Sign up ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Fix a positive integer $k>0$. For $p>k$ a prime, let $A_p$ be a subset of the finite field $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$ of size $k$ which contains a primitive element.

Define $G_p$ to be the (di)graph whose vertices are elements of $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$, with two vertices $i,j$ joined by an edge provided $j=ia$ or $j=i+a$ for some $a\in A_p$.

(I'm mainly interested in the situation where $A_p$ is closed under the operations of taking multiplicative and additive inverses; under these assumptions I can think of $G_p$ as a graph rather than a digraph.)

Question: Is $(G_p)_{p \textrm{ a prime}}$ a family of expanders?

Background: I'm expecting the answer to be either "possibly" or "no" (because if it were "yes" I'd hope I'd have heard about it already).

My interest comes in studying the Bourgain-Gamburd machinery for proving expansion from results about growth. For the family $(G_p)$, the relevant growth result is the Bourgain-Katz-Tao sum-product theorem for fields of prime order.

One needs more than just a growth result of course, one also needs to have some notion of `quasirandomness' (but I think I can handle this), as well as a lower bound on the girth of the graph. I've not thought much about this last aspect so I guess this is the most likely to be the sticking point.

share|cite|improve this question
Not an answer, but certainly related is Problem 7.9 from . –  Seva Jan 29 '13 at 17:07
Is $A$ the same as $A_p$? –  Gerry Myerson Jan 29 '13 at 22:38
@Gerry: yes! Will edit... –  Nick Gill Jan 30 '13 at 13:27
@Seva, the problem you refer to is very interesting. –  Nick Gill Jan 30 '13 at 13:32
This is basically a duplicate of… –  Terry Tao Jan 30 '13 at 17:58

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

No, because solvable groups are amenable. You're asking: Is is there a set in Z/pZ almost invariant by x->x+1 and 2x? Here's one: take the union of I, I/2, .., I/2^n, where I is an interval of length much bigger than 2^n.

share|cite|improve this answer
Could you expand just a little? (Pardon the pun :-) –  Nick Gill Jan 30 '13 at 17:15
To my understanding, applied to the Problem 7.9 mentioned in my comment above, this explains why $\lambda=O(1)$ does not work - but does not solve the problem in its full generality. Is this correct? –  Seva Jan 30 '13 at 18:27
The link by Tao gives a more complete answer to my question. It is in the same direction as this answer, so I'm accepting it. –  Nick Gill Jan 31 '13 at 13:48

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.