Let $x_1,\cdots x_n$ and $y_1,\cdots y_m$ be arbitrary points in $\mathbb{R}^k$. For a given metric $d$ and a given $\epsilon>0$ define: $$A_i\equiv \{\, j \quad |\quad d(x_i,y_j)<\epsilon\},$$ i.e. the set of labels of the points $y_j$ falling in the neighborhood of $x_i$, for $i=1,\cdots n$.
Clearly the $A_i$ can be determined for any sets of arbitrary points $x_i$ and $y_j$.
My question is about reversing the previous path: given an arbitrary family of subsets of $\{1,\cdots,m\}$, is it always possible to find a suitable metric $d$, a suitable $\epsilon$ and suitable points such that the $A_i$ satisfy the previous definition?
For example, let $A_1\equiv\{1,2\}$ and $A_2\equiv\{3,4\}$. A solution in $\mathbb{R}$ is given by points $(y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4)\equiv(1,2,3,4)$ and $(x_1,x_2)=(1.5,3.5)$, the usual euclidean metric and any $\epsilon \in (0.5,1.5)$. However, if you add $A_3\equiv\{1,4\}$ and $A_4\equiv\{2,3\}$ there is no solution in $\mathbb{R}$ (but I could still find a solution in $\mathbb{R^2}$ by drawing). So maybe it is enough to raise dimensionality to find a solution?