental system of neighborhoods for the zero vector consisting of absorbing, balanced, and convex sets; one convenient description of the fact that a subset E of a vector space is convex is that \((\lambda+ \eta )E = \lambda E + \eta E\) for all scalars λ, η > 0). Compare, for example, [69] for more details.
Returning to the mainstream discussion, we record the following more precise version of the Aoki–Rolewicz theorem (again, see the informative discussion in [69]).
Theorem 1.4 (Aoki–Rolewicz).
Then \(\\cdot \\) defined in (1.8) is a pnorm on the vector space X, which is equivalent to the quasinorm \(\vert \!\vert \!\vert \cdot \vert \!\vert \!\vert _{B}\) (and, hence, induces the same topology on X as the original one). As a consequence, X is a locally pconvex vector space whenever c > 2 and a locally convex vector space whenever \(c \leq2\) , and the topology on X is metrizable via a twosided invariant distance.
On the face of the evidence presented so far, an optimistic observer would hope that the formal analogies between the statements of Theorems 1.2 and 1.4 would indicate that there is a more general phenomenon at work here encompassing the named results as particular manifestations. In this vein, it is worth recalling a popular dictum of E.H. Moore to the effect that whenever there are parallel theories, typically there is one that subsumes them all.
One of the goals of the present monograph is to shed light on this issue by proving a metrization theorem that contains both Theorem 1.2 and Theorem 1.4 (hence also Theorem 1.3) in a canonical fashion and that may also be used to provide a conceptually natural proof of Theorem 1.1. We manage to accomplish this without compromising the sharpness of the quantitative aspects of the results in question (for example, even when specialized to the particular case of quasimetric spaces our results yield a significant improvement of Theorem 1.2) and, also, are able to work under minimal algebraic assumptions, which ensures a desirable degree of versatility for our result. The latter aspect is particularly important for applications, as will become apparent from the discussion in Chaps. 4– 6, where the impact of this metrization theory on other branches of mathematics is brought to light.
The unifying language that permits such a generalization is that of groupoids. Recall that the concept of groupoid was originally introduced by H. Brandt^{3} in 1926 as an algebraic structure generalizing the notion of group by allowing the multiplication to be just partially defined (for more on this topic see the discussion in Sect. 2).
1.2 First Look at the Groupoid Metrization Theorem
A sample of the metrization results proved here in the context of groupoids is as follows (the body of the monograph contains stronger results in the sense that they indicate what can be achieved with weaker, or fewer, assumptions; see also Theorem 3.26 for a substantially expanded version of this result).
Theorem 1.5.
Let \((G,{\ast},{(\cdot )}^{1})\) be a groupoid, with partial multiplication ∗ and inverse operation \({(\cdot )}^{1}\) . For each \(N \in\mathbb{N}\) denote by G ^{(N)} the set of all ordered Ntuples of elements in G whose product (in the given order) is meaningfully defined. Furthermore, denote by G ^{(0)} the unit space of G, and introduce \({\mathcal{G}}^{\mathrm{R}} :=\{ (a,b) \in G \times G :\, (a,{b}^{1}) \in{G}^{(2)}\}\) .
 (1)The function ψ _{reg} is symmetric, in the sense thatand ψ _{reg} is quasisubadditive, in the precise sense that, with C _{1} denoting the same constant as in (1.10), one has$$\begin{array}{rcl} \psi _{\mathrm{reg}}({a}^{1}) = \psi _{\mathrm{ reg}}(a)\,\,\,\text{ for every }\,\,a \in G,& & \end{array}$$(1.17)$$\psi _{\mathrm{reg}}(a {\ast} b) \leq C_{1}\max \{\psi _{\mathrm{reg}}(a),\psi _{\mathrm{reg}}(b)\}\quad \text{ for all }\,\,(a,b) \in{G}^{(2)}.$$(1.18)
 (2)
 (3)For each β ∈ (0,α] the function ψ _{reg} is βsubadditive in the sense that one has (with a natural interpretation when \(\beta= \alpha= +\infty \) )$$\begin{array}{rcl} \psi _{\mathrm{reg}}(a {\ast} b) \leq {\left (\psi _{\mathrm{reg}}{(a)}^{\beta } + \psi _{\mathrm{ reg}}{(b)}^{\beta }\right )}^{\frac{1} {\beta } },\qquad \forall \,(a,b) \in{G}^{(2)}.& & \end{array}$$(1.20)
 (4)For each finite number β ∈ (0,α] the function ψ _{reg} satisfies the following Höldertype regularity condition of order β:whenever \((a,b) \in {\mathcal{G}}^{\mathrm{R}}\) (with the understanding that when β ≥ 1, one also imposes the condition that \(a,b\not\in {G}^{(0)}\)). Furthermore, the upper bound (1.14) for the exponent β appearing in this Höldertype regularity result is sharp.$$\begin{array}{rcl} \left \vert \psi _{\mathrm{reg}}(a)  \psi _{\mathrm{reg}}(b)\right \vert \leq\frac{1} {\beta }\,\max \,\left \{\psi _{\mathrm{reg}}{(a)}^{1\beta },\psi _{\mathrm{ reg}}{(b)}^{1\beta }\right \}{\left [\psi _{\mathrm{ reg}}(a \ast {b}^{1})\right ]}^{\beta }\qquad & & \end{array}$$(1.21)
 (5)
The function \(\psi _{\mathrm{reg}} : \left (G,\tau _{\psi }^{\mathrm{R}}\right ) \rightarrow[0,+\infty )\) is continuous, and for every a ∈ G and r > 0 the right ψ _{reg} ball \(B_{\psi _{\mathrm{reg}}}^{\mathrm{R}}(a,r) :=\{ b \in G :\, (a,b) \in {\mathcal{G}}^{\mathrm{R}}\text{ and }\psi _{\mathrm{ reg}}(a \ast {b}^{1}) < r\}\) is open in the topology \(\tau _{\psi }^{\mathrm{R}}\).
 (6)For each finite number β ∈ (0,α] define the functionThen d _{ψ,β} ^{R} is a partially defined distance on G with domain \({\mathcal{G}}^{\mathrm{R}}\) , i.e., it satisfies the following conditions:$$\begin{array}{rcl} d_{\psi ,\beta }^{\mathrm{R}} : {\mathcal{G}}^{\mathrm{R}} \rightarrow[0,+\infty ),\,\,\quad d_{ \psi ,\beta }^{\mathrm{R}}(a,b) :={ \left [\psi _{\mathrm{ reg}}(a \ast {b}^{1})\right ]}^{\beta },\quad \forall \,(a,b) \in {\mathcal{G}}^{\mathrm{R}}.& & \end{array}$$(1.22)Moreover, the topology induced by the partially defined distance \(d_{\psi ,\beta }^{\mathrm{R}}\) on G is \(\tau _{\psi }^{\mathrm{R}}\).$$\begin{array}{rcl} & & \mathit{for\ any}\ (a,b) \in {\mathcal{G}}^{\mathrm{R}},\ \mathit{one\ has}\ d_{ \psi ,\beta }^{\mathrm{R}}(a,b) = 0\ \mathit{if \ and\ only\ if }\ a = b, \\ & & d_{\psi ,\beta }^{\mathrm{R}}(a,b) = d_{ \psi ,\beta }^{\mathrm{R}}(b,a)\ \mathit{for\ every}\ (a,b) \in {\mathcal{G}}^{\mathrm{R}}, \\ & & d_{\psi ,\beta }^{\mathrm{R}}(a,b) \leq d_{ \psi ,\beta }^{\mathrm{R}}(a,c) + d_{ \psi ,\beta }^{\mathrm{R}}(c,b)\ \mathit{for\ all}\ (a,c),(c,b) \in {\mathcal{G}}^{\mathrm{R}}. \end{array}$$(1.23)
 (7)The partially defined distance \(d_{\psi ,\beta }^{\mathrm{R}}\) introduced in (1.22) is rightinvariant, in the sense thatIn the particular case when G is a group, \({\mathcal{G}}^{\mathrm{R}} = G \times G\) and, hence, the function \(d_{\psi ,\beta }^{\mathrm{R}}\) is a genuine rightinvariant distance on G.$$\begin{array}{c} (a,b) \in {\mathcal{G}}^{\mathrm{R}}\text{ and}\ c \in G\text{ such that }(a,c),(b,c) \in{G}^{(2)} \\ \Longrightarrow\,(a {\ast} c,b {\ast} c) \in {\mathcal{G}}^{\mathrm{R}}\text{ and }d_{ \psi ,\beta }^{\mathrm{R}}(a {\ast} c,b {\ast} c) = d_{ \psi ,\beta }^{\mathrm{R}}(a,b)\end{array}$$(1.24)
Theorem 1.5 contains Macías and Segovia’s metrization result formulated in Theorem 1.2 when specialized to the particular case when the groupoid G is the socalled pair groupoid X ×X associated with the ambient set X (as described in Example 2.31) of a quasimetric space. Moreover, Theorem 1.5 subsumes Aoki and Rolewicz’s metrization result stated in Theorem 1.4 in the scenario in which the groupoid G is the underlying (Abelian) additive group of a given vector space X (cf. Example 2.29). The interplay between these results is studied in more detail in the body of the monograph; see the discussion in Sect. 3.2.3 in this regard. In particular, here we also elaborate on the manner in which Theorem 1.5 contains the Alexandroff–Urysohn metrization theorem (formulated in Theorem 1.1).
Another perspective that highlights the usefulness of a sharp Hölder regularity exponent α (in the context of (1.4)) is as follows. On the one hand, one naturally expects to have α = 1 in the case when (X, ρ) is actually a metric space, since a distance function is Lipschitz in each of its variables. On the other hand, in the setting of Theorem 1.2, the condition that ensures that (X, ρ) is a metric space is c = 1, and, according to (1.2)–(1.4), this only yields the generally unsatisfactory result that a distance function is Hölder continuous of order 1 ∕ log_{2} 3. By way of contrast, the value of α in (1.14) becomes, as expected, 1 when C _{1} = 2.
Our approach builds on and extends the work of Peetre and Sparr [97] (in the setting of normed Abelian groups), Gustavsson [53] (where a metrization theorem for semigroupoids is proved for a nonoptimal exponent α, namely \(\alpha= {(2\,\mathrm{log}_{2}\,C_{1})}^{1}\), i.e., half the value of α in (3.190)), and the classical work of Frink [49]. For a more indepth discussion elaborating on the connections between Theorems 1.5 and 1.1–1.4, which also provides further motivational examples and background, the reader is referred to Sects. 3.2.3 and 3.2.4.
The organization of the monograph is as follows. The material in Sects. 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 amounts to a concise (yet selfcontained) introduction to the theory of semigroupoids and groupoids, and in Sect. 2.2 we review topics of a topological flavor. The bulk of the work pertaining to quantitative metrization results is concentrated in Chap. 3. In particular, the regularization results for quasisubadditive mappings established in Sect. 3.1 greatly facilitate the presentation of our main groupoid metrization theorem. The latter is stated in Sect. 3.2.1 and proved in Sect. 3.2.2, and its various connections with Macías–Segovia, Aoki–Rolewicz, and Alexandroff–Urysohn theorems are highlighted in Sect. 3.2.3. The scope of this result is further expanded in Sect. 3.3.1 to the setting of semigroupoids. Several applications of this semigroupoid metrization theory are subsequently discussed in Sects. 3.3.2 and 3.3.3. Next, in Sect. 3.4, we state and prove a sharpened version of the Macías–Segovia result; cf. Theorem 3.46.
Moving on, in Chap. 4, we present a significant number of applications of our metrization theorems to analysis on quasimetric spaces. Without going into detail, the list of topics considered in this chapter includes extensions of Hölder functions, separation, density and embedding properties of Hölder functions, the regularized distance function to a set, Whitneylike partitions of unity via Hölder functions, the smoothness indexes of a quasimetric space, distribution theory on quasimetric spaces, Hardy spaces on Ahlforsregular quasimetric spaces, approximation to the identity on Ahlforsregular quasimetric spaces, biLipschitz Euclidean embeddings of quasimetric spaces, the quasimetric version of Kuratowski’s and Fréchet’s embedding theorems, the Pompeiu–Hausdorff quasidistance on quasimetric spaces, and the Gromov–Pompeiu–Hausdorff distance between quasimetric spaces.
Chapter 5 is devoted to presenting applications of the metrization theory developed in Chap. 3 to function space theory, with a special emphasis on topics such as completeness, embeddings, pointwise convergence, and separability of certain inclusive classes of function spaces endowed with locally bounded, yet nonlocally convex, topologies. Finally, in Chap. 6 we revisit some of the cornerstones of classical functional analysis (including open mapping and closedgraphtype theorems, as well as uniform boundedness principles) in settings where the traditional context of a normed vector space is significantly relaxed. Once again, our metrization theory developed in the earlier chapters plays a key role in this endeavor.
Footnotes
 1.
Any quasimetric space (X, ρ) may be canonically viewed as a uniform space whose uniformity has a countable fundamental system of entourages, say, \(\left \{(x,y) \in X \times X :\, \rho (x,y) < {n}^{1}\right \}\), \(n \in\mathbb{N}\).
 2.
The interested reader is referred to [99] for historical references pertaining to quasinormed spaces.
 3.
Strictly speaking, in [21] Brandt introduced a smaller class of groupoids, i.e., what is nowadays referred to as transitive groupoids.
Notes
Acknowledgements
In the early stages of its inception, various parts of this monograph were used to teach several topic courses at the graduate level at the University of Missouri. We wish to take this opportunity to thank our students, especially Ryan Alvarado, Kevin Brewster, Dan Brigham, Brock Schmutzler, and Elia Ziadé, for their active participation and their careful reading of preliminary notes. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the support of the Simons Foundation Grant No. 200750 as well as the US NSF Grants DMS1201736 and DMS0653180. Last but not least, the authors thank the anonymous referees for making a number of useful suggestions, which have improved the presentation.
References
 1.L.V. Ahlfors, Bounded analytic functions. Duke Math. J. 14, 1–11 (1947)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 2.H. Aimar, B. Iaffei, L. Nitti, On the MacíasSegovia metrization theorem of quasimetric spaces. Revista U. Mat. Argentina 41, 67–75 (1998)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 3.F. Albiac, N.J. Kalton, Lipschitz structure of quasiBanach spaces. Israel J. Math. 170, 317–335 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 4.P. Alexandroff, P. Urysohn, Une condition nécessaire et suffisante pour qu’une classe (L) soit une classe (D). C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 177, 1274–1277 (1923)Google Scholar
 5.R. Alvarado, D. Mitrea, I. Mitrea, M. Mitrea, Weighted mixednormed spaces on quasimetric spaces, preprint (2012)Google Scholar
 6.I. Amemiya, A generalization of RieszFischer’s theorem. J. Math. Soc. Jpn. 5, 353–354 (1953)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 7.T. Aoki, Locally bounded topological spaces. Proc. Jpn. Acad. Tokyo 18, 588–594 (1942)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 8.N. Aronszajn, Quelques remarques sur les relations entre les notions d’écart régulier et de distance. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 44, 653–657 (1938)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 9.P. Assouad, Espaces métriques, plongements, facteurs. Thèse de doctorat d’État, Orsay, 1977MATHGoogle Scholar
 10.P. Assouad, Étude d’une dimension métrique liée à la possibilité de plongements dans \({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\). C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Série A 288, 731–734 (1979)Google Scholar
 11.P. Assouad, Plongements Lipschitziens dans \({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\). Bull. Soc. Math. France 111, 429–448 (1983)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 12.S. Banach, Metrische Gruppen. Studia Math. 3, 101–113 (1931)Google Scholar
 13.S. Banach, Théorie des Opérations Linéaires, Warsaw, 1932Google Scholar
 14.A. Benedek, R. Panzone, The space L ^{P}, with mixed norm. Duke Math. J. 28(3), 301–324 (1961)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 15.C. Bennett, R. Sharpley, Interpolation of operators. Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 129 (Academic, New York, 1988)Google Scholar
 16.J. Bergh, J. Löfström, Interpolation Spaces. An Introduction (Springer, Berlin, 1976)Google Scholar
 17.A.S. Besicovitch, I.J. Schoenberg, On Jordan arcs and Lipschitz classes of functions defined on them. Acta Math. 106, 113–136 (1961)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 18.R.H. Bing, Metrization of topological spaces. Can. J. Math. 3, 175–186 (1951)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 19.G. Birkhoff, A note on topological groups. Compositio Math. 3, 427–430 (1956)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 20.N. Bourbaki, Topologie générale, Chapitre 9. Utilisation des nombres réels en topologie générale (Act. Sci. Ind. 1045) (Hermann, Paris, 1958)Google Scholar
 21.H. Brandt, Über eine Verallgemeinerung des Gruppenbegriffes. Math. Annalen 96, 360–366 (1926)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 22.L.G. Brown, Note on the open mapping theorem. Pac. J. Math. 38(1), 25–28 (1971)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 23.R. Brown, From groups to groupoids: a brief survey. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 19, 113–134 (1987)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 24.R. Brown, Topology and Groupoids (BookSurge Publishing, 2006)Google Scholar
 25.R.H. Bruck, A Survey of Binary Systems (Ergebnisse der Mathematik N.F. 20) (Springer, Berlin, 1958)Google Scholar
 26.Y. Brudnyĭ, N. Krugljak, Interpolation Functors and Interpolation Spaces, vol. I (NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
 27.D. Burago, Y. Burago, S.V. Ivanov, A Course in Metric Geometry (American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
 28.F. Cabello Sánchez, J.M.F. Castillo, Banach space techniques underpinning a theory for nearly additive mappings, Dissertationes Math. (Rozprawy Mat.), vol. 404, 2002Google Scholar
 29.J. Cerdà, J. Martín, P. Silvestre, Capacitary function spaces. Collect. Math. 62(1), 95–118 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 30.E.W. Chittenden, On the equivalence of écart and voisinage. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 18, 161–166 (1917)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 31.E.W. Chittenden, On the metrization problem and related problems in the theory of abstract sets. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 33, 13–34 (1927)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 32.M. Christ, in Lectures on Singular Integral Operators. CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, vol. 77 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1990)Google Scholar
 33.R.R. Coifman, Y. Meyer, E.M. Stein, Some new function spaces and their applications to harmonic analysis. J. Funct. Anal. 62, 304–335 (1985)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 34.R.R. Coifman, G. Weiss, in Analyse Harmonique NonCommutative sur Certains Espaces Homogènes. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 242 (Springer, Berlin, 1971)Google Scholar
 35.R.R. Coifman, G. Weiss, Extensions of Hardy spaces and their use in analysis. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 83(4) 569–645 (1977)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 36.J. Cygan, Subadditivity of homogeneous norms on certain nilpotent Lie groups. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 83, 69–70 (1981)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 37.G. David, J.L. Journé, S. Semmes, Opérateurs de CalderónZygmund, fonctions paraaccrétives et interpolation. Rev. Math. Iberoam. 1, 1–56 (1985)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 38.G. David, S. Semmes, in Fractured Fractals and Broken Dreams: Selfsimilar Geometry Through Metric and Measure. Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 7 (Clarendon, Oxford University Press, New York, 1997)Google Scholar
 39.D. Deng, Y. Han, in Harmonic Analysis on Spaces of Homogeneous Type. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1966 (Springer, Berlin, 2009)Google Scholar
 40.A. Di Concilio, S.A. Naimpally, A unified approach to metrization problems. Acta Math. Hungarica 53(1–2), 109–113 (1998)Google Scholar
 41.J. Dieudonné, L. Schwartz, La dualité dans les espaces (F) et (LF). Ann. Inst. Fourier, Grenoble 1 (1949), 61–101 (1950)Google Scholar
 42.J.J. Dudziak, Vitushkin’s Conjecture for Removable Sets (Universitext) (Springer, Berlin, 2010)Google Scholar
 43.V.A. Efremovič, A.S. Švarc, A new definition of uniform spaces. Metrization of proximity spaces, (Russian) Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR (N.S.) 89, 393–396 (1953)Google Scholar
 44.R. Engelking, General Topology (Heldermann, Berlin, 1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
 45.G.B. Folland, E. Stein, Hardy Spaces on Homogeneous Groups (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1982)MATHGoogle Scholar
 46.M. Frazier, B. Jawerth, Decomposition of Besov spaces. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 34, 777–799 (1985)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 47.M. Frazier, B. Jawerth, A discrete transform and decompositions of distribution spaces. J. Funct. Anal. 93, 34–170 (1990)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 48.M. Fréchet, Les dimensions d’une ensemble abstrait. Math. Ann. 68, 145–168 (1909–1910)Google Scholar
 49.A.H. Frink, Distance functions and the metrization problem. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 43, 133–142 (1937)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 50.I. Genebashvili, A. Gogatishvili, V. Kokilashvili, M. Krbec, in Weighted Theory for Integral Transforms on Spaces of Homogeneous Type. Pitman Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Addison Wesley Longman Inc. vol. 92 (1998)Google Scholar
 51.A. Gogatishvili, P. Koskela, N. Shanmugalingam, in Interpolation Properties of Besov Spaces Defined on Metric Spaces. Mathematische Nachrichten, Special Issue: Erhard Schmidt Memorial Issue, Part II, vol. 283, Issue 2 (2010), pp. 215–231Google Scholar
 52.A. Grothendieck, in Produits Tensoriels Topologique et Espaces Nucléaires. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 16 (AMS, Providence, 1955)Google Scholar
 53.J. Gustavsson, Metrization of quasimetric spaces. Math. Scand. 35, 56–60 (1974)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 54.P. Hajłasz, Whitney’s example by way of Assouad’s embedding. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 131(11), 3463–3467 (2003)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 55.Y. Han, D. Müller, D. Yang, A theory of Besov and TriebelLizorkin spaces on metric measure spaces modeled on CarnotCarathéodory spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. no. 893409, 1–250 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 56.Y. Han, E. Sawyer, in LittlewoodPaley Theory on Spaces of Homogeneous Type and the Classical Function Spaces. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 530 (AMS, Providence, 1994)Google Scholar
 57.F. Hausdorff, Grundzüge der Mengenlehre (Von Veit, Leipzig, 1914)MATHGoogle Scholar
 58.W. Hebisch, A. Sikora, A smooth subadditive homogeneous norm on a homogeneous group. Studia Math. 96(3), 231–236 (1990)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 59.J. Heinonen, Lectures on Analysis on Metric Spaces, Universitext (Springer, New York, 2001)Google Scholar
 60.T. Holmstedt, Interpolation of quasinormed spaces. Math. Scand. 26, 177–199 (1970)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 61.L. Hörmander, The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators, vol. I (reprint of the 2nd edition 1990) (Springer, Berlin, 2003)Google Scholar
 62.G. Hu, D. Yang, Y. Zhou, Boundedness of singular integrals in Hardy spaces on spaces of homogeneous type. Taiwanese J. Math. 133(1), 91–135 (2009)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 63.T. Husain, Sspaces and the open mapping theorem. Pac. J. Math. 12(1), 253–271 (1962)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 64.T. Husain, Introduction to Topological Groups (W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1966)MATHGoogle Scholar
 65.S. Kakutani, Über die Metrisation der topologischen Gruppen. Proc. Imp. Acad. Jpn. 12, 82–84 (1936)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 66.N.J. Kalton, Basic sequences in Fspaces and their applications. Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. (2) 19(2), 151–167 (1974/1975)Google Scholar
 67.N.J. Kalton, in QuasiBanach spaces, ed. by W.B. Johnson, J. Lindenstrauss. Handbook of the Geometry of Banach Spaces. Chapter 25 in vol. 2 Elsevier Science B. V. (2003)Google Scholar
 68.N. Kalton, S. Mayboroda, M. Mitrea, in Interpolation of HardySobolevBesovTriebelLizorkin Spaces and Applications to Problems in Partial Differential Equations, ed. by L. De Carli, M. Milman. Interpolation Theory and Applications. Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 445 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2007), pp. 121–177Google Scholar
 69.N.J. Kalton, N.T. Peck, J.W. Roberts, in An Fspace Sampler. London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series, vol. 89 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984)Google Scholar
 70.A. Kamińska, Some remarks on OrliczLorentz spaces. Math. Nachr. 147, 29–38 (1990)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 71.J.L. Kelley, General Topology (van Nostrand, Toronto, 1955)Google Scholar
 72.M.D. Kirszbraun, Über die zusammenziehende und Lipschitzsche Transformationen. Fund. Math. 22, 77–108 (1934)Google Scholar
 73.P. Koskela, N. Shanmugalingam, H. Tuominen, Removable sets for the Poincaré inequality on metric spaces. Indiana Math. J. 49, 333–352 (2000)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 74.G. Köthe, Topological Vector Spaces I (Springer, Berlin, 1969)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 75.C. Kuratowski, Quelques problèmes concernant les espaces métriques nonséparables. Fund. Math. 25, 534–545 (1935)Google Scholar
 76.S. Leader, Metrization of proximity spaces. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 18, 1084–1088 (1967)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 77.J. Luukkainen, H. MovahediLankarani, Minimal biLipschitz embedding dimension of ultrametric spaces. Fund. Math. 144, 181–193 (1994)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 78.J. Luukkainen, E. Saksman, Every complete doubling metric space carries a doubling measure. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 126(2), 531–534 (1998)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 79.R.A. Macías, C. Segovia, Lipschitz functions on spaces of homogeneous type. Adv. Math. 33, 257–270 (1979)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 80.R.A. Macías, C. Segovia, A decomposition into atoms of distributions on spaces of homogeneous type. Adv. Math. 33(3), 271–309 (1979)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 81.E.J. McShane, Extension of range of functions. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 40, 837–842 (1934)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 82.D. Mitrea, I. Mitrea, M. Mitrea, E. Ziadé, Abstract capacitary estimates and the completeness and separability of certain classes of nonlocally convex topological vector spaces. J. Funct. Anal. 262, 4766–4830 (2012)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 83.I. Mitrea, M. Mitrea, E. Ziadé, in A quantitative Open Mapping Theorem for quasipseudonormed groups, Advances in Harmonic Analysis and Applications, a volume in honor of K.I. Oskolkov, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics, 25, 259–286 (2013)Google Scholar
 84.D. Montgomery, L. Zippin, Topological Transformation Groups (Interscience Publishers, New York, 1955)MATHGoogle Scholar
 85.S. MontgomerySmith, in Boyd indices of OrliczLorentz spaces. Function Spaces (Edwardsville, IL, 1994). Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 172 (Dekker, New York, 1995), pp. 321–334Google Scholar
 86.P.S. Muhly, Coordinates in Operator Algebras, book manuscript (1997)Google Scholar
 87.J.R. Munkres, Topology, 2nd edn. (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
 88.J. Nagata, On a necessary and sufficient condition of metrizability. J. Inst. Polytech. Osaka City Univ. Ser. A. Math. 1, 93–100 (1950)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 89.F. Nazarov, S. Treil, A. Vol’berg, Tbtheorem on nonhomogeneous spaces. Acta Math. 190(2), 151–239 (2003)Google Scholar
 90.V.W. Niemytzki, On the third axiom of metric spaces. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 29, 507–513 (1927)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 91.S. Okada, W.J. Ricker, E.A. Sánchez Pérez, in Optimal Domain and Integral Extension of Operators. Operator Theory, Advances and Applications, vol. 180 (Birkhäuser, Basel, 2008)Google Scholar
 92.J.C. Oxtoby, Cartesian products of Baire spaces. Fund. Math. 49, 157–166 (1961)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 93.M. Paluszyński, K. Stempak, On quasimetric and metric spaces. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 137, 4307–4312 (2009)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 94.P. Pansu, Métriques de CarnotCarathéodory et quasiisométries des espaces symétriques de rang un. Ann. Math. 129, 1–60 (1989)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 95.A.R. Pears, Dimension Theory of General Spaces (Cambridge University Press, London, 1975)MATHGoogle Scholar
 96.J. Peetre, Espaces d’interpolation, généralisations, applications. Rend. Sem. Mat. Fis. Milano 34, 133–164 (1964)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 97.J. Peetre, G. Sparr, Interpolation of normed Abelian groups. Ann. Math. Pura Appl. 92, 217–262 (1972)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 98.B. Pettis, On continuity and openness of homomorphisms in topological groups. Ann. Math. 54, 293–308 (1950)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 99.A. Pietsch, History of Banach Spaces and Linear Operators (Birkhäuser, Boston, 2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
 100.D. Pompeiu, Sur la continuité des fonctions de variables complexes (Thèse), GauthierVillars, Paris, 1905; Ann. Fac. Sci. de Toulouse 7, 264–315 (1905)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 101.J. Renault, in A Groupoid Approach to C ^{∗} Algebras. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 793 (Springer, Berlin, 1980)Google Scholar
 102.A.P. Robertson, W. Robertson, On the closed graph theorem. Proc. Glasgow Math. Ass. 3, 9–12 (1956)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 103.S. Rolewicz, On a certain class of linear metric spaces. Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. Sér. Sci. Math. Astronom. Phys. 5, 471–473 (1957)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 104.S. Rolewicz, Metric Linear Spaces (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1985)MATHGoogle Scholar
 105.D. Rolfsen, Alternative metrization proofs. Can. J. Math. 18, 750–757 (1966)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 106.H.L. Royden, Real Analysis, 2nd edn. (MacMillan, New York, 1968)Google Scholar
 107.W. Rudin, Real and Complex Analysis (McGrawHill, New York, 1976)Google Scholar
 108.W. Rudin, in Functional Analysis, 2nd edn. International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics (McGrawHill, New York, 1991)Google Scholar
 109.T. Runst, W. Sickel, Sobolev Spaces of Fractional Order, Nemytskij Operators, and Nonlinear Partial Differential Operators (de Gruyter, Berlin, 1996)Google Scholar
 110.S. Semmes, Bilipschitz embeddings of metric spaces into Euclidean spaces. Publ. Math. 43(2), 571–653 (1999)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 111.R. Sikorski, Boolean Algebras (Springer, Berlin, 1960)MATHGoogle Scholar
 112.Y. Smirnov, A necessary and sufficient condition for metrizability of a topological space. (Russian) Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR (N.S.) 77, 197–200 (1951)Google Scholar
 113.E.M. Stein, in Singular Integrals and Differentiability Properties of Functions. Princeton Mathematical Series, No. 30 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1970)Google Scholar
 114.E.M. Stein, Harmonic Analysis: RealVariable Methods, Orthogonality, and Oscillatory Integrals (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
 115.A.H. Stone, Sequences of coverings. Pac. J. Math. 10, 689–691 (1960)MATHGoogle Scholar
 116.X. Tolsa, Painlevé’s problem and the semiadditivity of analytic capacity. Acta Math. 190, 105–149 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 117.X. Tolsa, Analytic capacity, rectifiability, and the Cauchy integral, in Proceedings of the ICM, Madrid, 2006, pp. 1505–1527Google Scholar
 118.A. Torchinsky, Interpolation of operators and Orlicz classes. Studia Math. 59, 177–207 (1976)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 119.H. Triebel, Interpolation Theory, Function Spaces, Differential Operators, 2nd revised and enlarged edition (Johann Ambrosius Barth, Heidelberg, 1995)Google Scholar
 120.H. Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces (Birkhäuser, Berlin, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 121.H. Triebel, in Theory of Function Spaces, II. Monographs in Mathematics, vol. 84 (Birkhäuser, Basel, 1992)Google Scholar
 122.H. Triebel, A new approach to function spaces on spaces of homogeneous type. Rev. Mat. Comput. 18(1), 7–48 (2005)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 123.H. Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces III (Birkhäuser, Basel, 2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
 124.A. Tychonoff, Über einen Metrisationssatz von P. Urysohn. Math. Ann. 95, 139–142 (1926)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 125.P. Urysohn, Zum Metrisationsproblem. Math. Ann. 94, 309–315 (1925)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 126.D.A. Vladimirov, in Boolean Algebras in Analysis. Mathematics and Its Applications (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2002)Google Scholar
 127.A.L. Vol’berg, S.V. Konyagin, On measures with the doubling condition. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 51(3), 666–675 (1987) (Russian); translation in Math. USSRIzv., 30(3), 629–638 (1988)Google Scholar
 128.A. Weil, Sur les espaces à structure uniforme et sur la topologie générale. Act. Sci. Ind. Paris 551 (1937)Google Scholar
 129.H. Whitney, Analytic extensions of functions defined on closed sets. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 36, 63–89 (1934)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 130.A.C. Zaanen, Integration (NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 1967)MATHGoogle Scholar