A few months ago on his blog Terry Tao explained how one could, by analogy with the theory of graph limits, replace the explicit use of arithmetic regularity with a soft device which he calls an additive limit. Roughly speaking, the additive limit, or Kronecker factor, of a sequence of finite abelian groups is a compact quotient of the ultraproduct
which controls the convolutions. The result is that many theorems from additive combinatorics, such as Roth’s theorem, which are usually proved using quantitative tools like Fourier analysis can instead be proved using soft tools more like the Lebesgue differentiation theorem.
The purpose of this post is to extend Tao’s construction to the nonabelian setting. Tao already stated in his post that this should be possible, so one could say that this is just an exercise in nonabelian Fourier analysis. On the other hand the proof in the nonabelian setting more or less forces a more categorical point of view, so certain points of this exercise are instructive.
1. Measurable Bohr compactification
Given any topological group there is a compact group
, called the Bohr compactification of
, such every continuous homomorphism from
to a compact group
factors uniquely through
. One can think of
as the ‘largest’ compact group in which
has dense image. We need a variant of this definition for groups
endowed only with a
-algebra instead of a topology.
By a measurable group we mean a group together with a
-algebra
of subsets of
. Note that we do not make any measurability assumptions about the group operation or even the left- or right-shifts, though certainly it would be sensible to do so in other contexts. For us the only role of
is to distinguish among all homomorphisms the measurable homomorphisms. The analogue of Bohr compactification for measurable groups is given by the following theorem.
Theorem 1 (Existence of measurable Bohr compactification) For every measurable group
there is a compact group
together with a
-measurable homomorphism
such that every
-measurable homomorphism from
to a compact group
factors uniquely as the composition of
and a continuous homomorphism
.
In category-theoretic terms is a left adjoint to the functor
from compact groups to measurable groups which replaces a group’s topology with its Baire
-algebra. By the adjoint functor theorem it suffices to check that the functor
is continuous, which boils down to the following lemma. Incidentally the analogue of this lemma fails for the Borel
-algebra, which is why we must consider the Baire
-algebra instead.
Lemma 2 For compact Hausdorff spaces
we have
. In words, the Baire
-algebra of the product is the product of the Baire
-algebras.
Proof: The containment is immediate from the defintions. To prove the opposite containment it suffices to check that every continuous function
is measurable with respect to
. This is certainly true of functions
which depend on only finitely many coordinates, and thus for all continuous functions
by the Stone–Weierstrass theorem.
Those who, like me, are not used to thinking in terms of the adjoint functor theorem will appreciate a more pedestrian proof of Theorem 1. To this end, let be the set of all pairs
, where
is a compact group and
is a
-measurable homomorphism with
dense in
. Then
is the diagonal map then is the Bohr compactification of
. Indeed, the measurability of
follows from Lemma 2, and the universal property is essentially obvious: given a
-measurable homomorphism
with
compact, the pair
appears in
, so we have continuous maps
whose composition satisfies
; moreover
is unique because
is dense in
.
Alternatively, by the Peter–Weyl theorem, can be defined as the inverse limit of all measurable finite-dimensional unitary representations of
.
It is natural to ask what relation the measurable Bohr compactification bears to the usual Bohr compactification
. In particular, is
just the composition
? Clearly
if and only if every measurable homomorphism
from
to a compact group
is continuous. This follows from Steinhaus’s theorem if
is locally compact, but it certainly fails in general, for instance for
with the topology inherited from
.
2. The Bohr compactification of an ultrafinite group
Let be a sequence of finite groups and let
be a nonprincipal ultrafilter. We form the ultraproduct
and make it into a measurable group by giving it the Loeb
-algebra
, the
-algebra generated by internal sets
, where
. We define the Loeb measure
on internal sets
by putting
and we define on
by extension.
While the group operation is not generally measurable with respect to the product
-algebra
, it is measurable with respect to the larger
-algebra
. Moreover this latter
-algebra is still ‘product-like’ in the sense that all
-measurable
obey Fubini’s theorem, so we have a sensibly defined convolution operation
given
Now consider the Bohr compactification of
. The first thing to notice is that
is a
-invariant Baire probability measure on
. Since
is dense in
we conclude that
is in fact
-invariant, so by the uniqueness of Haar measure we must have
In the remainder of this section we relate the two convolution algebras and
. Given
we can form the pullback
. Since
we see that is a well defined element of
, and in fact
defines an isometric embedding
In the other direction we have the pushforward
defined as the adjoint of . The identities
are readily verified. For instance, the last of these is verified by the following computation, valid for by
-Fubini:
We can summarise the situation as an isometric Banach algebra isomorphism
The following theorem asserts that in fact alone determines convolutions in
, and thus
will more generally control all ‘first-order configurations’ in
.
Theorem 3 We have
. Thus all convolutions in
can be computed in
, in the sense that
for all
.
The theorem follows from the following lemma.
Lemma 4 For all
and
we have
In particular by optimising
we have
Proof: We borrow nonabelian harmonic analysis notation from Tao. Certainly we may assume that and
are internal, say
and
. Then by nonabelian Plancherel,
where in the last line the supremum is taken over all . Fixing some such
, by Plancherel again
so we may assume that for
-most
. But then the representations
induce a measurable representation
, which in turn by the universal property of
factors through a continuous representation
. Thus
This proves the lemma.
3. Quasirandomness
From an additive combinatorics point of view, nonabelian groups obey a structure versus randomness principle: the asymptotic behaviour with respect to linear configurations can usually be described as some combination of abelian and random-like behaviour. Following Gowers, we call a sequence of finite groups quasirandom if the least dimension of a nontrivial representation of
tends to infinity with
. For example for
every nontrivial representation of the alternating group
has dimension at least
, so the sequence
is quasirandom.
Theorem 5 The ultrafinite group
has trivial Bohr compactification if and only if the least dimension of a nontrivial representation of
tends to infinity as
. In particular,
is quasirandom if and only if
is trivial for every
.
First we need a simple lemma.
Lemma 6 Let
and
be groups with
finite and
a map which satisfies
for
of the pairs
. Then there is a homomorphism
such that
for
of the points
.
Proof: For every and for
of the pairs
we have
so for each there is a unique
such that
for of the points
. Clearly
for
of the points
, and for
we have
for of the points
, in particular for at least one
, so
is a homomorphism.
Proof: (of Theorem~5) Suppose we have a sequence of nontrivial homomorphisms for all
on some neighbourhood of
. Then
induces a measurable homomorphism
, and since
has no small subgroups the induced homomorphism
will also be nontrivial, so
must be nontrivial.
Conversely suppose the least dimension of a nontrivial representation of tends to infinity as
tends to
, and let
be a measurable homomorphism. By a countable saturation argument there is an internal function
, say
, such that
almost everywhere. Then
satisfies
for
of the pairs
, so by the lemma there is a homomorphism
such that
for
of the points
. But by assumption any such homomorphism
must be trivial for
near enough to
, so we must have
almost everywhere, so
almost everywhere. Moreover since
we must in fact have
identically. Since the Peter–Weyl theorem implies that
is an inverse limit of matrix groups this implies that
is trivial.
Equations are generally easy to solve in quasirandom groups. We illustrate this point with the following theorem.
Theorem 7 Let
be quasirandom and let
. Then there exists
such that if
and
has density
then we can find
with
.
Proof: Let , let
, and let
be the internal function
. Then
, so if
is the Bohr compactification then
. But by the previous theorem
is trivial, so
is a constant
, so by Theorem 3 we have
In other words the number of pairs such that
is at least
as
, but since
was arbitrary this must hold as
.
Here is another nice criterion for quasirandomness, which can be found in Gowers’s original paper: is not quasirandom if and only if the groups
have nontrivial abelian quotients or nontrivial small quotients. In our setup we can write this the following way.
Theorem 8 Let
be an ultrafinite group. Then one of the following three alternatives hold:
is trivial.
has a nontrivial abelian quotient.
has a nontrivial finite quotient.
Proof: Suppose . By the previous theorem if
is nontrivial then the groups
have bounded-dimensional nontrivial representations
as
. By Jordan’s theorem,
has a normal abelian subgroup
of bounded index. If
as
then 2 holds, while if
as
then 3 holds.
Using this theorem one can prove a sort of converse to Theorem 7. If is not quasirandom then there are arbitrarily large
and product-free subsets
of density bounded away from
. We leave the details to the reader.
4. Roth’s theorem
As an application of group limits we can prove the following version of Roth’s theorem.
Theorem 9 Let
be a finite group on which the squaring map
is
-to-
. Let
be a subset of density
. Then there are
solutions to
in
. Equivalently, there are
pairs
such that
.
Proof: If the theorem fails then we have finite groups , some
, and subsets
of density
for which there are fewer than
pairs
such that
. Let
and
. Then
but
But note
and by Theorem 3 this is the same as
where . By Fubini’s theorem this is the same as
, where
But a standard argument (approximating by a continuous function) shows that
is a continuous nonnegative function, and
Hence on a neighbourhood of
, so
, in contradiction to (1).
We chose to count configurations of the form precisely because they are alternatively described by the rather simple equation
. If instead we chose to count the more “obvious” nonabelian analgues of three-term arithmetic progressions, namely configurations of the form
, then we would be counting solutions to the more complicated equation
. The problem is that the count of these configurations is not obviously controlled by convolutions, so we can’t easily transport the problem to the Bohr compactification. In fact the situation is delicate and not completely understood: see for example this paper of Tao for the case of
. [Later edit: This paper of Sarah Peluse solves this problem for simple groups.]