We place three non-overlapping, noncollinear points on an arbitrarily large grid graph (not worrying about infinities). Call these points $(p_1,p_2,p_3)$. Assuming taxicab geometry, is it possible for there to exist two or more points on the lattice, $(p_a,p_b)$, that have the same ordered set of distances to $(p_1,p_2,p_3)$? Does this hold true for a $d$-dimensional grid graph if we ask for an ordered set of distances to $d+1$ non-overlapping and noncollinear points (trivially true for $d = 1$)?
Please notice that I specify the distances to each point should be an ordered set. In other words, if your set of distances to $(p_1,p_2,p_3)$ is $(d_1, d_2, d_3)$, this set of distances is distinct from, for example, $(d_2, d_1, d_3)$.
In response to coffeemath's answer: The example you give (scaled by a factor of 20), yields $(p_1,p_2,p_3) = ((0,0),(-20,20),(10,10))$ and $(p_a,p_b) = ((-5,15),(-4,16))$. In taxicab geometry, we thus have $(d_1, d_2, d_3) = (20,20,20)$ for both $p_a$ and $p_b$. However, in Euclidean geometry, we have that $(d_1, d_2, d_3) = (5*10^{\frac{1}{2}},5*10^{\frac{1}{2}},5*10^{\frac{1}{2}})$ for $p_a$ and $(d_1, d_2, d_3) = (4*17^{\frac{1}{2}},4*17^{\frac{1}{2}},2*58^{\frac{1}{2}})$ for $p_b$. So the answer to my question is "no", a particular instance of the ordered set $(d_2, d_1, d_3)$ can exist for multiple lattice points.
Followup question (while my account details are being sorted out) - Are there any simple constraints that would make my statement true? What if we have $d+2$ points for a $d$-dimensional grid graph and ask about the uniqueness of an ordered set of these points? What if we consider a hexagonal lattice version of taxicab geometry?
Note to CoffeeMath: Still haven't been able to fuse my account with this one, but to respond:
"...maybe the requirement should be that the n+1 points not all lie on any hyperplane (on the analogy of for 2-space requiring no three on a line (hyperplane in two space)? For highjer dimensions I think "no three on a line" might be too easy."
Right, I think this is a very natural extension to the "non collinear" constraint I imposed in 2D. In general, we want to break any "trivial" axes of symmetry. In the continuum limit, we might call this randomly perturbing the vertices of the grid graph in $R^d$. Also, as a quick note, I never meant that additional dimensions would somehow constrain lower-dimensional embeddings of graphs.