2
$\begingroup$

I am trying to understand the concept of approximate group.


So I took a group theory exercise from a physics class at Caltech. The question basically states:

Suppose that for any element $g \in G$ we have $g^2 = e$, then $G$ is Abelian, i.e. $g_1 g_2 = g_2 g_1$ for all $g_1, g_2 \in G$.

In other words, every element is a reflection or the identity implies, $G = (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^n$.

Let's try to write down an approximate version of this exercise using little-o notation.

Suppose that for any group element $g \in G$ we have $g^2 = o(e)$, then $G$ is nearly Abelian, i.e. ???

Now let's follow the proof. We only have that $g^{-1} \approx g$

  • $(g_1 g_2)^2 = g_1 g_2 g_1 g_2 = o(e)$
  • $ g_2 g_1 = o(g_1^{-1} e g_2^{-1}) \approx o(g_1 e g_2) = g_1 g_2 \, o(e)$

This doesn't look very Abelian, and I sort of made things up as far as how $o(e)$ should behave:

$$ o(e) = \text{neighborhood of the identity}$$

and hopefully $o(e)^2 \approx o(e)$.

Sorry if this is too open-ended or unclear. In real math we deal with things which are not-quite symmetries and not-quite groups. How do we formalize such a situation, regarding $o(e)$?


The Ben Green article gives us 3 options for defining an approximate group, $A$ each of them related to ideas from abstract algebra class:

  • $\mathbb{P}[xy^{-1} \in A] > \frac{1}{K} $
  • $|A^2| \leq K|A|$
  • $A^2$ can be covered by $K$-right translates of $A$.

The first definition sort of makes sense to me. Another possibility is that I have invented my own definition of approximate group, deserving its own term.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Another way one could approximatize the hypothesis "$g^2=e$ for all $g$" is to replace it with "$g^2=e$ for many $g$". Depending exactly on how you quantify this, such groups should be structurally close to abelian. See ams.org/journals/proc/1994-122-02/S0002-9939-1994-1242094-7/…. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 23, 2015 at 17:07
  • $\begingroup$ @SeanEberhard In a matrix group, the idea of an approximate identity kind of makes intuitive sense. For a finite group, perhaps I need to choose a representation and add the "noise" there. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 23, 2015 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ shouldn't this question be migrated to math.SE? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 23, 2015 at 17:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't see any link between your $g^2=o(e)$ and the notion of approximate group in your link. And actually, I have no idea what you mean by $g^2=o(e)$. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Aug 23, 2015 at 17:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You can ask the questions you like, but I lost time checking the paper you link at to try to find a meaningful sense to your question... you refer to "your own definition" but you don't provide any. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Aug 23, 2015 at 18:15

2 Answers 2

8
$\begingroup$

As suggested by Igor Rivin's argument, it is the case that if we put the operator norm (with respect to Euclidean norm on vectors) on $M_{n}(\mathbb{C})$ and consider a finite subgroup $G$ of $U_{n}(\mathbb{C})$ such that $\|g^{2}-e \| < 1$ for all $g \in G$, then $G$ is Abelian.

Later edit: I realise that there is a much simpler argument than my original one, with a sharper bound. Note that $M$ is a matrix of finite order in ${\rm GL}(n,\mathbb{C})$ with $\| I - M^{j} \| < 1$ for all $j$, then for any eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $M$, we have $|1-\lambda^{j}| < 1$ for all $j$, so that $\lambda^{j}$ has strictly positive real part for all $j$. But $1$ is the only complex root of unity with the property that all of its powers have positive real part ( since the sum of all powers of any other root of unity is $0$). Hence $M = I$.

Hence if $\|I -g^{2} \| < 1$ for all $g \in G$, where $G$ is a finite subgroup of ${\rm U}_{n}(\mathbb{C})$, then $g^{2} = I$ for all $g \in G$, so that $G$ is Abelian.

The second part of the answer is somewhat tangential to the original question, and follows the direction suggested by Sean Eberhard's comment.

For a finite group $G$, it is the case that if more than $\sqrt{\frac{5}{8}} |G|$ elements $x \in G$ have $x^{2} = e$, then $G$ is Abelian. The dihedral group of order $8$ ( I mean the one with $8$ elements) - and direct products of it with elementary Abelian $2$-groups as large as you like-show that this can't be improved much as a general bound, since a dihedral group $D$ of order $8$ contains $6$ elements which square to the identity and $ 6 < \sqrt{\frac{5}{8}} |D| <7$ in that case.

This is because (as noted in the paper linked to in Sean Eberhard's comment, and also previously noted by Brauer and Fowler), the count of solutions to $x^{2} = e$ given using the Frobenius-Schur indicator leads easily to $\sqrt{\frac{5}{8}} |G| < \sqrt{k(G)}\sqrt{|G|}$ in the case under consideration, where $k(G)$ is the number of conjugacy classes of $G$. Hence $\frac{k(G)}{|G|} > \frac{5}{8}$, so the probability that two elements of $G$ commute is greater than $\frac{5}{8}$, in which case $G$ is Abelian by a Theorem of W.Gustafson. If preferred, this can be seen directly using character theory- in general, if $G$ has $k$ conjugacy classes, we have $[G:G^{\prime}] + 4(k - [G:G^{\prime}]) \leq |G|$ by the orthogonality relations. Hence $\frac{k}{|G|} \leq \frac{1}{4} + \frac{3}{4|G^{\prime}|} \leq \frac{5}{8}$ if $G^{\prime} \neq 1$, ie if $G$ is non-Abelian.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And see also,"Why can't a nonabelian group be 75% abelian?," also answered by Geoff, where the $\frac{5}{8}$ is explained. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 24, 2015 at 13:27
  • $\begingroup$ NB the "degree of satisfiability" bound for $x^2 = e$ is precisely the $\frac{3}{4} < \sqrt{\frac{5}{8}}$ taken in $D_8$. This has an easy proof without invoking Gustafson's result at all: when $x^2=e$ in such a group, then $xy=yx$ holds whenever $y^2=(xy)^2$. But if more than $\frac{3}{4}$ of the elements satisfy $g^2=e$, then both sides equal $e$ with probability over $\frac{1}{2}$. So the centralizer of $x$ is larger than half the group - by Lagrange it is the whole group, and $x\in Z(G)$. But then $Z(G)$ is more than $\frac{3}{4}$ of the group, so invoking Lagrange once again, $Z(G)=G$. $\endgroup$
    – Z. A. K.
    Commented Sep 29, 2023 at 16:28
2
$\begingroup$

The commutator of two elements is the product of three squares (exercise) [that gives a scientific proof of the initial theorem]. So, what you are saying is that the commutator subgroup is contained in a small neighborhood of the identity, which, for Lie groups (which are more or less the same as matrix groups), would imply that the commutator subgroup is trivial. If you relax the meaning of "small", then you get nilpotent groups, and such.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This argument seems to show only that the commutator subgroup is generated by a small neighbourhood of the identity, not that it is contained in a small neighbourhood of the identity. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2015 at 15:59
  • $\begingroup$ @NeilStrickland We probably understand the OP differently. My understanding of his hypothesis is that every square is close to the identity, and thus (by the three squares argument) every commutator is close to the identity. $\endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    Commented Aug 25, 2015 at 16:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's true, but the commutator subgroup is the subgroup generated by the commutators, which is not just the set of commutators. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2015 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ @NeilStrickland Ah, indeed (though in many matrix groups you need either one or very few commutators to express any element in the commutator subgroup) $\endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    Commented Aug 25, 2015 at 16:25

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .