Polylogarithmic bounds in the nilpotent Freiman theorem
Matthew Tointon

TL;DR
This paper establishes polylogarithmic bounds for approximate subgroups in nilpotent groups, generalizing abelian results and improving bounds in Freiman-type theorems for residually nilpotent and linear groups.
Contribution
It introduces polylogarithmic bounds in the nilpotent Freiman theorem, extending abelian results to nilpotent groups and improving existing bounds.
Findings
Bounds are polylogarithmic in the size of the approximate subgroup.
Existence of a nilprogression within a controlled power of the approximate subgroup.
Improved rank bounds in Freiman-type theorems for residually nilpotent and linear groups.
Abstract
We show that if is a finite -approximate subgroup of an -step nilpotent group then there is a finite normal subgroup modulo which contains a nilprogression of rank at most and size at least . This partially generalises the close-to-optimal bounds obtained in the abelian case by Sanders, and improves the bounds and simplifies the exposition of an earlier result of the author. Combined with results of Breuillard-Green, Breuillard-Green-Tao, Gill-Helfgott-Pyber-Szab\'o, and the author, this leads to improved rank bounds in Freiman-type theorems in residually nilpotent groups and certain linear groups of bounded degree.
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.
Polylogarithmic bounds in the nilpotent Freiman theorem
Matthew C. H. Tointon
Pembroke College, Cambridge, CB2 1RF, United Kingdom
Abstract.
We show that if is a finite -approximate subgroup of an -step nilpotent group then there is a finite normal subgroup modulo which contains a nilprogression of rank at most and size at least . This partially generalises the close-to-optimal bounds obtained in the abelian case by Sanders, and improves the bounds and simplifies the exposition of an earlier result of the author. Combined with results of Breuillard–Green, Breuillard–Green–Tao, Gill–Helfgott–Pyber–Szabó, and the author, this leads to improved rank bounds in Freiman-type theorems in residually nilpotent groups and certain linear groups of bounded degree.
The author is the Stokes Research Fellow at Pembroke College, Cambridge
Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Standard tools
- 3 Proof of the main result
- 4 Covering arguments
- 5 Applications to non-nilpotent groups
1. Introduction
This paper concerns sets of small doubling and approximate groups in non-abelian groups. This topic has been extensively covered in the recent mathematical literature; the reader may consult the author’s forthcoming book [27] or the surveys [5, 10, 11, 14, 19, 26] for detailed background to the topic and examples of some of its many applications.
Given sets and in a group we define the product set by , and define recursively for by setting and . We also write and . If is abelian we often use additive notation instead, for example writing or in place of or , respectively.
By the doubing of a finite set we mean the ratio , and when we say that a set has ‘small’ or ‘bounded’ doubling we mean that there is some constant such that . Of course, this always holds for , so should be thought of as being substantially smaller than in order for this to be meaningful.
One of the central aims in the theory of sets of small doubling is to describe the algebraic structure of such sets. The first result in this direction was Freiman’s theorem [8], which describes sets of small doubling in terms of objects called progressions. Given elements in an abelian group and reals , the progression is defined via . Freiman’s theorem states that if a subset satisfies then there exists a progression of rank at most and size at most such that . This was subsequently generalised to an arbitrary abelian group by Green and Ruzsa [12], where one must replace the progression with a coset progression, which simply means a set of the form , with a finite subgroup and a progression.
The best bounds currently available in this theorem are due to Sanders (although Schoen [20] had previously obtained similar bounds in the special case of subsets of integers). Sanders’s main result is the following variant of Freiman’s theorem; in it and elsewhere we write to mean .
Theorem 1.1** (Sanders [18, Theorem 1.1]).**
Let be a finite subset of an abelian group such that . Then there exists a coset progression of rank at most such that and .
Combining Theorem 1.1 with the so-called covering argument of Chang [7]—which we present in Lemma 2.5, below—one obtains the following bounds in Freiman’s theorem.
Corollary 1.2** (Sanders).**
Let be a finite subset of an abelian group such that . Then there exists a coset progression of rank at most satisfying such that .
These bounds are close to best possible, as can be seen by considering, for example, an appropriate union of translates of a finite subgroup or a rank- progression.
It is worth remarking that using a simpler covering argument due to Ruzsa [17], on which Chang’s argument is based, one can also deduce the following variant of Theorem 1.1; we give details in Section 2.
Corollary 1.3** (Sanders).**
Let be a finite subset of an abelian group such that . Then there exists a coset progression of rank at most satisfying , and a set of size at most such that .
In this paper we are concerned with generalisations of these results to non-abelian groups, and specifically to nilpotent groups. The basic properties of nilpotent groups that we use can be found in [13, Chapter 10] or [27, §5.2].
In the non-abelian setting it is usual for technical reasons to replace the small-doubling assumption with a slightly stronger assumption. This is usually either a ‘small-tripling’ assumption , or the qualitativey even stronger assumtion that is a -approximate group.
Definition** (approximate group).**
Given , a subset of a group is said to be a -approximate subgroup of , or simply a -approximate group, if and , and if there exists with such that .
The reasons for making these stronger assumptions are explained at length in [21, 27], but let us highlight the fact that a set satisfying is contained in the union of a few translates of a relatively small -approximate group [21, Theorem 4.6], so there is no great loss of generality in doing so. Note, conversely, that if is a finite -approximate group then for every , a fact we will use on a number of occasions without further mention.
There are a number of ways to formulate the appropriate generalisation of a coset progression to non-abelian groups. The easiest to define is probably a coset nilprogression. Given elements in a group and , the nonabelian progression is defined to consist of all those elements of that can be expressed as words in the and their inverses in which each and its inverse appear at most times between them. We define to be the rank of . If the generate an -step nilpotent group then is said to be a nilprogression of step , and in this instance we write instead of . A set is said to be a coset nilprogression of rank and step if there exists a finite subgroup , normalised by , such that the image of in is a nilprogression of rank and step .
Another useful formulation is a closely related object called a nilpotent progression. Again, a nilpotent progression is defined using elements in a nilpotent group and reals , but its definition is a little more involved than that of a nilprogression, so we refer the reader to any of [1, 24, 27].
Nilpotent progressions have tripling bounded in terms of their rank and step, as do nilprogressions if the reals are large enough [6, Corollary 3.16]. For technical reasons, it is also convenient to define a third type of progression in a non-abelian group, although in general this one will not have bounded doubling. Given and as above, the ordered progression is defined to be .
The following result shows that it does not matter too much which of the above versions of progression we use.
Proposition 1.4** ([24, Proposition C.1]).**
Let be an -step nilpotent group, let , and let . Then .
Remarks on the proof.
The bounds we state here are written more explicitly than in [24, Proposition C.1], but bounds of the type we claim here can easily be read out of the argument there. 1.4 is also proved exactly as stated above in [27, Proposition 5.6.4]. ∎
The author has previously extended Corollary 1.2 to nilpotent groups, proving the following result.
Theorem 1.5** ([24, Theorem 1.5]).**
Let and . Let be an -step nilpotent group , and suppose that is a finite -approximate group. Then there exist a subgroup of normalised by and a nilprogression of rank at most such that
[TABLE]
Remark*.*
In particular, .
The aim of the present paper is to show that, like in the abelian case, if we ask for to be dense in , rather than the other way around, we can replace most of the polynomial bounds of Theorem 1.5 with polylogarithmic bounds, as follows.
Theorem 1.6**.**
Let and . Let be an -step nilpotent group, and suppose that is a finite -approximate group. Then there exist a subgroup normalised by and an ordered progression of rank at most such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The proof of Theorem 1.5 proceeds by an induction on the step , in which Theorem 1.1 features both in the base case and in the proof of the inductive step. The original proof used an earlier version of Theorem 1.1, due to Green and Ruzsa, in which the bounds are polynomial rather than polylogarithmic. Let us emphasise, though, that losses elsewhere in the argument overwhelmed the bounds of Theorem 1.1 to the extent that it made no difference to the shape of the final bounds to use the Green–Ruzsa result instead. In particular, proving Theorem 1.6 is not merely a case of substituting Theorem 1.1 for the Green–Ruzsa result in the original proof: we also need to make the rest of the argument more efficient.
The one bound that is still polynomial in Theorem 1.6 is the bound ; it appears that a new idea would be required to improve this any further (see Remark 3.11, below, for further details). Note, though, that in the case where the ambient group has no torsion the subgroup is automatically trivial, leaving only the polylogarithmic bounds, as follows.
Theorem 1.7**.**
Let and . Let be a torsion-free -step nilpotent group, and suppose that is a finite -approximate group. Then there exist an ordered progression of rank at most such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
As in the abelian case, Ruzsa’s covering argument combines with Theorem 1.6 to give the following variant.
Corollary 1.8**.**
Let and . Let be an -step nilpotent group, and suppose that is a finite -approximate group. Then there exist a subgroup normalised by , a nilprogression of rank at most such that
[TABLE]
and a subset of size at most such that .
Remark*.*
In particular, . In the torsion-free setting the subgroup is again trivial, and in that case we may conclude instead that .
Chang’s covering argument also allows us to recover Theorem 1.5 with much more precise bounds, as follows.
Corollary 1.9**.**
Let and . Let be an -step nilpotent group, and suppose that is a finite -approximate group. Then there exist a subgroup normalised by and a nilprogression of rank at most such that
[TABLE]
Remark*.*
In particular, , or in the torsion-free setting.
We deduce these corollaries in Section 4.
Applications to other groups. A theorem of Breuillard, Green and Tao [4] states, in one form, that an arbitrary finite -approximate group is contained in a union of at most translates of a coset nilprogression of rank and step and size at most . This result is powerful enough to have some quite general applications, such as those contained in [4, §11] and [6, 22, 23], but its usefulness is slightly lessened by the fact that it does not give an explicit bound on the number of translates needed to contain . Partly for this reason, various papers by several different authors have given explicit versions of this theorem for certain specific classes of groups.
The approach taken in these results is generally first to reduce to the nilpotent case, and then to apply Theorem 1.5 (or an earlier result of Breuillard and Green [1] valid only in the torsion-free setting) to obtain the nilprogression. Unsurprisingly, using Theorem 1.6 or one of its corollaries in place of Theorem 1.5 in these arguments leads to better bounds in a number of cases. In Section 5 we present such better bounds for linear groups over or fields of characteristic zero, and in residually nilpotent groups.
Acknowledgement. I was prompted to revisit the bounds in Theorem 1.5 by a question from Harald Helfgott.
2. Standard tools
In this section we record various standard results relating to sets of small doubling and approximate groups. This material is likely to be familiar to experts in the subject, who may therefore decide to skip straight to Section 3.
Lemma 2.1** ([27, Proposition 2.6.5]).**
Let and let be a group. Let be a -approximate group and an -approximate group. Then for every the set is covered by at most left translates of . In particular, is a -approximate group.
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let . Let be a group with a subgroup , let , and suppose that is contained in a union of left cosets of . Then is contained in a union of left translates of .
Proof.
Let be representatives of the left cosets of containing at least one element of , noting that by hypothesis. If is an arbitrary element of then there exists such that . It follows that , and hence and . ∎
Theorem 2.3** (Plünnecke’s inqequalities [16]).**
Let be an abelian group, and let be a finite subset of . Suppose that . Then for all non-negative integers .
Lemma 2.4** (Ruzsa’s covering lemma [4, Lemma 5.1]).**
Let and be finite subsets of some group and suppose that . Then there exists a subset with such that .
Proof of Corollary 1.3.
Let and be as given by Theorem 1.1. Then we have
[TABLE]
and so Lemma 2.4 gives a set of size at most such that . Now is also a progression of the same rank as . Moreover, since , we have , and hence by Theorem 2.3. This completes the proof. ∎
Lemma 2.5** (Chang’s covering lemma [24, Proposition 2.4]).**
Let and . Let be a group, and suppose that is a finite -approximate group. Suppose that is a set with . Then there exist and sets satisfying such that .
Definition** (Freiman homomorphism).**
Let , let be a group, and let be a subset of a group. Then a map is a Freiman -homomorphism, or simply a -homomorphism, if whenever satisfy
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
If and then we say that is centred.
Lemma 2.6**.**
Let . Let be a -approximate group, let be a group. Suppose that is a centred Freiman -homomorphism. Then is a -approximate group.
Proof.
The set contains the identity by definition of a centred Freiman homomorphism. Moreover, for every we have , and hence
[TABLE]
so is symmetric. Finally, by definition there is a set of size at most such that . We may assume that is minimal satisfying this property, and hence that . For each there therefore exist elements such that . Set , noting that . We claim that , which will complete the proof. To prove this claim, fix , and let and be such that . It follows from (2.1) that , and so as claimed. ∎
3. Proof of the main result
Before we prove Theorem 1.6, let us remark that at various points we make the seemingly unnecessary assumption that . The reason for this is purely notational: it allows us to replace bounds such as or with the slightly more succinct or , respectively. Note that if then a -approximate group is an actual subgroup, in which regime all of our main results become trivial, so we lose nothing in making this assumption.
We start the proof of Theorem 1.6 with the following result, a version of which with worse bounds was also central to the original proof of Theorem 1.5.
Proposition 3.1**.**
Let and be integers, and let . Let be an -step nilpotent group generated by a finite -approximate group, and let be a -approximate group that generates an -step nilpotent subgroup of . Then there exist a normal subgroup with , an integer , and -approximate groups such that
[TABLE]
and such that, writing for the quotient homomorphism, each group has step less than .
The main ingredients in the proof of 3.1 are the next three results.
Proposition 3.2**.**
Let and . Let be an -step nilpotent group, and write for the quotient homomorphism. Suppose that is a finite -approximate group. Then there exist an integer , elements , and a subgroup such that
[TABLE]
We prove 3.2 shortly.
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let . Let be an -step nilpotent group, write for the quotient homomorphism, and let . Then the group has step at most .
Remarks on the proof.
This is implicitly shown in the proofs of [24, Propositions 4.2 & 4.3]; it is also proved explicitly in [27, Lemma 6.1.6 (i)]. ∎
Proposition 3.4** ([24, Proposition 7.1]).**
Let and be integers, and let . Let be an -step nilpotent group generated by a finite -approximate group , and let be an -step nilpotent subgroup of . Write for the quotient homomorphism, and suppose that is a finite group. Then there is a normal subgroup such that .
Remarks on the proof.
The bounds stated here are more precise than those stated in [24, Proposition 7.1], but the bounds claimed here can be read out of the argument there. Alternatively, 3.4 is proved exactly as stated here in [27, Proposition 6.6.2]. ∎
Proof of 3.1.
Combine Proposition 3.2 with Lemmas 2.1 and 3.3 and 3.4. ∎
Before we prove 3.2 we isolate the following lemma, which is inspired by a lemma of Tao [21, Lemma 7.7].
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let be a group, let be a normal subgroup, and let be the quotient homomorphism. Let be a symmetric subset of , and define a map by choosing, for each element , an element such that . Then
- (i)
for every we have ; and 2. (ii)
for every with we have .
Proof.
This is essentially just an observation: by definition of we have and . ∎
Lemma 3.6**.**
Let be a group, let be a normal subgroup, and let be the quotient homomorphism. Let be a finite symmetric subset of , and let . Suppose that . Then .
Proof.
Lemma 2.2 implies that , which in turn implies that for every . In particular, , as desired. ∎
Proof of Proposition 3.2.
Write for the quotient homomorphism, and note that is a finite -approximate subgroup of the abelian group . Theorem 1.1 therefore implies that there exists a finite subgroup , and a progression with such that and . Lemma 3.6 then implies that
[TABLE]
Now let be an arbitrary map such that for every . Suppose that , so that there exist and such that . It follows from Lemma 3.5 (i) that
[TABLE]
and hence by repeated application of Lemma 3.5 (ii) that
[TABLE]
Since was an arbitrary element of , the proposition then follows from (3.1). ∎
It is at this point that we diverge from the original proof of Theorem 1.5.
Proposition 3.7**.**
Let and be integers, and let . Let be an -step nilpotent group generated by a finite -approximate group , and let be a -approximate group that generates an -step nilpotent subgroup of . Then there exist a normal subgroup with ; an integer ; finite -approximate groups such that, writing for the quotient homomorphism, each group has step less than ; and a set of size at most such that .
Proof.
This is immediate from 3.1 and 2.4. ∎
Using 3.7 to induct on the step, we arrive at the following result.
Proposition 3.8**.**
Let and be integers, and let . Let be an -step nilpotent group generated by a finite -approximate group , and let be a -approximate group that generates an -step nilpotent subgroup of . Then there exist integers ; a normal subgroup satisfying
[TABLE]
finite -approximate groups such that, writing for the quotient homomorphism, each group is abelian; and sets of size at most such that
[TABLE]
with the product taken in some order.
Here, and throughout this paper, given an ordered set of subsets and/or elements in a group , we write that a product of the members of is equal to with the product taken in some order to mean that there is a permutation such that . If is another ordered set of the same number subsets and/or elements of , then we say that products and are taken in the same order if and for the same permutation .
Proof.
If is abelian then the proposition is trivially true with , , and . We may therefore assume that and, by induction, that the proposition holds for all smaller values of .
We start by rewriting the part (3.2) of the statement we are trying to prove as
[TABLE]
This is exactly equivalent to (3.2), but writing the bound in this way makes it slightly easier to keep track of through the induction. For the same reason, at various points in the argument we use the trivial observation that any quantity bounded by is also bounded by .
Applying Proposition 3.7, we obtain a normal subgroup with ; an integer ; finite -approximate groups such that, writing for the quotient homomorphism, each group has step less than ; and a set of size at most such that
[TABLE]
Since is generated by the -approximate group , we may apply the induction hypothesis to each approximate subgroup of to obtain, for each , integers
[TABLE]
a normal subgroup containing and satisfying
[TABLE]
finite -approximate groups such that, writing for the quotient homomorphism, each group is abelian; and sets satisfying
[TABLE]
such that
[TABLE]
with the product taken in some order.
Defining , we then have
[TABLE]
Moreover, (3.3) and (3.4) imply that
[TABLE]
with the product taken in some order. We also have
[TABLE]
Finally, since every is abelian, every certainly is, so the proof is complete. ∎
Proposition 3.9** ([24, Proposition 7.3]).**
Let and . Let be an -step nilpotent group generated by a finite -approximate group . Let be a subgroup of . Then there exists a normal subgroup of such that .
Remarks on the proof.
The bounds stated in [24, Proposition 7.3] are less explicit than the ones claimed here; as usual, the bounds claimed here can be read out of the argument there, or alternatively found explicitly in [27, Corollary 6.5.2]. ∎
Proposition 3.10**.**
Let and . Let be an -step nilpotent group, and suppose that is a finite -approximate group. Then there exist , ordered progressions of rank at most , sets of size at most , and a subgroup normalised by satisfying such that
[TABLE]
with the product taken in some order.
Proof.
We may assume that generates . Applying 3.8 with , we obtain integers ; a normal subgroup satisfying ; finite -approximate groups such that, writing for the quotient homomorphism, each group is abelian; and sets of size at most such that
[TABLE]
with the product taken in some order.
For each , apply Corollary 1.3 to the set to obtain a subgroup containing , an ordered progression of rank at most , and a set of size at most , such that . Since is gererated by the -approximate group , applying Proposition 3.9 in implies that for each there is a normal subgroup such that . The subgroup is then normal in , and satisfies
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
with the product taken in some order. This completes the proof. ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.6.
Note that if then is a finite subgroup of , and so the theorem holds with . We may therefore assume that . Let ,
[TABLE]
and be as coming from 3.10, noting in particular that
[TABLE]
The pigeonhole principle therefore implies that there exist elements with such that the product , taken in the same order as the product in (3.6), satisfies
[TABLE]
In particular, setting for , we have
[TABLE]
with the product again taken in the same order.
Now is an ordered progression, say . The ranks of the progressions coming from 3.10 are at most , and hence that the rank of is at most , which is at most . Furthermore, the containment (3.5) implies that
[TABLE]
and 1.4 therefore implies that
[TABLE]
This comletes the proof. ∎
Remark 3.11*.*
The polynomial bound on the product set of required to contain in Theorem 1.6 comes from our applications of Propositions 3.4 and 3.9. These propositions are themselves both applications of the same result, namely [24, Proposition 7.2], and so the polynomial bound in Theorem 1.6 can be traced to this result. It appears that a new idea would be required to improve this result in such a way as to remove the polynomial bound from Theorem 1.6.
4. Covering arguments
In this section we use covering arguments to prove Corollaries 1.8 and 1.9. Corollary 1.8 follows from Theorem 1.6 and a straightforward application of Ruzsa’s covering lemma, as follows.
Proof of Corollary 1.8.
We may assume that generates . Let and be as given by Theorem 1.6, noting that . Let be the quotient homomorphism, and note that
[TABLE]
the last inequality coming from the fact that is a -approximate group and . Applying Lemma 2.4 in the quotient therefore gives a set of size at most such that . Now is an ordered progression of rank double that of , which is still at most . The corollary therefore follows from 1.4. ∎
Proof of Corollary 1.9.
We may assume that generates . Let and be as given by Theorem 1.6, noting that . Let be the quotient homomorphism, noting that
[TABLE]
Applying and Lemma 2.5 in the quotient , we therefore have
[TABLE]
and sets with such that
[TABLE]
Enumerating the elements of each as and writing
[TABLE]
the set is therefore an ordered progression of rank at most
[TABLE]
satisfying
[TABLE]
The corollary therefore follows from 1.4. ∎
5. Applications to non-nilpotent groups
In this section we use our results to improve the bounds on the ranks of the coset nilprogressions appearing in various Freiman-type theorems in non-nilpotent groups. As in Section 3, at various points we separate the trivial case from the meaningful case so as to avoid the need for multiplicative constants.
Our first corollary improves an earlier result of the author for residually nilpotent groups [25, Corollary 1.4], and partially improves on Corollary 1.8 for large values of .
Corollary 5.1**.**
Let . Let be a residually nilpotent group, and suppose that is a finite -approximate group. Then is contained in the union of at most left translates of a coset nilprogression of rank at most and step at most .
This compares with the bound of on the rank of obtained previously by the author using Theorem 1.5.
Proof.
It follows from [25, Theorem 1.2] that there exist subgroups such that , such that is nilpotent of step at most , and such that is contained in a union of at most left cosets of . Lemma 2.2 then implies that is contained in a union of at most left translates of , which is a -approximate group by Lemma 2.1. The desired result therefore follows from applying Corollary 1.9 to the image of in . ∎
Remark*.*
Corollary 5.1 gives a better rank bound than Corollary 1.8 if the step of the ambient group is greater than . It gives a better bound on number of translates of required to cover as soon as the step is logarithmic in .
Our next corollary applies to linear groups over fields of prime order, and arises from combining Corollary 1.8 with a result of Gill, Helfgott, Pyber and Szabó [9, Theorem 3].
Corollary 5.2**.**
Let and , and let be a prime. Suppose that is a finite -approximate group. Then there is a coset nilprogression of rank at most and step at most such that is contained in the union of at most left translates of .
This compares with the bound of on the rank of obtained by Gill, Helfgott, Pyber and Szabó using Theorem 1.5.
Proof.
If then is a finite subgroup and the corollary is trivial, so we may assume that . It follows from [9, Theorem 3] that there exist subgroups such that , such that is nilpotent of step at most , and such that is contained in a union of at most left cosets of . Lemma 2.2 then implies that is contained in a union of at most left translates of , which is a -approximate group by Lemma 2.1. The desired result therefore follows from applying Corollary 1.8 to the image of in . ∎
One can obtain a similar result in characteristic zero by combining Corollary 1.9 with a result of Breuillard, Green and Tao [3, Theorem 2.5], as follows.
Corollary 5.3**.**
Let and , and let be a field of characterisic zero. Suppose that is a finite -approximate group. Then there is a coset nilprogression of rank at most such that is contained in the union of at most left translates of , and a coset nilprogression of rank at most such that is contained in the union of at most left translates of .
Proof.
If then is a finite subgroup and the corollary is trivial, so we may assume that . It then follows from [3, Theorem 2.5] that is contained in a union of at most left cosets of a nilpotent subgroup of of step at most , and hence from Lemma 2.2 that is contained in a union of at most left translates of . Lemma 2.1 implies that is a -approximate group, and so the existence of follows from Corollary 1.8 and the existence of follows from Corollary 1.9. ∎
In the special case in which , an argument of Breuillard and Green shows that the coset nilprogression appearing in Corollary 5.3 can be replaced with simply a nilprogression, as follows.
Corollary 5.4**.**
Let and . Suppose that is a finite -approximate group. Then there is a nilprogression of rank at most such that is contained in a union of at most left translates of , and a nilprogression of rank at most such that is contained in a union of at most left translates of .
For the convenience of the reader we reproduce the Breuillard–Green argument giving Corollary 5.4. The argument is facilitated by the following two general results about complex linear groups, in which we write to mean the group of upper-triangular complex matrices.
Theorem 5.5** (Mal’cev [15]; see also [28, Theorem 3.6]).**
Let , and suppose that is a soluble subgroup. Then contains a normal subgroup of index at most that is conjugate to a subgroup of .
Proposition 5.6** ([2, Proposition 3.2]).**
Let , and let be an -step nilpotent subgroup of . Then there is a torsion-free -step nilpotent group such that embeds into .
Remarks on the proof.
Although [2, Proposition 3.2] does not include the statement that has the same step as , one can easily obtain this by replacing with . ∎
Proof of Corollary 5.4.
We follow part of the proof of [2, Corollary 1.5]. It follows from [3, Theorem 2.5] that is contained in a union of at most left cosets of a nilpotent subgroup of of step at most . By Theorem 5.5 we may assume that , and then by 5.6 we may assume that there exists a torsion-free -step nilpotent group such that . Lemma 2.2 then implies that is contained in a union of at most left translates of .
Set . The set is a -approximate group; since and , Lemma 2.1 therefore implies that is a -approximate group, and that is contained in a union of at most left translates of .
Let be the obvious lift. The restriction of to is a Freiman -homomorphism, so Lemma 2.6 implies that is a -approximate subgroup of the torsion-free -step nilpotent group . Corollaries 1.8 and 1.9 therefore imply the existence of a nilprogression of rank at most such that is contained in a union of at most left translates of , and a nilprogression of rank at most such that .
Write for the quotient homomorphism, and note that , so that is contained in a union of at most left translates of . The corollary therefore follows from setting and . ∎
Remark*.*
The reason for tradeoff between the rank of and the number of translates of it required to cover in Corollaries 5.3 and 5.4 is that the bound on the number of cosets of needed to cover in [3, Theorem 2.5] is stronger than the bound on the number of translates of the coset nilprogression needed to cover in Corollary 1.8. This tradeoff does not occur in Corollary 5.2, as the corresponding bounds in [9, Theorem 3] are weaker.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] E. Breuillard and B. J. Green. Approximate groups, I: The torsion-free nilpotent case, J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 10 (1) (2011), 37–57.
- 2[2] E. Breuillard and B. J. Green. Approximate groups, II: the solvable linear case, Q. J. Math. 62 (3) (2011), 513–521.
- 3[3] E. Breuillard, B. J. Green and T. C. Tao. Approximate subgroups of linear groups, Geom. Funct. Anal. 21 (4) (2011), 774–819.
- 4[4] E. Breuillard, B. J. Green and T. C. Tao. The structure of approximate groups, Publ. Math. IHES. 116 (1) (2012), 115–221.
- 5[5] E. Breuillard, B. J. Green and T. C. Tao. Small doubling in groups, Proc. of the Erdős centenery conference (2013); ar Xiv:1301.7718.
- 6[6] E. Breuillard and M. C. H. Tointon. Nilprogressions and groups with moderate growth, Adv. Math. 289 (2016), 1008–1055.
- 7[7] M. C. Chang. A polynomial bound in Freiman’s theorem, Duke Math. J. 113 (3) (2002), 399–419.
- 8[8] G. A. Freiman. Foundations of a structural theory of set addition, Translations of Mathematical Monographs 37 , Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI (1973). Translated from the 1966 Russian version, published by Kazan Gos. Ped. Inst..
