Extensions of functions - lecture notes

Krzysztof J. Ciosmak
University of Oxford, Mathematical Institute, Oxford, United
Kingdom
Email address: [Link]@[Link]
Abstract. The aim of the course is to present several results on extensions
of functions. Among the most important are Kirszbraun’s and Whitney’s the-
orems. They provide powerful technical tools in many problems of analysis.
One way to view these theorems is that they show that there exists an in-
terpolation of data with certain properties. In this context they are useful in
computer science, e.g. in clustering of data and in dimension reduction.
 Contents

Chapter 1. Extensions of Lipschitz maps 5

1. McShane’s theorem 5
2. Kirszbraun’s theorem 6
3. Kneser–Poulsen conjecture 8
4. Continuity of extensions 9

Chapter 2. Whitney’s extension theorem 13

1. Covering theorems 13
2. Partitions of unity 15
3. Whitney’s extension theorem 16
Chapter 3. Minimal Lipschtiz extensions to differentiable functions 19
1. Affine jets 19
2. Extension problem 19
3. Proofs 20
Chapter 4. Ball’s extension theorem 27
1. Markov type and cotype 27
2. Statement of the theorem 30
3. Examples 36
Chapter 5. Assesment and references 37
1. Reading list 37
2. Assesment 37
Additional references 37

Bibliography 39
Additionnal Topics and References 41

3
 CHAPTER 1

Extensions of Lipschitz maps

The first lecture is devoted to study of extensions of Lipschitz maps. Suppose

that we are given two metric spaces (X, dX ) and (Y, dY ), then we say that a map
f : X → Y Lipschitz provided that there exists a finite constant L such that
dY (f (x1 ), f (x2 )) ≤ LdX (x1 , x2 ) for all x1 , x2 ∈ X.
An optimal constant is the Lipschitz constant of f . If L is the optimal constant
then we say that f is L-Lipschitz.

1. McShane’s theorem
In this section we shall consider functions defined on an arbitrary metric space
(X, d) with values in the real line.
Before we prove the main theorem we shall need simple lemmata.
Lemma 1.1. Let L ≥ 0. Suppose that F is a family of L-Lipschitz functions
f : X → R. Then sup{f | f ∈ F} and inf{f | f ∈ F} are L-Lipschitz.
Proof. Take any f ∈ F. Then for any x, y ∈ X there is
f (x) − f (y) ≤ Ld(x, y).
Therefore
f (x) ≤ Ld(x, y) + sup{f (y) | f ∈ F}.
Taking the supremum on the left-hand side proves that sup{f | f ∈ F} is L-
Lipschitz. The proof for inf{f | f ∈ F} follows analogous lines. 
Lemma 1.2. Let y ∈ X. Then the function d(·, y) : X → R is 1-Lipschitz.
Proof. This follows immediately from the triangle inequality:
|d(x1 , y) − d(x2 , y)| ≤ d(x1 , x2 ).

The following is a theorem of McShane, see [13].
Theorem 1.3 (McShane). Suppose that A ⊂ X and that f : A → R is a
Lipschitz function. Then there exists an extension of f , i.e. a function f˜: X → R
such that f˜|A = f , with with the Lipschitz constant as that of f .
Moreover, there exists the smallest and the greatest functions f1 and f2 respec-
tively that satisfy these properties. They are given by the formulae
f1 (x) = sup{f (a) − Ld(x, a) | a ∈ A} for x ∈ X
and
f2 (x) = inf{f (a) + Ld(a, x) | a ∈ A} for x ∈ X.
5
6 1. EXTENSIONS OF LIPSCHITZ MAPS

The proof resembles the proof of the Hahn–Banach theorem.

Proof. Let L be the Lipschitz constant of f . We want to find an L-Lipschitz
f˜ such that for x ∈ X, a ∈ A
(1.1) |f˜(x) − f (a)| ≤ Ld(x, a).
Observe that this already implies that f˜ is an extension of f .
Now, condition (1.1) is equivalent to that for all a1 , a2 ∈ A and x ∈ X there is
(1.2) f (a1 ) − Ld(x, a1 ) ≤ f˜(x) ≤ f (a2 ) + Ld(x, a2 ).
From Lemma 1.2 we infer that functions
x 7→ f (a1 ) − Ld(x, a1 ) and x 7→ f (a2 ) + Ld(a2 , x)
are both L-Lipschitz. Lemma 1.1 tells us that both
f1 (x) = sup{f (a) − Ld(x, a) | a ∈ A} and f2 (x) = inf{f (a) + Ld(a, x) | a ∈ A}
are L-Lipschitz. Function f1 satisfies the left-hand side inequality of (1.2) while f2
satisfies the right-hand side inequality of (1.2). Also, as f is L-Lipschtiz f1 ≤ f2 .
Moreover, if x ∈ A, putting a = x in the formulae for f1 , f2 yields
f (a) ≤ f1 (a) ≤ f2 (a) ≤ f (a).
Thus we have here equalities. The proof is complete. 

2. Kirszbraun’s theorem
Here we consider more delicate question of extending Lipschitz maps with values
in a vector space. Suppose that we have map f : A → `∞ (N), on a subset A ⊂ X of
a metric space (X, d) with values in the space `∞ (N) of bounded sequences. Then
applying McShane’s theorem to each coordinate of f we may extend it to the entire
space X, preserving its Lipschitz constant. However, this is not true for maps with
values in arbitrary metric spaces.
Another important positive example is provided by the Kirszbraun’s theorem,
which addresses the problem in the case of Euclidean spaces. We refer the reader
to original paper of Kirszbraun [10], proofs of Valentine [18], of Schoenberg [17]
and a proof in the discrete setting by Brehm [6].
Theorem 2.1 (Kirszbraun). Suppose that A ⊂ Rn and that f : A → Rm is
a Lipschitz map with respect to Euclidean metrics on A and on Rm . Then there
exists an extension f˜: Rn → Rm of f with the same Lipschitz constant.
Proof. Observe first that it is enough to consider a situation when f is 1-
Lipschitz. Suppose that A = {x1 , . . . , xk } is a finite set. Suppose that x ∈
/ A and
we want to find a point f˜(x) such that f˜: A ∪ {x} → Rn is 1-Lipschitz and f˜|A = f .
That is we want f˜(x) to belong to the set
k
\
B(f (xi ), kx − xi k).
i=1

The assumption is that kf (xi ) − f (xj )k ≤ kxi − xj k for all i, j = 1, . . . , k.

Define a function on Rm by the formula
n ky − f (x )k o
i
g(y) = max | i = 1, . . . , k .
kx − xi k
 2. KIRSZBRAUN’S THEOREM 7

Clearly, it converges to infinity, as y converges to infinity. Therefore there exists

y0 ∈ Rn such that g(y0 ) = min{g(y) | y ∈ Rm }. Pick indices i1 , . . . , il for which
ky0 − f (xij )k
(2.1) = g(y0 ) for j = 1, . . . , l.
kx − xij k
We may assume that
y0 ∈ Conv{f (xij ) | j = 1, . . . , l}.
Indeed, if not, then there exists a separating hyperplane, i.e. a unit vector v ∈ Rm
such that for all j = 1, . . . , l there is
hv, y0 − f (xij )i > 
for some  > 0. Set y00
= y0 − v. Let P be the orthogonal projection onto the
space perpendicular to v. Then
ky00 − f (xij )k2 = kP (y0 − f (xij )k2 + (hv, y0 − f (xij )i − )2 < ky0 − f (xij )k2 .
This contradicts the fact that at y0 the minimum of g is attained. Therefore there
exist non-negative real numbers λi1 , . . . , λil that sum up to one such that
l
X
y0 = λij f (xij ).
j=1

Define a random vector X, with values in Rn so that

P(X = xij ) = λij for j = 1, . . . , l.
Then
y0 = Ef (X)
and
2
(2.2) kX − xk2 = g(y0 )2 f (X) − Ef (X) .
0
Let X be an independent copy of X. Then
2 1 1 2
E X − EX = EkX − X 0 k2 and Ekf (X) − f (X 0 )k2 = E f (X) − Ef (X) .
2 2
Taking the expectation of (2.2) yields
2 2
g(y0 )2 E f (X) − Ef (X) = EkX − xk2 ≥ E X − EX .
Therefore, as f is 1-Lipschitz,
1 1 1
Ekf (X) − f (X 0 )k2 ≤ EkX − X 0 k2 ≤ g(y0 )2 Ekf (X) − f (X 0 )k2 .
2 2 2
Hence g(y0 ) ≤ 1, unless f (X) is constant, so that y0 = f (X). In this case g(y0 ) = 0.
We have proven that for any x ∈ Rn and any finite set A the interesection of
closed balls \
B(f (y), kx − yk) 6= ∅.
y∈A
By compactness, such intersection is also non-empty for any infinite set A.
We partially order subsets of Rn containing A and admitting a 1-Lipschitz
extension of f by inclusion. By the Kuratowski–Zorn lemma, there exists a maximal
element Z of this ordering. If Z 6= Rn , then we could have extended the 1-Lipschitz
map to an element x ∈ / Z, contradicting the choice of Z. This completes the proof.

8 1. EXTENSIONS OF LIPSCHITZ MAPS

The Kirszbraun theorem holds true also for Hilbert spaces, with the same proof.

3. Kneser–Poulsen conjecture
The Kirszbraun theorem admits also another formulation.
Theorem 3.1. Suppose that x1 , . . . , xk ∈ Rn and let r1 , . . . , rk ≥ 0. Suppose
that
k
\
B(xi , ri ) 6= ∅.
i=1
m
Then for any points y1 , . . . , yk ∈ R such that kyi − yj k ≤ kxi − xj k for all i, j =
1, . . . , k there is
k
\
B(yi , ri ) 6= ∅.
i=1

The above theorem says that if we shrink the centres of the balls, with non-
empty intersection, then also the intersection of balls with new centres will be
non-empty.
Proof. Let
k
\
x∈ B(xi , ri ).
i=1
Then kx − xi k ≤ ri for each i = 1, . . . , k. By the Kirszbraun theorem there exists
k
\ k
\
y∈ B(yi , kx − xi k) ⊂ B(yi , ri ).
i=1 i=1

. 
The Kneser–Poulsen conjecture, see e.g. [4], is a form of quantification of the
above theorem. That is, it says that non only will the shrinked balls have non-
empty intersection, but also that the volume of the intersection will be estimated
from below by the volume of the intersection of original balls.
Conjecture 3.2 (Kneser–Poulsen). Suppose that x1 , . . . , xk ∈ Rn and let
r1 , . . . , rk ≥ 0. Then for any points y1 , . . . , yk ∈ Rm such that kyi − yj k ≤ kxi − xj k
for all i, j = 1, . . . , k there is
k
\  k
\ 
λ B(xi , ri ) ≤ λ B(yi , ri ) .
i=1 i=1

Moreover
k
[  k
[ 
λ B(xi , ri ) ≥ λ B(yi , ri ) .
i=1 i=1
Here λ stands for the Lebesgue measure.
In [4], the conjecture has been answered in the affirmative for n = m = 2.
If n = m and k ≤ n + 1, then in [9] the conjecture has been proven for the
volumes of intesections.
We include the references [11], [16] for the original statement of the conjecture.
 4. CONTINUITY OF EXTENSIONS 9

4. Continuity of extensions
In this section we shall be concerned with the following question. Let (X, dX )
and (Y, dY ) be metric spaces and let A ⊂ X. Suppose that we are given 1-Lipschitz
maps v : X → Y and u : A → Y . Does there exist a 1-Lipschitz extension ũ of u
such that the uniform distance of ũ to v is equal to the uniform distance from u to
v on A?
For a thorough discussion of this and related questions we refer the reader to
[7].
Let A ⊂ B ⊂ Rn , n ∈ N. We shall prove that given any 1-Lipschitz maps
v : Rn → Rm , for m ∈ N, and u : A → Rm , such that
sup{ku(x) − v(x)k | x ∈ A} ≤ δ,
there exists a 1-Lipschitz extension ũ : B → Rm of u, that is ũ(x) = u(x) for x ∈ A,
such that
p
(4.1) sup{kv(x) − ũ(x)k | x ∈ B} ≤ δ 2 + 2δdv (A, B).
Here by dv (A, B) we denote the number
(4.2) sup{kv(x) − v(y)k | x ∈ A, y ∈ B}.
Note that for 1-Lipschitz functions v we have dv (A, B) ≤ diam(B). We shall also
give an example of functions u, v such that the bound is attained. This is to say,
u, v are such that for any 1-Lipschitz extension ũ of u we have equality in (4.1).
Moreover, as we shall show, we cannot hope, in general, for any bound, if dv (A, B)
is infinite.
Proposition 4.1 (C.). Let A ⊂ B ⊂ Rn and let
u : A → Rm , v : B → R m
be 1-Lipschitz maps. Assume that ku(x) − v(x)k ≤ δ for x ∈ A. Then there exists
a 1-Lipschitz map ũ : B → Rm such that ũ(x) = u(x) for x ∈ A and
p
kv(x) − ũ(x)k ≤ δ 2 + 2δdv (A, B)
for all x ∈ B.
Proof. Let 2 = δ 2 + 2δdv (A, B). Let us define a map
h : B × {0} ∪ A × {} → Rm
by the formulae h(x, 0) = v(x) for x ∈ B and h(x, ) = u(x) for x ∈ A. Then h is a
1-Lipschitz map on a subset of Rn+1 . Indeed, if x ∈ A and y ∈ B, then
kh(y, 0) − h(x, )k2 = kv(y) − u(x)k2 =
= kv(y) − v(x)k2 + kv(x) − u(x)k2 + 2hv(y) − v(x), v(x) − u(x)i ≤
≤ kx − yk2 + δ 2 + 2δdv (A, B) = kx − yk2 + 2 .
For other points of the domain of h the 1-Lipschitz condition follows from 1-
Lipschitzness of u and v.
Using Theorem 2.1 we may extend h to a 1-Lipschitz map h̃ : Rn+1 → Rm . Set
for x ∈ B, ũ(x) = h̃(x, ). Then ũ is a 1-Lipschitz extension of u and moreover, for
x ∈ B,
kv(x) − ũ(x)k = kh̃(x, 0) − h̃(x, )k ≤ .

10 1. EXTENSIONS OF LIPSCHITZ MAPS

The following example [7] illustrates that the answer to the question posed at
the begining of the current section is in general negative.

Example 4.2 (C.). Let m > 1 and let x, y ∈ Rn , x 6= y, z = x+y 2 . Let

a = kx − zk = ky − zk, let δ > 0. Define u : {x, y} → Rm by setting u(x) and u(y)
so that ku(x) − u(y)k = kx − yk. Map u defined in this way is 1-Lipschitz. For
the definition of v consider the triangle whose vertices are u(x), u(y) and a point,
called v(z), such that
kv(z) − u(x)k = kv(z) − u(y)k = a + δ.
Set v(x), v(y) to be the points on the triangle’s edges containing u(x) and u(y)
respectively such that kv(x) − u(x)k = δ and kv(y) − u(y)k = δ. If we define
v : {x, y, z} → Rm in this manner, then it is 1-Lipschitz. By Kirszbraun theorem
we may extend it to Rn in such a way that the extension is still 1-Lipschitz. We
shall call this extension v : Rn → Rm . Moreover, sup{ku(t) − v(t)k | t ∈ A} = δ.
Here A = {x, y}. Observe that any 1-Lipschitz extension ũ of u to the point z
must satisfy ũ(z) = u(x)+u(y)
2 . Thus, if we set B = {x, y, z}, then any 1-Lipschitz
extension ũ of u to B satisfies
p
kv(z) − ũ(z)k = δ 2 + 2δa.
The situation is illustrated below.
v(z)

a a

v(x) v(y)
δ δ
u(x) a u(x)+u(y) a u(y)
2

Note now that

r
1 1 1
a = dv (A, B) if δ ≥ a and a = dv (A, B) + dv (A, B)2 + dv (A, B)δ if δ ≤ a.
4 16 2
This exhibits that the bound (4.1) is indeed sharp, if δ ≥ dv (A, B). Note that δ ≤ a
if and only if δ ≤ dv (A, B). Hence we have shown that for all extensions ũ of u we
have
p
sup{kv(z) − ũ(z)k | z ∈ B} = δ 2 + 2δdv (A, B)
if δ ≥ dv (A, B) and
s r
1 1
sup{kv(z) − ũ(z)k | z ∈ B} = δ 2 + δdv (A, B) + δ dv (A, B)2 + 2dv (A, B)δ
2 4
if δ ≤ dv (A, B).

Let us consider the case when the target space is one-dimensional.

 4. CONTINUITY OF EXTENSIONS 11

Proposition 4.3 (C.). Let X be a metric space. Let v : X → R be a 1-Lipschitz

function. Then for any set A ⊂ X and for any 1-Lipschitz function u : A → R such
that for all x ∈ A
(4.3) |u(x) − v(x)| ≤ δ,
there exists 1-Lipschitz extension ũ : X → R of v such that for all x ∈ X
(4.4) |v(x) − ũ(x)| ≤ δ.
Proof. Take any 1-Lipschitz extension ũ0 : X → R of u. Existence of such
function follows from Theorem 1.3. Define now 1
ũ(x) = ũ0 (x) ∧ (v(x) + δ) ∨ (v(x) − δ).
Employing Lemma 1.1 it is readily verifiable that ũ satisfies the desired properties.

The following theorem characterises the situation for Euclidean spaces. Note
that the situation in the multi-dimensional case differs strikingly from the one-
dimensional case (see [7]).
Theorem 4.4 (C.). Let X, Y be real Hilbert spaces such that Y is of dimension
at least two. Let v : X → Y be a map. The following conditions are equivalent:
i) for any A ⊂ X and for any 1-Lipschitz map u : A → Y there exists a 1-Lipschitz
extension ũ : X → Y of u such that for all x ∈ X

v(x) − ũ(x) ∈ Conv v(z) − u(z) | z ∈ A .
ii) for any δ > 0, any A ⊂ X and for any 1-Lipschitz map u : A → Y such that
for all x ∈ A
kv(x) − u(x)k ≤ δ,
there exists 1-Lipschitz extension ũ : X → Y of u such that for all x ∈ X
kv(x) − ũ(x)k ≤ δ,
iii) v is affine and 1-Lipschitz.

1Here, symbols a ∧ b and a ∨ b stand for minimum and maximum of two real numbers a, b
respectively.
 CHAPTER 2

Whitney’s extension theorem

In this lecture we shall consider another problem concerning extensions of func-

tions. The exposition is based on [8].
Suppose that f : Rn → R is continuously differentiable. We shall denote by Df
the derivative of f . Then for any compact set K ⊂ Rn there is
n f (y) − f (x) − Df (x)(y − x) o
lim+ sup | 0 < kx − yk ≤ δ, x, y ∈ K = 0.
δ→0 ky − xk
It turns out that this condition for any compact set K ⊂ C ⊂ Rn implies that
f , defined on a set C ⊂ Rn , is a restriction of a continuously differentiable function
defined on the entire Rn . This is the statement of the Whitney’s extension theorem.
Theorem 0.1 (Whitney). Suppose that C ⊂ Rn is a closed set. Suppose that
f : C → R and v : C → (Rn )∗ are continuous and that for any compact set K ⊂ C
there is
n f (y) − f (x) − v(x)(y − x) o
lim+ sup | 0 < kx − yk ≤ δ, x, y ∈ K = 0.
δ→0 ky − xk
Then there exists a continuosly differentiable extension f˜: Rn → R of f such
that Df˜ = v on C.

1. Covering theorems
Before we proceed to a proof of the Whintey’s extension theorem we shall
construct a suitable covering which shall allow us to construct an extension with
the desired properties.
1.1. Vitali’s covering theorem. We shall first provide a construction of the
Vitali’s covering theorem.
If B is a closed ball in Rn we shall deonte by B̂ a concentric ball of radius five
times the radius of B. If F is a collection of balls we shall denote by F̂ the family
{B̂ | B ∈ F}.
Definition
S 1.1. Let A ⊂ Rn . Then a family F of balls in Rn is a covering of
A if A ⊂ F. We shall say that F is a fine covering of A if additionally there is
inf{diamB | x ∈ B, B ∈ F} = 0
for each x ∈ A.
Theorem 1.2 (Vitali). Let F be any family of non-degenerate closed balls in
Rn with bounded radii. Then there exists a countable subfamily G of F of pairwise
disjoint balls in F such that
[ [
(1.1) F⊂ Ĝ.
13
14 2. WHITNEY’S EXTENSION THEOREM

Proof. Let D be the upper bound for the radii of balls in F. Define for
j = 0, 1, 2, . . .
n 1 1 o
Fj = B ∈ F | j D < diamB ≤ j−1 D .
2 2
Define Gj for j = 0, 1, 2, . . . in the following manner. Let G0 be a maximal pairwise
disjoint subfamily of balls in F0 .
Suppose that we have already chosen G0 , . . . , Gk−1 . Let now Gk be a maximal
Sk−1 S
pairwise disjoint subfamily of balls in Fk that are disjoint from j=0 Gj .
S∞
Define G = j=0 Gj . Then G is a subfamily of balls in F that are pairwise
disjoint.
We need to prove (1.1). Take any ball B ∈ F. Then B ∈ Fj for some j =
0, 1, 2, . . . . Then, by the maximality of the considered families, there exists a ball
Sj
B 0 ∈ l=0 Gl such that B 0 ∩ B 6= ∅. Then diamB 0 > 21j D. Since B ∈ Fj , diamB ≤
1 0 0
2j−1 D, so that diamB < 2diamB . Therefore B̂ ⊃ B.
The family G is at most countable by separability of Rn . The proof is complete.

1.2. Whitney’s covering theorem. We refer the reader to [20] for the origi-
nal formulation of the following theorem. The original formulation deals with cubes
in Euclidean spaces. Below we shall provide a formulation that suffices for a proof
of the Whitney’s extension theorem and that can be extended to the setting of
metric-measure spaces that satisfy the doubling condition.
Theorem 1.3 (Whitney). Let U ⊂ Rn be an open set. Let c ∈ (0, 1) and λ > 0.
Then there exists a family F of pairwise disjoint balls in U such that U = F̂. For
y ∈ U let r(y) = c(1 ∧ dist(y, U c )) and
Sy = {B(x, r) ∈ F | B(x, λr) ∩ B(y, λr(y)) 6= ∅}.
Then  n  n
1 + λc 1 + λc
#Sy ≤ λ + (1 + λ) .
1 − λc 1 − λc
Moreover, for each ball B(x, r) ∈ Sy there is
1 − λc r 1 + λc
≤ ≤ .
1 + λc r(y) 1 − λc
Proof. Consider a family of balls
 
F0 = B(x, r(x)) | x ∈ U .

By an application of Vitali’s covering theorem, there exists a countable subfamily

F of F0 such that [
U= F̂.
and the balls in F are pairwise disjoint. Suppose that
B(x, λr(x)) ∩ B(y, λr(y)) 6= ∅ for some x, y ∈ U.
Then
|r(x) − r(y)| ≤ ckx − yk ≤ cλ(r(x) + r(y))
Therefore
1 − λc 1 + λc
r(y) ≤ r(x) ≤ r(y).
1 + λc 1 − λc
 2. PARTITIONS OF UNITY 15

Moreover    
1 + λc
B(x, r(x)) ⊂ B y, λ + (1 + λ) r(y) ,
1 − λc
as  
1 + λc
kx − yk + r(x) ≤ λ(r(x) + r(y)) + r(x) ≤ λ + (1 + λ) r(y)
1 − λc
The fact that the balls in F are pairwise disjoint and the fact that radii of balls in
F that intersect B(y, λr(y)) are bounded from below by 1−λc1+λc r(y) imply that
 n  n
1 + λc 1 + λc
#Sy ≤ λ + (1 + λ) .
1 − λc 1 − λc
This follows by a calculation of the Lebesgue measure. 

1.3. Besicovitch’s covering theorem. A much more complicated and in-

tricate is Besicovitch’s covering theorem. Here we state it without a proof. For a
proof we refer the reader to [8].
Theorem 1.4 (Besicovitch). For each n ∈ N there exists a number Nn such
that if F is a family of non-degenerate closed balls in Rn with bounded radii and if
A is the set of centres of balls in F, then there exist subfamilies G1 , . . . , GNn ⊂ F
of pairwise disjoint balls in F such that
N
[n [
A⊂ Gi .
i=1

2. Partitions of unity
Using the Whitney’s covering theorem we shall construct a smooth partition of
unity, subordinate to the covering.
Lemma 2.1. Let ρ > 1. There exists a smooth function µ : R → R such that
0 ≤ µ ≤ 1, µ(t) = 1 for t ≤ 1, µ(t) = 0 for t ≥ ρ.
Lemma 2.2. Suppose that U is an open set in Rn . Then there exist smooth,
non-negative functions (vj )∞ n
j=1 on R such that
∞ ∞
X X C
vj = 1, Dvj = 0 on U and kDvj (x)k ≤ for x ∈ U.
j=1 j=1
c(1 ∧ dist(x, U c ))

Moreover, for any x ∈ U , the number of indices j = 1, 2, 3, . . . such that the support
of vj intersects B(x, ρr(x)) is at most C.
Proof. Let c ∈ (0, 1) and ρ > 1, λ = 5ρ. Pick a covering F of U constructed
as in Theorem 1.3. Let µ be a function of Lemma 2.1 for ρ. For a ball B ∈ F define
 
kx − xB k
uB (x) = µ , x ∈ Rn ,
5rB
where xB is the centre of B and rB is its radius. Then each uB is a smooth function
with values in [0, 1], uB = 1 on B(xB , 5rB ) and uB = 0 on B(xB , 5ρrB ). Moreover
C C0
(2.1) kDuB (x)k ≤ ≤
rB r(x)
16 2. WHITNEY’S EXTENSION THEOREM

whenever B(x, λr(x))∩B(xB , λrB ) 6= ∅, and uB = 0 on B(x, λr(x)) if B(x, λr(x))∩

B(xB , λrB ) = ∅. Set X
σ= uB .
B∈F
Then σ is a smooth function on U , as the sum is locally finite, σ ≥ 1 on U and for
x∈U
C
kDσ(x)k ≤ .
r(x)
Set vB = uσB . Observe that
DuB uB Dσ
DvB = − ,
σ σ2
so the bound on the derivative of vB is satisfied. 

3. Whitney’s extension theorem

In this section we shall provide a proof of the Whitney’s extension theorem.
Proof of Theorem 0.1. Pick a covering F of the complement U of the set
C, constructed as in Theorem 1.3 and an associated partition of unity (vB )B∈F of
Lemma 2.2. For each centre xB of a ball B ∈ F pick sB ∈ C such that
kxB − sB k = dist(xB , C).
Define f˜: Rn → R by the formula
f˜(x) = f (x) for x ∈ C
and X 
f˜(x) = f (sB ) + v(xB )(x − sB ) vB (x) for x ∈ U.
B∈F

Clearly, f˜ is a smooth function on U with

X 
Df˜(x) =


f (sB ) + v(xB )(x − sB ) DvB (x) + vB (x)v(xB ) for x ∈ U.
B∈F

We claim that Df˜ = v on C. Fix a point a ∈ C and let K = C ∩ B(a, 1). Then K
is a compact set. Define for δ > 0
n f (y) − f (x) − v(x)(y − x) o
φ(δ) = sup +kv(x)−v(y)k | x, y ∈ K, 0 < kx−yk ≤ δ .
ky − xk
Then, by the assumption, limδ→0+ φ(δ) = 0. Let x ∈ C, kx − ak ≤ 1. Then
|f˜(x) − f˜(a) − v(a)(x − a)| = |f (x) − f (a) − v(a)(x − a)| ≤ φ(kx − ak)kx − ak,
and
kv(x) − v(a)k ≤ φ(kx − ak).
Suppose now that x ∈ U and that kx − ak < 1. Then
|f˜(x) − f˜(a) − v(a)(x − a)| = |f˜(x) − f (a) − v(a)(x − a)| ≤
X

≤ vB (x) f (sB ) − f (a) + v(sB )(x − sB ) − v(a)(x − a) ≤
B∈F
X X
vB (x)|f (sB ) − f (a) − v(sB )(a − sB )| + vB (x)|(v(sB ) − v(a))(x − a)|.
B∈F B∈F
 3. WHITNEY’S EXTENSION THEOREM 17

If B(xB , λrB ) ∩ B(x, λr(x)) 6= ∅, then

ka − sB k ≤ ka − xB k + kxB − sB k ≤ 2ka − xB k ≤ 2(ka − xk + kx − xB k) ≤
≤ 2(ka − xk + λ(r(x) + rB )) ≤ Ckx − ak,
for some constant C, depending on c and ρ. Hence
|f˜(x) − f˜(a) − v(a)(x − a)| ≤ Cφ(Ckx − ak)kx − ak.
Therefore f˜ is differentiable at a and Df˜(a) = v(a).
We need now show that f˜ has continuous derivative. Fix a ∈ C and x ∈ Rn ,
kx − ak < 1. If x ∈ C, then
kDf˜(x) − Df˜(a)k = kv(x) − v(a)k ≤ φ(kx − ak).
Suppose that x ∈ U . Take b ∈ C such that kx − bk = dist(x, C). Then
kDf˜(x) − Df˜(a)k = kDf˜(x) − v(a)k ≤ kDf˜(x) − v(b)k + kv(b) − v(a)k.
As kb − ak ≤ kb − xk + kx − ak ≤ 2kx − ak, we see that kv(b) − v(a)k ≤ φ(2kx − ak).
We need to estimate the first summand. We calculate
X
kDf˜(x) − v(b)k =


f (sB ) + v(sB )(x − sB ) DvB (x) + vB (x)(v(sB ) − v(b)) ≤
B∈F
X

≤ − f (b) + f (sB ) + v(sB )(b − sB ) DvB (x) +
B∈F
X
X
+ (v(sB ) − v(b))(x − b) DvB (x) + vB (x)(v(sB ) − v(b)) ≤
B∈F B∈F
C X
X
≤ φ(kb − sB k) kb − sB k + kx − bk + φ(kb − sB k).
r(x)
B∈Sx B∈Sx

Now, kx − bk ≤ kx − ak < 1, so that r(x) = c(1 ∧ kx − bk) < c. Moreover, if

B(xB , λrB ) ∩ B(x, λr(x)) 6= ∅, then rB ≤ Cr(x) ≤ C 0 . Therefore,
kb − sB k ≤ kb − xk + kx − xB k + kxB − sB k ≤
1 1
≤ r(x) + λ(r(x) + rB ) + rB ≤ Cr(x) = Ckx − bk ≤ Ckx − ak.
c c
We infer that
kDf˜(x) − d(b)k ≤ Cφ(ckx − ak)
and in turn
kDf˜(x) − Df˜(a)k ≤ Cφ(ckx − ak).
This proves the asserted continuity and completes the proof of the theorem. 
Remark 3.1. The constants in the proof of the above theorem, in Theorem
1.3 and in Lemma 2.2 depend on ρ > 1 and c ∈ (0, 1), which might be picked
arbitrarily.
 CHAPTER 3

Minimal Lipschtiz extensions to differentiable

functions

In this chapter we shall provide another proof of the Whitney’s extension the-
orem. The proof will be in the spirit of the proof of Kirszbraun’s theorem. Our
exposition is based on [12].

1. Affine jets
The formulation that we shall deal with considers fields of affine jets. Such a
field is an association to any point of its domain of an affine, real-valued function.
Let A ⊂ B ⊂ Rn . Suppose that we are given a field of affine jets T on A. That is,
T is a map A 3 a 7→ Ta , where Ta is an affine function on Rn . We say that a field
U , defined on B, extends T whenever for any a ∈ A, Ta = Ua .
A differentiable function u on Rn extends a field T provided that the field of
Taylor expansions of u extends T .

2. Extension problem
Suppose that T is a field of affine jets defined on some set A ⊂ Rn . The
Lipschitz extension problem is to find necessary and sufficient condition on the
field T that will ensure that T admits an extension to a differentiable function on
Rn which has Lipschitz derivative.
For a field T defined on A ⊂ Rn define
 
1 Ta (y) − Tb (y) n
Γ (T ) = 2 sup | a 6= b, a, b ∈ A, y ∈ R .
ka − yk2 + kb − yk2
We shall show that if T is the field of Taylor expansions of a differentiable function
u, then Γ1 (T ) is equal to the Lipschitz constant of the derivative Du of u.
Let us now turn to the minimal Lipschitz extension problem. A differentiable
function u on Rn is said to be a minimal Lipschitz extension of a field T if the field
of its Taylor expansions extends T and for any other extension v of T , the Lipschtiz
constant of Dv is at least as large as that of Du.
We will show that Γ1 (T ) is equal to the infimum of all Lipschitz constants of
derivatives of functions extending T .
The aim of this lecture is to prove the following theorem.
Theorem 2.1. Γ1 is a unique functional such that:
i) if U extends T , then Γ1 (U ) ≥ Γ1 (T ),
ii) if U is defined on Rn and Γ1 (U ) < ∞, then the function defined by the formula
u(x) = Ux (x) for x ∈ Rn
is differentiable and its derivative is Lipschitz,
19
20 3. MINIMAL LIPSCHTIZ EXTENSIONS TO DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

iii) if u is differentiable function on Rn with Lipschitz derivative, then Γ1 (U ) is

equal to the Lipschitz constant of Du, where U is the field of jets of Taylor
expansions of u,
iv) for any field T such that Γ1 (T ) < ∞, there exists an extension of T to a field
of affine jets defined on Rn with Γ1 (U ) = Γ1 (T ).
Corollary 2.2. If T is a filed of affine jets satisfying Γ1 (T ) < ∞, then there
exists a differentiable function u defined on Rn , which is a minimal extension of T
and such that its derivatve has Lipschitz constant equal to Γ1 (T )
The above theorem holds true also in the case of Hilbert spaces, separable or
not. The previous proof of the Whitney’s extension theorem does not convey to
this setting.
The proof of i) is immediate, as well as the proof of uniqueness. The proof of
the main part of the theorem, iv), relies on an approach similar to the one employed
in the proof of Kirszbraun’s theorem.

3. Proofs
In what follows we shall denote by H a Hilbert space equipped with scalar
product h·, ·i. For any field T of affine jets we write
Ta (x) = ua + hDa u, x − ai for all a in the domain of T and x ∈ H,
for some ua ∈ R and some Da u ∈ H.
Definition 3.1. For a field of affine jets T defined on A ⊂ H we define its
Lipschitz constant Γ1 (T ) by the formula
 
Ta (y) − Tb (y)
Γ1 (T ) = 2 sup | y ∈ H, a 6
= b, a, b, ∈ A ,
ka − yk2 + kb − yk2
whenever A has at least two elements and Γ1 (T ) = 0 if has not.
Proposition 3.2. If A has at least two elements, then
nq o
Γ1 (T ) = sup A2a,b + Ba,b
2 + |A
a,b | | a 6= b, a, b ∈ A ,

where
2(ua − ub ) + hDa u + Db u, b − ai Da u − Db u
Aa,b = 2
, Ba,b = .
ka − bk ka − bk
Proof. For a 6= b and y ∈ H denote
Ta (y) − Tb (y)
ga,b (y) = .
ka − yk2 + kb − yk2
We need to prove that for any a 6= b there is
q
sup{ga,b (y) | y ∈ H} = A2a,b + Ba,b
2 + |A
a,b |.

For any y ∈ H set

2  a + b
t= y− .
ka − bk 2
Then
1 1
Ta (y) − Tb (y) = ka − bk2 Aa,b + ka − bkhDa u − Db u, ti
2 2
 3. PROOFS 21

and
1
ka − yk2 + kb − yk2 = ka − bk2 1 + ktk2 .


2
Thus
hDa u−Db u,ti
|Aa,b + |
 
 ka−bk
sup |ga,b (y)| | y ∈ H = sup 2
|t∈H .
1 + ktk
Suppose that Da u = Db u. Then the maximum is attained at t = 0 and is equal to
|Aa,b |. Let now Da u 6= Db u. Let
Da u − Db u
e= .
kDa u − Db uk
Then we may write t = αe + f for some α ∈ R and f perpendicular to e. Then
 
 |Aa,b + αBa,b |
sup |ga,b (y)| | y ∈ H = sup | α ∈ R .
1 + α2
An elementary calculation completes the proof. 

Remark 3.3. In the above proof for computation of the supremum it suffices
to take |α| ≤ 1, so that ktk ≤ 1 also suffices. Thus
  a + b ka − bk 
1 Ta (y) − Tb (y)
Γ (T ) = 2 sup |y∈B , .
ka − yk2 + kb − yk2 2 2
Proposition 3.4. Let u be differentiable function on H with Lipschitz deriva-
tive Du. Then Γ1 (U ) is equal to the Lipschitz constant of Du. Here U is the field
of Taylor expansions of u.
Proof. Let L denote the Lipschitz constant of Du. For x, y ∈ H we have
Ux (y) = ux + hDx u, y − xi.
We may write
Z 1
ux − uy = hDy+t(x−y) u, x − yidt.
0
For any x, y, z ∈ H there is
Z 1
1
|Ux (z)−uz | = |ux −uz +hDx u, z−xi| = hDz+t(x−z) u−Dx u, x−zidt ≤ Lkz−xk2 .
0 2
Therefore
1
|Ux (z) − Uy (z)| ≤ |Ux (z) − uz | + |uz − Uy (z)| ≤ L(kx − zk2 + kx − yk2 ).
2
Hence Γ1 (U ) ≤ L. Conversely, by Proposition 3.2, there is
kDx u − Dy uk
Γ1 (U ) ≥ Bx,y =
kx − yk
for all x, y ∈ H, x 6= y. Therefore Γ1 (U ) ≥ L. 

Proof of iv) of Theorem 2.1. Let T be a field of affine jets such that
Γ1 (T ) < ∞. Let K = 21 Γ1 (T ) and let A be the domain of T , i.e., the set where T
is defined. As in the proof of the Kirszbraun theorem, it is enough to extend T to
22 3. MINIMAL LIPSCHTIZ EXTENSIONS TO DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

a point x ∈/ A. Thus, we need to show that there exist ux ∈ R, Dx u ∈ H such that

for all a ∈ A and all y ∈ H there is
Tx (y) − Ta (y)
(3.1) −K ≤ ≤ K,
kx − yk2 + ka − yk2
where Tx (y) = ux + hDx u, y − xi. If K = 0, we see that T is constant on A, so that
the extension to x is trivial. In what follows we assume that K > 0. Then (3.1) is,
by Proposition 3.2, equivalent to
q
|Aa,x | + A2a,x + Ba,x
2 ≤ 2K for any a ∈ A.

In other words
2
Ba,x
(3.2) |Aa,x | ≤ K − .
4K
Note that ux appears only in Aa,x , so that it will be possible to eliminate it in the
following way. The condition (3.2) is equivalent to that for any a ∈ A there is
1 K 1
ux ≤ ua + hDa u + Dx u, x − ai + ka − xk2 − kDa u − Dx uk2
2 2 8K
and that for any b ∈ A there is
1 K 1
ux ≥ ub + hDb u + Dx u, x − bi − kb − xk2 + kDb u − Dx uk2 .
2 2 8K
There exists such ux if and only if for all a, b ∈ A there is
1 K 1
ub + hDb u + Dx u, x − bi − kb − xk2 + kDb u − Dx uk2 ≤
2 2 8K
1 K 1
≤ ua + hDa u + Dx u, x − ai + ka − xk2 − kDa u − Dx uk2 .
2 2 8K
We need to prove existence of Dx that satisfies the above inequality.
The above inequality, for any a, b ∈ A, may be restated that some quadratic
form in Dx u is non-positive. More precisely, the above is equivalent to
(3.3) kDx u − Va,b k2 ≤ αa,b + βa,b for all a, b ∈ A,
where
1
Va,b = (Da u + Db u) + K(b − a),
2
1
αa,b = 4K(ua − ub ) + 2KhDa u + Db u, b − ai − kDa u − Db uk2 + 2K 2 ka − bk2 ,
2
1 2
βa,b = (Da u − Db u) + K(2x − a − b) .
2
Observe that
1 2
+ 4K 2 ka − bk2 ≥ 0,


αa,b = 4KAa,b − Ba,b
2 p
by the definition of K, see (3.2). Set ra,b = αa,b + βa,b . Then (3.3) becomes
kDx u − Va,b k ≤ ra,b for all a, b ∈ A,
T
or, in other words, Dx u ∈ a,b∈A B(Va,b , ra,b ). By compactness it is enough to
veriify this condition for any finite subset of A. Thus, without of generality, we
assume that A is finite.
In what follows we shall need two lemmata below. 
 3. PROOFS 23

For a, b, c, d ∈ A and y ∈ H set

2 2
Φ((a, b), (c, d)) = ra,b + rc,d − kVa,b k2 − kVc,d k2
and
1 1
Da u + K(y − a), Yb,y = Db u + K(b − y).
Xa,y =
2 2
Lemma 3.5. For any a, b, c, d ∈ A and y ∈ H there is
Φ((a, b), (c, d)) ≥ −4hXa,y , Yd,y i − 4hXc,y , Yb,y i.
Proof. We write αa,b + αc,d = δ11 + δ12 + δ2 + δ3 + δ4 , where
1
δ11 = 4K(ua − ud ) + 2KhDa u + Dd u, d − ai − kDa u − Dd uk2 ,
2
1
δ12 = 4K(uc − ub ) + 2KhDc u + Dd u, b − ci − kDc u − Db uk2 ,
2

δ2 = 2K hDa u, b − di + hDb u, c − ai + hDc u, d − bi + hDd u, a − ci ,
1
− kDa u − Db uk2 − kDc u − Dd uk2 + kDa u − Dd uk2 + kDc u − Db uk2 ,


δ3 =
2
δ4 = 2K 2 (ka − bk2 + kc − dk2 ).
Now, using (3.2) for pairs (a, d) and (b, c), we infer that
δ11 + δ12 ≥ −2K 2 kd − ak2 + kb − ck2 .

Therefore
αa,b + αc,d ≥ δ2 + δ3 + ρ1 ,
where
ρ1 = 2K 2 ka − bk2 + kc − dk2 − ka − dk2 − kb − ck2 .

Observe that


ρ1 + δ2 + δ3 = 4 − hXa,y , Yd,y i − hXc,y , Yb,y i + hXa,y , Yb,y i + hXc,y , Yd,y i .
Since
βa,b + βc,d = kXa,y − Yb,y k2 + kXc,y − Yd,y k2 ,
and
−kVa,b k2 − kVc,d k2 = −kXa,y + Yb,y k2 − kXc,y + Yd,x k2 ,
we have
βa,b + βc,d − kVa,b k2 − kVc,d k2 = −4 hXa,y , Yb,y i + hXc,y , Yd,y i .

This completes the proof. 

Lemma 3.6. Suppose that there is a, b ∈ A such that ra,b = 0. Then
[
B(Vc,d , rc,d ) 6= ∅.
c,d∈A

Proof. Let c, d ∈ A. Then

2 2
(3.4) ra,b + rc,d − kVa,b − Vc,d k2 = Φ((a, b), (c, d)) + 2hVa,b , Vc,d i.
The condition ra,b = 0 implies that
Xa,y = Yb,y and Va,b = Xa,y + Yb,y .
Lemma 3.5 implies that


Φ((a, b), (c, d)) ≥ −4 hXa,y , Yd,y i + hXc,y , Yb,y i = −2hVc,d , Va,b i.
24 3. MINIMAL LIPSCHTIZ EXTENSIONS TO DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

By (3.4) and the above we see that

kVa,b − Vc,d k ≤ rc,d for all c, d ∈ A.
Hence Va,b belongs to the intersection in the statement of the lemma. 
By the lemma above, it is now enought to handle situation when ra,b > 0 for
all a, b ∈ A.
Proof of iv) of Theorem 2.1. From the proof of Kirszbraun’s theorem it
follows that if λ ≥ 0 is a minimal number such that
\
B(Va,b , λra,b ) 6= ∅,
a,b∈A

then the intersection contains a single element Vm which belongs to the convex hull
of Va,b , with (a, b) in the set
E = {(a, b) ∈ A × A | kVm − Va,b k = λra,b }.
Therefore there exist non-negative ξa,b that sum up to one such that
X
(3.5) Vm = ξa,b Va,b .
a,b∈E

We want to prove that λ ≤ 1. By (3.5) we see that

X
(3.6) 0= ξa,b ξc,d hVm − Va,b , Vm − Vc,d i.
(a,b),(c,d)∈E

Note that
kVc,d − Va,b k2 = kVm − Va,b k2 + kVm − Vc,d k2 − 2hVm − Va,b , Vm − Vc,d i.
Therefore for (a, b), (c, d) ∈ E we have
kVc,d − Va,b k2 = λ2 ra,b
2
+ λ2 rc,d
2
− 2hVm − Va,b , Vm − Vc,d i.
Multipying these equations by respective coefficients ξa,b ξc,d and employing (3.6)
we get X
ξa,b ξc,d − kVc,d − Va,b k2 + λ2 ra,b
2
+ λ2 rc,d
2


0= .
(a,b),(c,d)∈E
Let us denote
X
ξa,b ξc,d − kVc,d − Va,b k2 + ra,b
2 2


∆= + rc,d .
(a,b),(c,d)∈E

Then X
∆ = (1 − λ2 ) 2
ξa,b ξc,d (ra,b 2
+ rc,d ).
(a,b),(c,d)∈E
The assumption on the radii implies that
X
2 2
ξa,b ξc,d (ra,b + rc,d ) > 0.
(a,b),(c,d)∈E

To complete the proof we thus need to show that ∆ ≥ 0.

Observe that
X
∆ = 2kVm k2 + ξa,b ξc,d Φ((a, b), (c, d)).
(a,b),(c,d)∈E
 3. PROOFS 25

Set X 1
X
X= ξa,b Da u + K(y − a) = ξa,b Xa,x
2
(a,b)∈E (a,b)∈E
and X 1
X
Y = ξa,b Db u + K(b − y) = ξa,b Yb,y .
2
(a,b)∈E (a,b)∈E
Then X
X +Y = ξa,b Va,b ,
(a,b)∈E
so that
kX + Y k2 = kVm k2 .
By Lemma 3.5 it follows that
X
ξa,b ξc,d Φ((a, b), (c, d)) ≥ −8hX, Y i.
(a,b),(c,d)∈E

Therefore
∆ ≥ 2kX + Y k2 − 8hX, Y i = 2kX − Y k2 ≥ 0.
This completes the proof. 
 CHAPTER 4

Ball’s extension theorem

In this lecture we shall provide an extension theorem in the situations where it

is not possible to preserve the Lipshitz constant.
Example 0.1. An example of such situation is the case of the space `1 . Suppose
we consider a map f : {x1 , x2 , x3 } → `1 , defined on the set {x1 , x2 , x3 } of vertices
of an equilateral triangle of sidelength 2 by the formulae
f (xi ) = ei for i = 1, 2, 3,
where (ei )3i=1 are basis elements of `1 . Then f is an isometry. However, it does not
extend to a 1-Lipschitz map defined on {x1 , x2 , x3 , c} where √
c is the barycentre√of
{x1 , x2 , x3 }. For if such f (c) existed, then kf (c)−ei k1 ≤ 33 . Then |f (c)i −1| ≤ 33 ,
√ √ √
so f (c)i ≥ 1− 33 for i = 1, 2, 3. We get a contradiction 33 ≥ kf (c)−e1 k1 ≥ 2− 2 3 3 .
Therefore in such situations we cannot hope to preserve the Lipschitz constant,
and we need to allow for more flexibility. Note that the techniques of extension of
a function point by point do not apply readily. We need to come up with another
approach. Our exposition will be based on [1] and [15].
The approach in this lecture will be analgous to the one used in the proof of
the classical theorem of Maurey concerning extension of linear operators between
Banach spaces enjoying finite type or cotype. The type and cotype describe the be-
haviour of sums of independent random variables in Banach spaces. The analogues
of type and cotype introduced in [1] describe the behaviour of Markov chains in
metric spaces.
Let us recall that the theorem of Maurey says that whenever X, Y are Banach
spaces, X having type 2 with constant T2 (X) and Y having cotype 2 with constant
C2 (Y ), then any bounded operator T : Z → Y on a subspace Z ⊂ X admits an
extension to a bounded operator on X with norm at most T2 (X)C2 (Y )kT k.
Let us note a connection of these topics with the Ribe programme, proposed
by Bourgain [5]; see also [2] and [14].

1. Markov type and cotype

Let us recall the definitions of type and cotype.
Definition 1.1. Let X be a Banach space. Let 1 , 2 , . . . be independent
Bernoulli random variables. Let p ∈ (1, 2]. We say that X has type p whenever
there is K < ∞ such that for all n ∈ N and all x1 , x2 , . . . ∈ X there is
n
X p n
X
E i x i ≤ Kp kxi kp .
i=1 i=1

27
28 4. BALL’S EXTENSION THEOREM

Similarly, X has cotype q ∈ [2, ∞), whenever for some constant L, all n ∈ N and
all sequences x1 , x2 , . . . ∈ X there is
n
X q n
X
E i x i ≥ Lq kxi kq .
i=1 i=1

In what follows we shall denote

n n
X o
∆ = (x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ [0, 1]n | xi = 1 .
i=1

We think of ∆ as the space of probabilites on the set {1, . . . , n}.

We say that an n × n matrix A is stochastic if it has non-negative entries and
all of its rows add up to one.
Given π ∈ ∆ a stochastic matrix A is reversible relative to π if for all i, j =
1, . . . , n there is πi aij = πj ajii .
These notions stem from the Markov chains theory. A sequence (Xi )∞ i=0 of
random variables with values in {1, . . . , n} is a Markov chain provided that
P(Xk+1 = tk+1 | Xk = tk , . . . , X0 = t0 ) = P(Xk+1 = tk+1 | Xk = tk )
for all t0 , . . . , tk+1 ∈ {1, . . . , n}. A Markov chain is called stationary if for all k, l ∈ N
and all t0 , . . . , tk+1 ∈ {1, . . . , n} there is
P(Xk+1 = tk+1 , Xk = tk , . . . , X0 = t0 ) = P(Xk+l+1 = tk+1 , Xk+l = tk , . . . , Xl = t0 )
Then a stochastic matrix A is its transition matrix if for all i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n} there
is
aij = P(Xk+1 = i | Xk = j) for all k ∈ N.
A measure π on the state space {1, . . . , n} is a stationary measure of the chain if
any Xj is distributed according to π, for j ∈ N. A stationary Markov chain with
stationary measure π and transition matrix A is reversible if the detailed balance
condition holds true. That is if
πi aij = πj aji for i, j = 1, . . . , n.
Definition 1.2. Let (X, d) be a metric space. We say that X has a Markov
type p ∈ (0, ∞) with constant M if for every stationary and reversible Markov chain
(Xi )∞
i=0 on {1, . . . , n} and any function f : {1, . . . , n} → X, any k ∈ N, there is

Ed(f (Xk ), f (X0 ))p ≤ M p kEd(f (X1 ), f (X0 ))p .

An optimal constant M is the Markov type-p constant of X. We denote it by
Mp (X).
Clearly, any metric space has Markov type 1 with constant 1, by the triangle
inequality.
Remark 1.3. The above definition may be reformulated as follows. Metric
space X has Markov type p ∈ (0, ∞) with constant M if for any π ∈ ∆, any n × n
stochastic matrix A reversible relative to π and any x1 , . . . , xn there is
n
X n
X
πi Akij d(xi , xj )p ≤ M p k πaij d(xi , xj )p
i,j=1 i,j=1

for all k ∈ N.
 1. MARKOV TYPE AND COTYPE 29

Lemma 1.4. Let H be a Hilbert space. Then H has Markov type 2 with constant
M2 (H) = 1.
Proof. Let π ∈ ∆ and let A be an n × n stochastic matrix reversible relative
to π. We need to prove that
n
X n
X
(1.1) πAkij kxi − xi k2 ≤ t πaij kxi − xi k2 .
i,j=1 i,j=1

Clearly, we may assume that H is one-dimensional, as the general case follows from
this one.
Consider the space L2 (π); i.e. the space Rn with scalar product defined by the
formula
Xn
hv, wi = vi wi πi for v, w ∈ Rn .
i=1

Then the right-hand side of (1.1) may be written as, by reversibility and stochas-
ticity,
n
X n
X
πi aij x2i + x2j − 2xi xj = 2k πi aij x2i − 2hAx, xi = 2kh(Id − A)x, xi.


k
i,j=1 i,j=1

Similarly we express the left-hand side, with A replaced by Ak . Then the inequality
we are to prove is
hk(Id − A) − (Id − Ak )x, xi ≥ 0.
The reversibility of A is equivalent to A being self-adjoint on L2 (π). Therefore it
is diagonalisable and has real eigenvalues. It is therefore enough to prove that for
any eigenvalue λ of A there is
k(1 − λ) ≥ 1 − λk .
1−λk
It is enough to prove that λ ≤ 1, as then k ≥ 1 + λ + . . . + λk−1 = 1−λ . For this
we employ stochasticity of A:
n
X n
X n
X n
X
kAykL1 (π) = πi aij yj ≤ πi aij |yj | = πj aji |yj | = kykL1 (π) .
i=1 j=1 i,j=1 i,j=1

Thus |λ| ≤ 1 and the lemma is proven. 

For the extension theorem we shall also need a dual notion of Markov cotype,
analogously to the situation of extension of operators acting on Banach spaces.
Definition 1.5. A metric space (X, d) has metric Markov cotype q ∈ (0, ∞)
with constant N if for every n, k ∈ N, every π ∈ ∆, any stochastic n × n matrix A
reversible relative to π, any x1 , . . . , xn ∈ X there exist y1 , . . . , yn ∈ X such that
n n n  Xk 
X
q
X
q q
X 1
πi d(xi , yi ) + k πi aij d(yi , yj ) ≤ N πi Aij d(xi , xj )q .
l

i=1 i,j=1 i,j=1

k
l=1

An optimal constant is the metric Markov cotype-q constant of X and is denoted

by Np (X).
30 4. BALL’S EXTENSION THEOREM

Remark 1.6. In the language of Markov chains, the above condition may be
rewritten in the following form: for any f : {1, . . . , n} → X, any stationary and
reversible Markov chain (Xi )∞i=0 there exists a function g : {1, . . . , n} → X such
that for all k ∈ N there is
k
1X
Ed(f (X0 ), g(X0 ))q + kEd(g(X1 ), g(X0 ))q ≤ N q Ed(f (Xl ), f (X0 ))q .
k
l=1

Remark 1.7. Note the apperance of function g, or points y1 , . . . , yn ∈ X in

the above definition. If g = f , or yi = xi for i = 1, . . . , n, then we would simply get
a reverse inequality to the one defining the Markov type, but with Cesàro average,
for technical reasons. However, this introduction is necessary, as otherwise the
inequality would be false, by consideration of constant chain distributed on two
points of X.
Definition 1.8. Let (X, d) be a metric space and let P(X) denote the space of
finitely supported probability measures on X. We say that (X, d) is W p -barycentric
with constant Γ if there exists a map B : P(X) → X, called the barycentre map,
such that for all x ∈ X there is B(δx ) = x and
 X n  X n  p n
X
p
d B λi δxi , B λi δyi ≤Γ λi d(xi , yi )p
i=1 i=1 i=1
for all xi , yi ∈ X, i = 1, . . . , n and all non-negative λi , i = 1, . . . , n that sum up to
one.
Note that Banach spaces are 1-barycentric with constant 1. The barycentre
map is simply the expectation of the measure.

2. Statement of the theorem

In this section we shall state and prove a generalisation by Naor and Mendel,see
e.g. [15], of the Ball’s extension theorem of [1].
Theorem 2.1. Let (X, dx ) and (Y, dY ) be two metric spaces and let p ∈ (0, ∞).
Suppose that X has metric Markov type p with constant Mp (X) and Y has metric
Markov cotype p with constant Np (Y ) and that Y is W p -barycentric with constant
Γ.
Suppose that Z ⊂ X and that f : Z → Y is a Lipschitz map with Lipschitz
constant L. Then for any finite set S ⊂ X there is a map fS : S → Y such that
fS |S∩Z = fS∩Z and the Lipschitz constant of fS is at most CΓMp (X)Np (Y )L,
where C is a universal constant.
Remark 2.2. If Y is a reflexive Banach space, then the finite extension property
ensures that there also exist an extension to entire space X.
Lemma 2.3. Suppose that (X, dX ) and (Y, dY ) are two metric spaces such that
Y is W p -barycentric with constant Γ, Z ⊂ X, f : Z → Y and  > 0.
Suppose also that there exists a constant K > 0 such that for any n ∈ N, any
x1 , . . . , xn ∈ X and every symmetric n × n matrix H with non-negative entries
there exists ΦH : {x1 , . . . , xn } → Y such that:
i)
ΦH |{x1 ,...,xn }∩Z = f{x1 ,...,xn }∩Z ,
 2. STATEMENT OF THE THEOREM 31

ii)
n
X n
X
hij dY (ΦH (xi ), ΦH (xj )) ≤ K p Lp hij dX (xi , xj )p ,
i,j=1 i,j=1

where L is the Lipschitz constant of f .

Then there exists F : {x1 , . . . , xn } → Y , which agrees with f on {x1 , . . . , xn } ∩ Z
and whose Lipschitz constant is at most (1 + )ΓKL.
Proof. Let us fix points x1 , . . . , xn ∈ X. Consider sets C, D of n×n symmetric
matrices given by the formulae
n
n o
C = dY (Φ(xi ), Φ(xj )) i,j=1 | Φ : {x1 , . . . , xn } → Y agrees with f on {x1 , . . . , xn } ∩ Z ,

D = M | M has non-negative entries .
Let E be the closed convex hull of the sum C + D. Consider matrix T with entries
tij = K p Lp dX (xi , xj )p for i, j = 1, . . . , n.
We need to prove that T ∈ E. Indeed, if T ∈ E, then there are non-negative
λ1 , . . . , λm that add up to one and maps Φ1 , . . . , Φm : {x1 , . . . , xm } → Y , which all
agree with f on {x1 , . . . , xn } ∩ Z and such that for each i, j = 1, . . . , n there is
m
X
λk dY (Φk (xi ), Φk (xj )) ≤ (1 + )p K p Lp dX (xi , xj )p .
k=1
Pm
Define now µi = k=1 λk δΦk (xi ) for each i = 1, . . . , n and F : {x1 , . . . , xn } → Y by
the formula F (xi ) = B(µi ), where B is the barycentre map of Y . Then F agrees
with f on {x1 , . . . , xn } ∩ Z, as all Φ1 , . . . , Φm did. Moreover,
m
X
dY (F (xi ), F (yi ))p ≤ Γp λk dY (Φk (xi ), Φk (xj ))p ≤ (1 + )p Γp K p Lp dX (xi , xj )p .
k=1

This is the desired inequality.

We shall now prove that T ∈ E. If not, then by the Hahn–Banach theorem
there would exist a symmetric matrix H = (hij )ni,j=1 ) such that
n
X n
nX o
hij tij < inf hij mij | M ∈ E .
i,j=1 i,j=1

Testing the above inequality by a matrix ρ(ei e∗j + ej e∗i ) for large ρ, we see that
necessarily there is hij ≥ 0 for all i, j = 1, . . . , n. Moreover, as C ⊂ E, for any
Φ : {x1 , . . . , xn } → Y that agrees with f on {x1 , . . . , xn } ∩ Z there is
n
X n
X
K p Lp hij dX (xi , xj )p < hij dY (Φ(xi ), Φ(xj ))p
i,j=1 i,j=1

which stands in contradiction with the assumption. 

Before we pass to the proof of the Ball’s extension theorem, let us prove the
following lemma.
Lemma 2.4. Let m, n ∈ N, p ≥ 1. Let C be an n × n stochastic matrix which is
reversible relative to some π ∈ ∆. Let also B be an m × n stochastic matrix. Then
32 4. BALL’S EXTENSION THEOREM

for any metric space (X, dX ), any z1 , . . . , zm ∈ X there are w1 , . . . , wn ∈ X such

that
Xm nX n X m n
X o
p ∗ p p
3 (B Dπ CB)ij dX (zi , zj ) ≥ max πi bir dX (wi , zr ) , πi cij dX (wi , wj )p .
i,j=1 i=1 r=1 i,j=1

Here Dπ denotes the diagonal matrix with elements π1 , . . . , πn on the diagonal.

Proof. Let f : {z1 , . . . , zm } → `∞ be an isometric embedding, given e.g. by
the formula f (z) = (d(z, zi ))mi=1 . Define
m
X
yi = bir f (zr ) for i = 1, . . . , n.
r=1

Let wi ∈ {z1 , . . . , zm } be such that


kyi − wi k`∞ = min kyi − f (zj )k`∞ | j = 1, . . . , m .
By the triangle inequality and by Jensen’s inequality we have
dX (wi , wj )p = kf (wi )−f (wj )kp`∞ ≤ 3p−1 kf (wi )−yi )kp`∞ +kf (wj )−yj kp`∞ +kyi −yj kp`∞ .

By the reversibility and stochasticity of C we get

Xn
πi ciji dX (wi , wj )p ≤
i,j=1
(2.1) n n
X X
≤ 3p−1 πi cij kyi − yj kp`∞ + 2 · 3p−1 πi kyi − f (wi )kp`∞ .
i,j=1 i=1

Therefore
Xn n
X m
X p
πi cij kyi − yj kp`∞ =


cij bir bjs f (zr ) − f (zs ) ≤
`∞
i,j=1 i,j=1 r,s=1
Xn m
X m
X
≤ πi cij bir bjs kf (zr ) − f (zs )kp`∞ = (B ∗ Dπ CB)rs dX (zr , zs )p .
i,j=1 r,s=1 r,s=1

To bound the second sum in (2.1) we take into account that kyi − f (wi )k`∞ ≤
kyi − f (zr )k`∞ for any i = 1, . . . , n and r = 1, . . . , m. Moreover, as matrices C, B
are stochastic,
X m
(CB)ir = 1 for each i = 1, . . . , n.
r=1
Thus, by Jensen’s inequality,
Xn n X
X m
πi kyi − f (wi )kp`∞ = πi (CB)ir kyi − f (wi )kp`∞ ≤
i=1 i=1 r=1
n X
X m n X
X m m
X p
πi (CB)ir kyi − f (zr )kp`∞ =


≤ πi (CB)ir bis f (zs ) − f (zr ) ≤
`∞
i=1 r=1 i=1 r=1 s=1
Xn X m m
X
≤ πi (CB)ir bis kf (zs ) − f (zr )kp`∞ = (B ∗ Dπ CB)rs dX (zr , zs )p .
i=1 r,s=1 r,s=1

This proves the bound for the second term in the inequality in the statement of the
lemma. We now pass to a proof of the bound for the first term.
 2. STATEMENT OF THE THEOREM 33

By the triangle inequality and Jensen’s inequality we have for each i, j =

1, . . . , n
dX (wi , zr )p ≤ 3p−1 kf (wi ) − yi kp`∞ + kyj − f (zr )kp`∞ + kyi − yj kp`∞ .

Since C is stochastic, we get

n X
X m n X
X m
πi bir dX (wi , zr )p = πi bir cij dX (wi , zr )p .
i=1 r=1 i,j=1 r=1

Observe that the quantities

n X
X m n
X
πi bir cij kf (wi ) − yi kp`∞ = πi kf (wi ) − yi kp`∞
i,j=1 r=1 i=1

and
X m
n X n
X
πi bir cij kyi − yj kp`∞ = πi kyi − yj kp`∞
i,j=1 r=1 i=1

have already been appropriately bounded. It is enough thus to bound

X m
n X X m
n X m
X p
πi bir cij kf (zr ) − yj kp`∞ =


πi bir cij bjs f (zs ) − f (zr ) ≤
`∞
i,j=1 r=1 i,j=1 r=1 s=1
Xn m
X m
X
≤ πi bir cij bjs kf (zs ) − f (zr )kp`∞ = (B ∗ Dπ CB)rs dX (zr , zs )p .
i,j=1 r,s=1 r,s=1

The proof is complete. 

We shall now provide a proof of the generalised Ball’s extension theorem.

Proof of Theorem 2.1. Let M > Mp (X), N > Np (Y ). Fix some m, n ∈ N,

some x1 , . . . , xn ∈ X \ Z and z1 , . . . , zm ∈ Z. We shall prove that the assumptions
of Lemma 2.3 are satisfied.
Consider a (n + m) × (n + m) symmetric matrix H with non-negative entries.
Let V (H), U (H) be the n × n and m × m symmetric block-diagonal submatrices of
H and let W (H) be the off-diagonal n × m matrix. Set
m
X n X
X m n
X
RH = urs dX (zr , zs )p + 2 wir dX (xi , zr )p + vij dX (xi , xj )p
r,s=1 i=1 r=1 i,j=1

and for y1 , . . . , yn ∈ Y let

m
X n X
X m n
X
LH (y1 , . . . , yn ) = urs dY (f (zr ), f (zs ))p +2 wir dY (yi , f (zr ))p + vij dY (yi , yj )p .
r,s=1 i=1 r=1 i,j=1

By Lemma 2.3 it suffices to prove that for some y1 , . . . , yn ∈ Y there is

18p p
(2.2) LH (y1 , . . . , yn ) ≤ ΛRH , where Λ = (N + 1)M p Lp .
3
Let δ > 0. We first observe that
Xm m
X
urs dY (f (zr ), f (zs ))p ≤ Lp urs dX (zr , zs )p ,
r,s=1 r,s=1
34 4. BALL’S EXTENSION THEOREM

so it suffices to prove existence of y1 , . . . , yn ∈ Y that satisfy

(2.3)
Xn X m n
X  X n Xm n
X 
p p p p
2 wir dY (yi , f (zr )) + vij dY (yi , yj ) ≤ Λ 2 wir dX (xi , zr ) + vij dX (xi , xj ) +δ .
i=1 r=1 i,j=1 i=1 r=1 i,j=1

Since metrics vanish on the diagonal, we may assume that V (H), U (H) vanish on
the diagonal as well.
We claim that for t > 0 large enough there exists θ > 0 and π ∈ ∆ such that

wir = θπi bir for every i = 1, . . . , n and r = 1, . . . , m

and
vij = θtπi aij for every i, j = 1, . . . , n, i 6= j.
Here A, B are two stochastic matrices of dimensions n × n and m × n. Moreover,
A is reversible relative to π. Indeed, we take
n X
r m
X 1X wir
θ= wir , πi = wis , bir = Pm for i = 1, . . . , n, r = 1, . . . , m
i=1 j=1
θ s=1 s=1 wis

and
Pn
1 j=1 vij 1 vij
aii = 1 − for all i = 1, . . . , n and aij = Pm for i 6= j.
t m
P
w
r=1 ir t r=1 wir

Under this change of parameters the left-hand side of the inequality (2.3) may
be rewritten as
 Xn Xm n
X 
p p
(2.4) θ 2 πi bir dY (yi , f (zr )) + t πi aij dY (yi , yj ) .
i=1 r=1 i,j=1
Pτ
Denote by τ = d 2tp e and by Cτ (A) = τ1 s=1 As the Cesàro averages. Now Cτ (A)
is reversible relative to π, so Lemma 2.4 guarantees existence of w1 , . . . , wn ∈ Y
such that

m
X
3p (B ∗ Dπ Cτ (A)B)rs dY (f (zr ), f (zs ))p ≥
r,s=1
n X
nX m n
X o
≥ max πi bir dY (wi , f (zr ))p , πi Cτ (A)ij dY (wi , wj )p .
i=1 r=1 i,j=1

From the definition of the Markov cotype there exist y1 , . . . , yn ∈ Y such that
n
X n
X n
X
(2.5) πi dY (wi , yi )p + τ πi aij dY (yi , yj )p ≤ N p πi Cτ (A)ij dY (wi , wj )q .
i=1 i,j=1 i,j=1

We will show that if t is large enough, then the appropriate y1 , . . . , yn will suffice.
Observe that

dY (yi , f (zr ))p ≤ 2p−1 (dY (yi , wi )p + dY (wi , f (zr ))p ),

 2. STATEMENT OF THE THEOREM 35

so we may bound the first sum in (2.4) as follows

n X
X m n X
X m  
2 πi bir dY (yi , f (zr ))p ≤ 2p πi bir dY (yi , wi )p + dY (wi , f (zr ))p =
i=1 r=1 i=1 r=1
Xn n X
X m
p
=2 πi dY (yi , wi )p + 2p πi bir dY (wi , f (zr ))p .
i=1 i=1 r=1

Now, using corollary of Lemma 2.4 and the Markov cotype property, we get that
the left-hand side of (2.4) may be bounded by
 n
X n
X n X
X m 
p p p p p
θ 2 πi dY (yi , wi ) + τ πi aij dY (yi , yj ) + 2 πi bir dY (wi , f (zr )) ≤
i=1 i,j=1 i=1 r=1
 n
X n X
X m 
p p p p
≤ θ (2N ) πi Cτ (A)ij dY (wi , wj ) + 2 πi bir dY (wi , f (zr )) ≤
i,j=1 i=1 r=1
 m
X 
≤ θ 6p (N p + 1) (B ∗ Dπ Cτ (A)B)rs dY (f (zr ), f (zs )) ≤
r,s=1
 m
X 
p p p ∗
≤ θ 6 (N + 1)L (B Dπ Cτ (A)B)rs dX (zr , zs ) .
r,s=1

Now, we use the triangle inequality

dX (zr , zs )p ≤ 3p−1 dX (zr , xi )p + dX (xi , xj )p + dX (xj , zs )p

and the identitiy

n
X
(B ∗ Dπ Cτ (A)B)rs = πi bir bjs Cτ (A)ij .
i,j=1

They give that the left-hand side of (2.4) may be continued to be bounded by

n m
18p p X X
(N + 1)Lp θ πi bir bjs Cτ (A)ij dX (zr , xi )p + dX (xi , xj )p + dX (xj , zs )p .


3 i,j=1 r,s=1

We have therefore three sums to deal with. We deal with the first and the third
one analogously:

n
X m
X n X
X m
πi bir bjs Cτ (A)ij dX (zr , xi )p = πi bir Cτ (A)ij dX (zr , xi )p =
i,j=1 r,s=1 i,j=1 r=1
n X m n m
X 1 XX
= πi bir dX (zr , xi )p = wir dX (zr , xi )p .
i=1 r=1
θ i=1 r=1
36 4. BALL’S EXTENSION THEOREM

The third sum gives rise to the same quantity, by reversibility of Cτ (A) with respect
to π. The second sum we bound using the Markov type property of X as follows
Xn m
X n
X
πi bir bjs Cτ (A)ij dX (xi , xj )p = πi Cτ (A)ij dX (xi , xj )p =
i,j=1 r,s=1 i,j=1
τ X n τ n
1 X
σ p 1X p X
= πi Aij dX (xi , xj ) ≤ M σ πi aij dX (xi , xj )p =
τ σ=1 i,j=1 τ σ=1 i,j=1
n n
τ + 1 p X vij 1τ +1 p X
= M dX (xi , xj )p = M vij dX (xi , xj )p .
2 i,j=1
θt θ 2t i,j=1

Thus (2.4) is bounded from above by

n X m n
18p p
 X X 
p p p p
(N + 1)L 2 wir dX (zr , xi ) + M vij dX (xi , xj ) .
3 i=1 r=1 i,j=1

Thus the assumptions of Lemma 2.3 are satisfied and the theorem is proven. 

3. Examples
In this section we shall provide some examples where the assumptions of Theo-
rem 2.1 are satisfied, so that it is possible to extend Lipschitz maps without losing
too much on their Lipschitz constant.
Examples of spaces satisfying the Markov type p property include p-smooth
Banach spaces.
Recall that a Banach space X is called p-smooth provided that there is a
constant C > 0 such that
1
kx + τ yk + kx − τ yk − 1 ≤ Cτ p


2
for all τ > 0 and all unit vectors x, y ∈ X Similarly, a Banach space is called
q-convex whenever there is C > 0 such that
x+y
Cq ≤ 1 −
2
for all unit vectors x, y such that kx − yk = .
Examples of spaces satisfying the Markov cotype q property are q-convex Ba-
nach spaces.
 CHAPTER 5

Assesment and references

1. Reading list
The reading list consists of all the papers cited above, lecture notes [15], and
parts of books [19, 3].

2. Assesment
Students are encouraged to give a short presentation on a topic related to the
content of the course. The timing of this will be arranged by the lecturer with the
student group. Suggested topics include:
i) Brehm’s theorem [6],
ii) continuity of Kirszbraun’s extension theorem [38],
iii) Kirszbraun’s theorem for Alexandrov spaces [39, 21],
iv) two-dimensional Kneser-Poulsen conjecture [4],
v) origami [30],
vi) absolutely minimising Lipschitz extensions and infinity Laplacian [35, 47, 48,
22, 23, 25, 24],
vii) Fenchel duality and Fitzpatrick functions [46, 27],
viii) sharp form of Whitney’s extension theorem [31],
ix) Whitney’s extension theorem for C m [32],
x) Markov type and cotype calculation [15, 1, 44],
xi) extending Lipschitz functions via random metric partitions [41, 15].

Additional references
Additional references for lectures:
i) Kirszbraun’s theorem [10, 18],
ii) Kneser-Poulsen conjecture [11, 16, 9],
iii) Whitney’s extension theorem [20].
References regarding applications:
i) clustering of data [14, 40],
ii) dimension reduction [33].

37
 Bibliography

1. K. Ball, Markov chains, Riesz transforms and Lipschitz maps, Geometric & Functional Anal-
ysis GAFA 2 (1992), no. 2, 137–172.
2. , The Ribe programme, Séminaire Bourbaki volume 2011/2012 exposés 1043-1058,
Astérisque, no. 352, Société mathématique de France, 2013, talk:1047 (en). MR 3087345
3. Y. Benyamini and J. Lindenstrauss, Geometric nonlinear functional analysis, Colloquium
publications (American Mathematical Society) ; v. 48, American Mathematical Society, Prov-
idence, R.I., 2000 (eng).
4. K. Bezdek and R. Connelly, Pushing disks apart – the Kneser-Poulsen conjecture in the plane,
Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (2002), no. 553, 221 – 236.
5. J. Bourgain, The metrical interpretation of superreflexivity in Banach spaces, Israel Journal
of Mathematics 56 (1986), 222–230.
6. U. Brehm, Extensions of distance reducing mappings to piecewise congruent mappings on
Rm , J. Geom. 16 (1981), no. 2, 187–193. MR 642266
7. K.J. Ciosmak, Continuity of extensions of Lipschitz maps, arXiv e-prints (2019),
arXiv:1904.02993.
8. L. C. Evans and R. F. Gariepy, Measure theory and fine properties of functions; Rev. ed.,
Textbooks in mathematics, ch. 6, CRC Press, Oakville, 2015.
9. M. Gromov, Monotonicity of the volume of intersection of balls, Geometrical Aspects of
Functional Analysis (Berlin, Heidelberg) (J. Lindenstrauss and V. D. Milman, eds.), Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, 1987, pp. 1–4.
10. M. Kirszbraun, Über die zusammenziehende und Lipschitzsche Transformationen, Funda-
menta Mathematicae 22 (1934), no. 1, 77–108 (ger).
11. M. Kneser, Einige Bemerkungen über das Minkowskische Flächenmaß, Archiv der Mathe-
matik 6 (1955), no. 5, 382–390.
12. E. Le Gruyer, Minimal Lipschitz extensions to differentiable functions defined on a Hilbert
space, Geometric and Functional Analysis 19 (2009), no. 4, 1101–1118. MR 2570317
13. E. J. McShane, Extension of range of functions, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 40 (1934), no. 12,
837–842. MR 1562984
14. A. Naor, An introduction to the Ribe program, Japanese Journal of Mathematics 7 (2012),
no. 2, 167–233.
15. , Metric embeddings and Lipschitz extensions, Princeton University, Lecture Notes,
2015.
16. E. T. Poulsen, Problem 10, Mathematica Scandinavica 2 (1954), 346.
17. I. J. Schoenberg, On a Theorem of Kirzbraun and Valentine, The American Mathematical
Monthly 60 (1953), no. 9, 620–622. MR 0058232
18. F. A. Valentine, A Lipschitz condition preserving extension for a vector function, Amer. J.
Math. 67 (1945), 83–93. MR 0011702
19. J. H. Wells and L. R. Williams, Embeddings and extensions in analysis, Ergebnisse der Math-
ematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete ; Bd. 84, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975 (eng).
20. H. Whitney, Analytic extensions of differentiable functions defined in closed sets, Transactions
of the American Mathematical Society 36 (1934), no. 1, 63–89. MR 1501735

39
 Additionnal Topics and References

21. S. Alexander, V. Kapovitch, and A. Petrunin, Alexandrov meets Kirszbraun, 2017.

22. G. Aronsson, Minimization problems for the functional supx F (x, f (x), f 0 (x)), Ark. Mat. 6
(1965), no. 1, 33–53.
23. , Minimization problems for the functional supx F (x, f (x), f 0 (x))(ii), Ark. Mat. 6
(1966), no. 4-5, 409–431.
24. , Extension of functions satisfying lipschitz conditions, Ark. Mat. 6 (1967), no. 6,
551–561.
25. , Minimization problems for the functional supx F (x, f (x), f 0 (x))(iii), Ark. Mat. 7
(1969), no. 6, 509–512.
26. K. Ball, Markov chains, Riesz transforms and Lipschitz maps, Geometric & Functional Anal-
ysis GAFA 2 (1992), no. 2, 137–172.
27. H. Bauschke, Fenchel duality, Fitzpatrick functions and the extension of firmly nonexpansive
mappings, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 135 (2007), no. 1, 135–139.
MR 2280182
28. K. Bezdek and R. Connelly, Pushing disks apart – the Kneser-Poulsen conjecture in the plane,
Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (2002), no. 553, 221 – 236.
29. U. Brehm, Extensions of distance reducing mappings to piecewise congruent mappings on
Rm , J. Geom. 16 (1981), no. 2, 187–193. MR 642266
30. B. Dacorogna, P. Marcellini, and E. Paolini, Lipschitz-continuous local isometric immersions:
rigid maps and origami, Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliqués 90 (2008), no. 1, 66
– 81.
31. C. L. Fefferman, A sharp form of Whitney’s extension theorem, Annals of Mathematics 161
(2005), no. 1, 509–577. MR 2150391
32. , Whitney’s extension problem for C m , Annals of Mathematics 164 (2006), no. 1,
313–359. MR 2233850
33. L.-A. Gottlieb and R. Krauthgamer, A nonlinear approach to dimension reduction, Weizmann
Institute of Science.
34. M. Gromov, Monotonicity of the volume of intersection of balls, Geometrical Aspects of
Functional Analysis (Berlin, Heidelberg) (J. Lindenstrauss and V. D. Milman, eds.), Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, 1987, pp. 1–4.
35. R. Jensen, Uniqueness of Lipschitz extensions: Minimizing the sup norm of the gradient,
Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 123 (1993), no. 1, 51–74.
36. M. Kirszbraun, Über die zusammenziehende und Lipschitzsche Transformationen, Funda-
menta Mathematicae 22 (1934), no. 1, 77–108 (ger).
37. M. Kneser, Einige Bemerkungen über das Minkowskische Flächenmaß, Archiv der Mathe-
matik 6 (1955), no. 5, 382–390.
38. E. Kopecká, Bootstrapping Kirszbraun’s extension theorem, Fund. Math. 217 (2012), no. 1,
13–19. MR 2914919
39. U. Lang and V. Schroeder, Kirszbraun’s theorem and metric spaces of bounded curvature,
Geometric & Functional Analysis GAFA 7 (1997), no. 3, 535–560. MR 1466337
40. J. Lee, Jl lemma and Kirszbraun’s extension theorem, 2020, Sublinear Algorithms for Big
Data Lectues Notes, Brown University.
41. J. R. Lee and A. Naor, Extending Lipschitz functions via random metric partitions, Inven-
tiones mathematicae 160 (2005), no. 1, 59–95.
42. A. Naor, Probabilistic clustering of high dimensional norms, pp. 690–709.
43. , Metric embeddings and Lipschitz extensions, Princeton University, Lecture Notes,
2015.

41
42 ADDITIONNAL TOPICS AND REFERENCES

44. A. Naor, Y. Peres, O. Schramm, and S. Sheffield, Markov chains in smooth Banach spaces
and Gromov-hyperbolic metric spaces, Duke Math. J. 134 (2006), no. 1, 165–197.
45. E. T. Poulsen, Problem 10, Mathematica Scandinavica 2 (1954), 346.
46. S. Reich and S. Simons, Fenchel duality, Fitzpatrick functions and the Kirszbraun–Valentine
extension theorem, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 133 (2005), no. 9,
2657–2660. MR 2146211
47. S. Sheffield and C. K. Smart, Vector-valued optimal Lipschitz extensions, Communications on
Pure and Applied Mathematics 65 (2012), no. 1, 128–154. MR 2846639
48. P. V. Than, Extensions lipschitziennes minimales, Ph.D. thesis, INSA de Rennes, 2015.
49. F. A. Valentine, A Lipschitz condition preserving extension for a vector function, Amer. J.
Math. 67 (1945), 83–93. MR 0011702
50. H. Whitney, Analytic extensions of differentiable functions defined in closed sets, Transactions
of the American Mathematical Society 36 (1934), no. 1, 63–89. MR 1501735