This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-PMajer-2009-01-13T17:42:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Why_not_just_bounded_contiuous_functions-2009-01-13T17:42:00.000Z","replies":["c-PMajer-2009-01-13T17:42:00.000Z-Why_not_just_bounded_contiuous_functions"],"text":"Why not just bounded contiuous functions","linkableTitle":"Why not just bounded contiuous functions"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-PMajer-2009-01-13T17:42:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Why_not_just_bounded_contiuous_functions-2009-01-13T17:42:00.000Z","replies":["c-PMajer-2009-01-13T17:42:00.000Z-Why_not_just_bounded_contiuous_functions"],"text":"Why not just bounded contiuous functions","linkableTitle":"Why not just bounded contiuous functions"}-->
Hi, the article seems to me very clear and well written; however I took the liberty of changing a bit the presentation of the two embedding theorems, making the embedding directely in the Banach space . The second form that was mentioned, i.e. the space of bounded functions as target, does not seem so relevant, and it is just a consequence of the inclusion of into the space of bounded functions. But if you have a special reason to consider also the larger space I apologize. In any case I would avoid the notation , since is used preferably for spaces of sequences (so this one would better used to denote the space of bounded sequences in X; for the space of bounded functions on X then is somehow more standard).--PMajer (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-01-13T17:42:00.000Z","author":"PMajer","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PMajer-2009-01-13T17:42:00.000Z-Why_not_just_bounded_contiuous_functions","replies":[]}}-->
Add specificity to the reference to the Frechet paper
Went through the entire 72-page paper at least three times, both reading and searching.
Could not find any reference to such an embedding -- the closest instance I could find is that in Item 51, part 2 of the theorem, he defines for a metric space. He doesn't do anything remotely like an embedding with it, though -- rather, he uses it to find a family of disjoint sets which he does some further constructions with. The other two points that look relevant are items 62 and 68, defining a metrization of pointwise convergence for sequences and defining the norm, but again there's no motion towards an embedding.
On the other hand, I see references explicitly attributing the construction to
Fréchet, so I'm probably missing something. Examples:
J. Matoušek. Lectures on discrete geometry. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002, Ch1, p. 17
Bartal, Yair, et al. “Limitations to Fréchet’s Metric Embedding Method.” Journal of Mathematics, vol. 151, no. 1, Dec. 2006, pp. 111–24. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02777357.
However, these cite each other and crucially don't cite Fréchet explicitly. Neither do I see the paper referenced cited anywhere, but that may be due to too-low effort in this particular point.