On Some Subgroup Chains Related to Kneser's Theorem
Yahya Ould Hamidoune, Oriol Serra, Gilles Zemor

TL;DR
This paper explores subgroup chains related to Kneser's Theorem, extending results from abelian to nonabelian groups using additive number theory and poset properties.
Contribution
It introduces an analogous poset for nonabelian groups and extends key results of Balandraud to this broader context.
Findings
Short proof of Balandraud's results in abelian groups
Extension of subgroup chain properties to nonabelian groups
Use of classical additive number theory tools
Abstract
A recent result of Balandraud shows that for every subset S of an abelian group G, there exists a non trivial subgroup H such that |TS| <= |T|+|S|-2 holds only if the stabilizer of TS contains H. Notice that Kneser's Theorem says only that the stabilizer of TS must be a non-zero subgroup. This strong form of Kneser's theorem follows from some nice properties of a certain poset investigated by Balandraud. We consider an analogous poset for nonabelian groups and, by using classical tools from Additive Number Theory, extend some of the above results. In particular we obtain short proofs of Balandraud's results in the abelian case.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
On some subgroup chains related to Kneser’s theorem
Yahya O. Hamidoune Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris 6, Combinatoire et Optimisation - case 189, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05. [email protected]
Oriol Serra Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Matemàtica Aplicada IV, Campus Nord - Edif. C3, C. Jordi Girona, 1-3, 08034 Barcelona, Spain. [email protected]
Gilles Zémor Université de Bordeaux 1, Institut de Mathématiques de Bordeaux, 351 cours de la Libération, 33405 Talence. [email protected]
(March 28, 2007)
Abstract
A recent result of Balandraud shows that for every subset of an abelian group there exists a non trivial subgroup such that holds only if . Notice that Kneser’s Theorem only gives .
This strong form of Kneser’s theorem follows from some nice properties of a certain poset investigated by Balandraud. We consider an analogous poset for nonabelian groups and, by using classical tools from Additive Number Theory, extend some of the above results. In particular we obtain short proofs of Balandraud’s results in the abelian case.
1 Introduction
In order to avoid switching from multiplicative to additive notation, all groups will be written multiplicatively.
Kneser’s addition theorem states that if are finite subsets of an abelian group then holds only if is periodic (i.e, there is a non trivial subgroup such that .) Kneser’s Theorem is a fundamental tool in Additive number Theory. Proofs of this result may be found in [4, 5, 6, 7, 9].
In all previously known proofs of Kneser’s Theorem, the subgroup depends crucially on both sets and . With the goal of breaking this double dependence in and , Balandraud investigated in recent work [1, 2] the properties of a combinatorial poset that we now present.
Let be a finite subset containing of a group . Following Balandraud, let us define a cell of as a finite subset such that, for all , it holds that . This notion is defined in [1, 2] and it is equivalent to the notion of nonextendible subset used in [3]. Throughout the paper, by a cell we always mean a cell of .
A cell is called a -cell if . A -cell with minimal cardinality is called a -kernel (of ).
Balandraud showed that, for a finite set in an abelian group , in the poset of –cells containing the unity ordered by inclusion with , the set of kernels form a chain of subgroups. Moreover, if there exists a –cell, then there is a unique –kernel containing the unit element which is contained in all –cells containing the unit element.
One of the consequences of this work is a new proof and the following strengthening of Kneser’s Theorem:
Theorem 1** (Balandraud)**
For any non-empty finite subset of an abelian group , there exists a finite subgroup of such that for any finite subset of one of the following conditions hold :
- •
**
- •
* and *
As far as the authors are aware this is a surprising and strong formulation that was not observed before and does not follow straightforwardly from the classical forms of Kneser’s Theorem.
The purpose of the present note is to give a short proof for the nonabelian case that, in the poset of –cells that are subgroups ordered by inclusion with , the set of kernels form a chain of subgroups. Moreover, each -kernel of this poset is unique and contained in all –cells of this poset.
From this statement Kneser’s theorem allows one to deduce Balandraud’s results for the abelian case, and in particular Theorem 1. Kneser’s Theorem has several equivalent forms. We use the following one; see e.g [4, 7]:
Theorem 2** (Kneser [5])**
Let be an abelian group and be finite subsets such that . Then
[TABLE]
where
Our main tool is the following Theorem of Olson[8, Theorem 2]. We give an equivalent formulation here where we use left–cosets instead of right–cosets.
Theorem 3** (Olson [8])**
Let be finite subsets of a group , and let and be subgroups such that , and , . Then
[TABLE]
In particular either or .
We shall use the following lemma.
Lemma 4** ([1, 2])**
Let be a group and be a finite subset. Then the intersection of two cells of is a cell of .
*Proof. * Let . There is with . Then Hence .
We can now state our main result, namely Theorem 5 below.
2 An application of Olson’s Theorem
Balandraud [1, 2] proved that, in the abelian case, the set of kernels containing the unit element and ordered by inclusion is a chain of subgroups. In the non abelian case we can prove only that the set of kernels that are subgroups forms a chain. The abelian case can then be easily recovered, since Kneser’s Theorem implies (as we shall see below) that a kernel containing the unit element is a subgroup.
Theorem 5
Let be a finite subset containing of a group . Let be a –kernel of which is a subgroup. Let be a subgroup which is a –cell and suppose .
- (i)
If either is a –kernel or then or .
- (ii)
If is a –kernel and then .
*Proof. * Suppose that and . Note that, since is a cell, if then , thus against our assumption. Hence we may assume and similarly . By Theorem 3 we have one of the two following cases.
**Case ** 1: It follows that On the other hand we have Since is a multiple of we have
[TABLE]
By Lemma 4, is a cell. Since is a –kernel, we have a contradiction.
**Case ** 2: It follows that On the other hand we have Since is a multiple of we have
[TABLE]
Assume first . Then . Since is a –kernel, we have a contradiction.
Assume that is a –kernel. Then (1) implies a contradiction. This proves .
Assume now that . Suppose . By we have , which implies in particular that is a multiple of . Therefore, from we have which gives . But then and imply , and since is now a –cell, this contradicts being a –kernel.
We can now deduce Balandraud’s description for kernels and cells :
Corollary 6** (Balandraud [1, 2])**
Let be an abelian group and be a finite subset with . Let be a –kernel of containing with . Then,
- (i)
* is a subgroup.*
- (ii)
Each -cell is –periodic.
- (iii)
Each –kernel with is a proper subgroup of .
*Proof. * Let be a -cell with . By Kneser’s Theorem, the inequality implies
[TABLE]
where is the stabilizer of . Since is a cell and , we have . Note that, since is abelian, implies , so that . This observation and (2) imply that is an –cell. In particular, by taking , the period of is a –cell. Since and is a –cell, we have . Since is a –kernel we have . This proves (i).
Now let be the stabilizer of , where is a –cell. As shown in the preceding paragraph is also a –cell. By Theorem 5 we have and thus . Since is a cell and , we have . Hence implies . This proves (ii).
Finally, by (i), a –kernel is a subgroup. By Theorem 5 we have .
From Corollary 6, one can deduce Theorem 1.
Proof of Theorem 1: We may assume without loss of generality that .
Case 1: There is no –cell for any .
- •
either we have for any non-empty finite , in which case the theorem clearly holds with .
- •
or there exists some non-empty finite such that . Without loss of generality, we may also suppose . Now must be contained in an –cell with , but since no such cell exists for , we have that itself must be a cell (a [math]-cell) i.e. . We therefore have where is the (necessarily finite) subgroup generated by . We have just proved that the theorem holds in this case with .
Case 2: There exists an –cell with . We may therefore consider the largest integer for which admits a –cell. Let be the –kernel containing . Note that implies that is different from . Now let be any finite non-empty subset such that . We shall prove that .
By adding elements to as long as necessary, we can find a cell that contains and such that . Note that we then have , so that is a –cell for some . By Corollary 6 (ii) we have where is the -kernel containing . By part (i) of Corollary 6, is a subgroup of so that as well.
Finally, follows from being a multiple of .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] E. Balandraud, Une variante de la méthode isopérimetrique de Hamidoune, appliquée au theoreme de Kneser, Preprint, december 2005.
- 2[2] E. Balandraud, Quelques résultats combinatoires en Théorie Additive des Nombres, Thèse de Doctorat de l’Université de Bordeaux I, May 2006.
- 3[3] D. Grynkiewicz, A step beyond Kempermann structure Theorem, Preprint May 2006.
- 4[4] J. H. B. Kemperman, On small sumsets in Abelian groups, Acta Math. 103 (1960), 66–88.
- 5[5] M. Kneser, Summenmengen in lokalkompakten abelesche Gruppen, Math. Zeit. 66 (1956), 88–110.
- 6[6] H.B. Mann, Addition Theorems , R.E. Krieger, New York, 1976.
- 7[7] M. B. Nathanson, Additive Number Theory. Inverse problems and the geometry of sumsets , Grad. Texts in Math. 165, Springer, 1996.
- 8[8] J.E. Olson, On the symmetric difference of two sets in a group. European J. Combin. 7 (1986), no. 1, 43–54.
