If A is a set of integers having positive upper Banach density and r,s,t are nonzero integers whose sum is zero, a theorem of Bergelson and Ruzsa says that the set rA+sA+tA:=\{ra_1+sa_2+ta_3:a_i\in A\} contains a Bohr neighborhood of zero. We prove the natural generalization of this result for subsets of countable abelian groups and more summands.
If \psi is a real valued trigonometric polynomial with \psi(0)>0, it is easy to verify that \operatorname{supp}(\phi):=\{g\in G:\psi(g)\neq 0\} contains a Bohr neighborhood of 0. Since almost periodic functions may be uniformly approximated by trigonometric polynomials, the same holds when \psi is uniformly almost periodic.
Let r, s, t be nonzero integers with r+s+t=0, and let A\subset \mathbb Z have d^*(A)>0. Then rA+sA+tA:=\{ra_1+sa_2+ta_3: a_i\in A\} contains a Bohr neighborhood of 0, with rank and radius depending only on r, s, t, and d^*(A).
Let d\in \mathbb N, d\geq 3, and let c_1,\dots, c_d\in \mathbb Z be such that
c_iG has finite index in G for each i,
(c_{d-1}+c_{d})G, has finite index in G, and
q divides \sum c_i.
If A\subset G has d^*(A)>0, then \vec{c}\cdot A contains a Bohr neighborhood of 0 in G.
Assuming Lemma 1.8, it suffices to prove that the \phi defined therein is almost periodic and satisfies \phi(0)>0. The almost periodicity of \phi follows by approximating (in L^2(\mu)) the function \tilde{f} in the definition by a trigonometric polynomial p:K\to [0,1], so that \|\tilde{f}-p\|<\varepsilon/{2^d} and observing that the resulting function of t is a trigonometric polynomial on G differing (uniformly) from \phi by at most \varepsilon.
To prove that \phi(0)>0, note that the function on K^{d-1} defined by
is continuous, and is equal to \int \tilde{f}(x)^d\, dx when s_1=s_2=\cdots =s_d=0. The integrand in the definition of \phi is therefore positive for a neighborhood of values (s_1,\dots,s_{d-1}) near 0. Consequently, the integral defining \phi does not vanish at t=0.
If p is an odd prime, p|d\in \mathbb N, and A\subset \mathbb F_p^\omega has d^*(A)>0, then
contains a Bohr neighborhood of 0.
The rank and radius of B in the conclusion of Theorem 1.3 can be bounded by functions of the indices of c_iG in G and d^*(A), but we will not prove such bounds in this article.
While Theorem 1.2 does not insist that the sums be formed with mutually distinct a_i, the applications motivating Theorem 1.3 make it convenient to do so.
The hypothesis (?) can be generalized to “there exists i<j\leq d such that (c_i+c_j)G has finite index in G,” since the c_i can be reordered without changing the value of \vec{c}\cdot A.
We are currently unable to decide whether the hypothesis (?) can be omitted in Theorem 1.3. The other hypotheses cannot be omitted, as the following three examples demonstrate.
(i) The hypothesis that d\geq 3 cannot be weakened to d\geq 2: setting d=2 and c_1=1, c_2=-1, the set \vec{c}\cdot A is simply A-A. An example of a set A\subset \mathbb Z having d^*(A)>0 such that A-A does not contain a Bohr neighborhood of 0 is provided by the main result of [Kriz] - see [HegyvariRuzsa] for an explanation of why [Kriz] implies this. Such an example in \mathbb F_2^\omega is constructed in [ForrestThesis], and in \mathbb F_p^\omega for odd primes p in [griesmer2017bohr]. In fact there is an A\subset \mathbb Z with d^*(A)>0 where A-A does not contain a Bohr neighborhood of any n\in \mathbb Z, as proved in [griesmer2020separating].
(ii) The hypothesis that c_iG has finite index in G cannot be omitted. To see this, we use the fact that for each prime p and \varepsilon>0, the group G=\mathbb F_p^{\omega} contains a set A having d^*(A)>\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2p}-\varepsilon such that A-A does not contain a Bohr neighborhood of any element of G (see [griesmer2017bohr]). Setting c_1=p, c_2=1 and c_3=-1, we have c_1+c_2+c_3=p, but c\cdot A \subseteq pA+A-A =A-A.
(iii) The hypothesis that q|\sum c_i cannot be omitted. For example, in \mathbb Z, the set A of odd integers has d^*(A)=1/2, and A-A+A=A, which does not contain a Bohr neighborhood of 0. Nevertheless, A-A+A contains Bohr neighborhoods of many elements of A whenever d^*(A)>0; see [HegyvariRuzsa], [BjorklundGriesmer].
If B is a Bohr neighborhood of 0 in an abelian group G and c\in \mathbb Z is such that cG has finite index in G, then cB is also a Bohr neighborhood of 0 in G.
This is somewhat cumbersome to verify directly, but easy to see as a consequence of Bogoliouboff’s theorem. If B is a Bohr neighborhood of 0 in G, then B contains a set of the form (A-A)-(A-A), where A is a Bohr neighborhood of 0 in G having radius smaller than the radius of B. In particular, finitely many translates of A cover G. Since cG has finite index in G, we have that finitely many translates of cA cover G. Now cB contains (cA-cA)-(cA-cA), which must contain a Bohr neighborhood of 0, by Bogoliouboff’s theorem.
Let A\subset G and let c_1,\dots, c_d satisfy the hypothesis of Theorem 1.3. Then there is a compact abelian group K with Haar probability measure m, an m-measurable \tilde{f}:K\to [0,1] with \int \tilde{f}\, dm=d^*(A), and a homomorphism \rho:G\to K with \overline{\rho(G)}=K such that
satisfies c_d\operatorname{supp}(\phi)\subset \vec{c}\cdot A.
Let G be a countable abelian group, let c_1,\dots, c_d\in \mathbb Z satisfy hypotheses (1)-(3) in Theorem 1.3, and let A\subset G have d^*(A)>0. Let \tilde{J} and \tilde{J}_0 be as in Lemma 2.1, so that c_d \tilde{J}_0\subset \vec{c}\cdot A, by Lemma 2.1. Apply Corollary 2.5 to find an ergodic G-system (X,\mu,T) and f:X\to [0,1] with \int f\, d\mu = d^*(A) satisfying inequality (2.5). This inequality implies L_0\subset \tilde{J}_0. By Theorem 2.2 and Remark 2.3, we have that \{t\in G: I(t)>0\}\subset L_0. Combining the preceding containments, we have
The form of I(t) stated in the conclusion of Theorem 2.2 means we can take \phi(t):=I(t) to satisfy the conclusion of Lemma 1.8.
The argument in the second paragraph of the above proof is a key ingredient in ergodic theoretic proofs of Roth’s theorem on three-term arithmetic progressions. In fact, Roth’s theorem is a corollary of our proofs, although we do not discuss this implication here. The proof of Theorem 6.1 in [BergelsonRuzsa] uses Roth’s theorem in a key step.
Let \vec{c}\in \mathbb Z^d satisfy hypothesis (3) of Theorem 1.3, let A\subset G, and write 1_A for its characteristic function. Define J: G^{d+1}\to [0,1] and J_0\subset G by
we have
Furthermore, setting
we have c_d\tilde{J}_0\subset \vec{c}\cdot A.
We first prove the containment (2.1). Suppose h, g_i, and t\in G are such that J(h,g_1,\dots,g_{d-1};t)>0. Then each of a_i:=h+c_dg_i, and a_d = h+ t - \sum_{i=1}^{d-1}c_ig_i lie in A, and
so c_dt\in \vec{c}\cdot A.
The second assertion of the lemma follows from the observation that if \tilde{J}(g_1,\dots,g_{d-1};t)>0, then there are infinitely many h with J(h,g_1,\dots,g_{d-1};t)>0.
Let (X,\mu,T) be an ergodic measure preserving G-system and let (c_1,\dots,c_d)\in \mathbb Z^d be coefficients satisfying hypotheses (1)-(3) of Theorem 1.3. If f_1,\dots, f_d:X\to [0,1] are measurable functions, L:G^d\to [0,1] is defined as
and I(t) is defined as the iterated limit
then there are
\bullet a compact metrizable abelian group K with Haar measure m,
\bullet a homomorphism \rho:G\to K having \overline{\rho(G)}=K,
\bullet functions \tilde{f}_i:K\to [0,1] with \int \tilde{f}_i\, dm = \int f_i\, d\mu for i\leq d
such that
Furthermore, the \tilde{f}_i depend only on the f_i, so if f_1=\cdots=f_d, then \tilde{f}_1=\cdots=\tilde{f}_d.
With L and I as in Theorem 2.2, let
Then \{t\in G: I(t)>0\}\subset L_0.
Let A\subset G have d^*(A)=\delta. There is an ergodic G-system (X,\mu,T) and a \mu-measurable f:X\to [0,1] with \int f\, d\mu=\delta such that for all g_1,g_2,\dots,g_d\in G, we have
The proof of [BergelsonMcCutcheon, Theorem 2.1] produces a (not necessarily ergodic) G-system satisfying (2.4). We will repeat the proof therein with one modification: begin by choosing an extreme invariant mean on \ell^\infty(G) with m(1_A)=d^*(A). Define the system (X,\mu,T) as follows
\cdot X:=\{0,1\}^G with the product topology, meaning X is the space of all functions from G into \{0,1\}, with the topology of pointwise convergence,
\cdot T_g is defined by T_g x(h)= x(h+g),
\cdot and \mu is defined to satisfy
for every continuous f:X\to \mathbb C, where \phi_f:G\to \mathbb C is given by \phi_f(g)=f(1_{A+g}).
Having defined \int f\, d\mu for continuous f, the Riesz representation theorem shows that there really is a Borel measure \mu satisfying this definition. We now show that our definition of \mu agrees with the definition of \mu in [BergelsonMcCutcheon, Theorem 2.1]. We do so by showing that the two definitions agree on the cylinder sets in X. Writing such a cylinder set C by fixing h_1,\dots,h_k\in G and setting C:=\{x\in X: x(h_1)=\varepsilon_1,\dots, x(h_k)=\varepsilon_k\}, we get that \phi_f(g)=1 if and only if g\in (A_1-h_1)\cap (A_2-h_2)\cap \dots\cap (A_k-h_k), where A_i=A if \varepsilon_i=1 and G\setminus A if \varepsilon_i=0. Thus \mu(C) = m(\phi_f)=m(\prod_{i=1}^k 1_{A_i-h_i}), and the latter is the definition of \mu(C) in [BergelsonMcCutcheon]. Following the argument in [BergelsonMcCutcheon] proves inequality (2.4).
To prove ergodicity of (X,\mu,T) we will prove that for all f_1, f_2\in L^\infty(\mu), we have
for each Følner sequence (F_n)_{n\in \mathbb N}. To see this, note first that it suffices to prove this identity for continuous f_i, by approximating bounded f_i with continuous functions. Now choose an invariant mean \eta on \ell^\infty(G) with the property that \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{|F_n|}\sum_{g\in F_n}\phi(g)=\eta(\phi) whenever the limit on the left exists. With this choice of \eta, the definition of \mu lets us write the left-hand side of (Proof) as
and the extremality of m allows us to simplify this as m(\phi_{f_1})m(\phi_{f_2}), by (?). By the definition of \mu, this is just \int f_1\,d\mu \int f_2\, d\mu, as desired.
Now (?) implies ergodicity of (X,\mu,T): if A is T-invariant, then setting f_1=f_2=1_A in (?), we get \mu(A)=\mu(A)^2, which means \mu(A)=0 or 1.
If A\subset G, c_i\in \mathbb Z, and \tilde{J} is defined as in Lemma 2.1, then there is an ergodic G-system (X,\mu,T) and f:X\to [0,1] such that
where L is as defined in (2.2), with f_1=\dots=f_d=f.
If (X,\mu,T) is ergodic and H is a finite index subgroup of G, then the H-action given by restricting T_g to g\in H has finitely many ergodic components.
Let B\subset X be H-invariant, and let g_1,\dots, g_k be coset representatives of H. Now
so \mu(B)\geq \frac{1}{k}. Thus \inf\{\mu(B):B\subset X \text{ is } H\text{-invariant}\}>0, and the algebra \mathcal I_H of H-invariant sets is generated (up to \mu-measure 0) by finitely many atoms B_1,\dots,B_r. Now every H-invariant f\in L^2(\mu) is \mathcal I_H-measurable, so the functions \psi_i:=\frac{1}{\mu(B_i)}1_{B_i} form an orthonormal basis of the space of H-invariant elements of L^2(\mu).
Let U be an action of G on a Hilbert space \mathcal H by unitary operators and x\in \mathcal H. If (F_n)_{n\in \mathbb N} is a Følner sequence, then
where P_Ix is the orthogonal projection of x onto the closed subspace of \mathcal H consisting of U-invariant vectors.
Let (X,\mu,T) be a G-system and f\in L^2(\mu). Then
where P_{\mathcal I} is the orthogonal projection onto the closed subspace of L^2(\mu) consisting of T-invariant functions.
If (X,\mu,T) has only finitely many ergodic components, then X can be partitioned into \mu-measurable G-invariant subsets X_1,\dots,X_k \subset X, and for each f\in L^2(\mu), the projection P_{\mathcal I}f can be written as
Let (X,\mu,T) be a G-system, f\in \mathcal{WM} and h\in L^2(\mu).
(i) The correlation sequence c(g):=\int f\cdot T_g h\, d\mu tends to 0 in density.
(ii) If T has finitely many ergodic components, then c_{\mathcal I}(g):=\|P_{\mathcal I}(f\cdot T_g h)\|_{L^2(\mu)} tends to 0 in density.
Part (i) here follows from Corollary 1.5 of [BergelsonRosenblatt] (cf. Proposition 2.20 and Propsition D.17 of [KerrLi]). Part (ii) follows from Part (i) and Observation 3.4.
Let (x_g)_{g\in G} be a bounded collection of elements of a Hilbert space \mathcal H and \mathbf F be a Følner sequence. If
then \lim_{n\to\infty}\Bigl\|\frac{1}{|F_n|}\sum_{g\in F_n} x_g\Bigr\|_{\mathcal H}= 0.
If f_1\in \mathcal{WM}, f_0\in \mathcal{AP}, and bG has finite index in G, then
in L^2(\mu).
Since f_0\in \mathcal{AP}, it is a linear combination of eigenfunctions \psi, and for each such \psi there is a character \chi of G so that T_{g}\psi=\chi(g)\psi. We are therefore reduced to proving that when \chi is a character of g,
in L^2(\mu). Applying the mean ergodic theorem to the unitary action U on L^2(\mu) defined by U_gf = \chi(g)T_{bg}f, we get that the limit of the averages above is the orthogonal projection of f_1 onto the space of U_g-invariant functions, which is contained in \mathcal{AP}. Since f_1\perp \mathcal{AP}, the limit is 0.
If p\in L^2(\mu) and q\in \mathcal{WM}, a,b\in G, and both bG and (b-a)G have finite index in G, then
in L^2(\mu).
We will apply Lemma 3.6 with x_g=T_{ag}p\, T_{bg}q. First we write \langle x_{g+h}, x_g\rangle_{L^2(\mu)} as
Averaging over g\in F_n and taking the limit, we get
where P_{\mathcal I_{b-a}} is the orthogonal projection onto the space of functions invariant under g\mapsto T_{(b-a)g}. Since T is ergodic and (b-a)G has finite index in G, Lemma 3.1 implies this action has finitely many ergodic components. By Lemma 3.5 we have that c(h):=\|P_{\mathcal I_{b-a}}(q\, T_{bh}q)\| tends to 0 in density, so
Let (X,\mu,T) be an ergodic G-system. To every T-invariant \sigma-algebra \mathcal A of \mu-measurable sets, there is a factor (Y,\nu,S) with \pi:X\to Y such that A\in \mathcal A if and only if there is a \nu-measurable B\subset Y with \mu(A\triangle \pi^{-1}B)=0. In other words, the elements of \mathcal A are, up to \mu-measure 0, the \mu-measurable subsets of the form \pi^{-1}B for \nu-measurable B.
Let (K,m,R_\rho) be the Kronecker factor of (X,\mu,T) with factor map \pi:X\to K. Let \mathcal{AP} denote the set of T-almost periodic functions, so that every bounded f\in \mathcal{AP} can be written as \tilde{f}\circ \pi, where \tilde{f}\in L^\infty(m).
The main step of the proof is to show that the innermost limit in the definition of I_g is unaffected when f_d is replaced by P_{\mathcal{AP}}f_d. To prove this it suffices to prove that the innermost limit is 0 when P_{\mathcal{AP}}f_{d}=0, i.e. when f_{d}\in \mathcal{WM}. Assuming f_{d}\in \mathcal{WM}, we write the innermost average in I_t as
We rewrite the first factor T_{t-\sum_{j<d}c_jg_j}f_{d} as T_{c_{d-1}g_{d-1}}f_d', where f_d':=T_{t-\sum_{j<d-1}c_jg_j}f_{d}, so the above expression can be written as
Noting that (c_d-(-c_{d-1}))G has finite index in G by hypothesis (?) in Theorem 1.3, we may apply Lemma 3.8 to the average in parentheses in (Proof) and conclude that it converges to 0 in L^2(\mu) as n\to \infty.
The same argument shows that f_{d-1} in (?) can be replaced by P_{\mathcal AP}f_{d-1} without affecting the innermost limit.
Thus we may assume f_{j}\in \mathcal{AP} for j = d and d-1. Under this assumption, Lemma 3.7 allows us to replace the remaining f_j, 1\leq j < d-1 with P_{\mathcal{AP}} f_j without affecting the limit in (?).
Having replaced each f_j in (?) with P_{\mathcal{AP}} f_j, we write P_{\mathcal{AP}}f_j as \tilde{f}_j\circ \pi, and note that equation (?) means T_hP_{\mathcal{AP}} f_j = \tilde{f}_j(\pi(x)+\rho(h)) for \mu-almost every x. We can compute the innermost limit in (?) by (?) to get
The same computation for averages over g_{j}\in F_{n_j}, j=d-2, j=d-3, \dots, j=1, will simplify the remaining limits in (2.2) to obtain (?).
With our definition of the \tilde{f}_i we get that \tilde{f}_i=\tilde{f}_j whenever f_i=f_j.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2108.01302v1 by John T. Griesmer, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2108/2108.01302.jsonl.