Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Lev: On Isoperimetric Stability
Vsevolod F. Lev, "On Isoperimetric Stability," arXiv:1709.05539 (2017).
Overview
The paper studies an edge-isoperimetric stability question in an abelian group . For finite , it defines
and asks how large must be when . Its central hypothesis is that is independent, meaning that with integer coefficients forces every summand to vanish, equivalently is direct.
The principal result, Theorem 2 in Section 1, states that if is finite, nonempty, and independent, , and , then
When all elements of have infinite order, the asserted interpretation is . Example 3 shows that the base cannot in general be increased: boxes , with , attain that scale. Example 2 shows optimality of the factor when , and that for it cannot be replaced by a number larger than .
For homocyclic groups of exponent , , or , Theorem 1 gives the stronger conclusion when generates and . This is deduced in Section 3 from the cited result [L15, Corollary 1.10], not proved independently from first principles in this paper. Corollary 1 extends the conclusion to arbitrary in groups of exponent or , with replaced by . Examples 1–3 delimit these statements: replacing rank by can fail, and the conclusion does not extend uniformly to larger exponents.
The auxiliary combinatorial result is Theorem 3 (equivalently Theorem ): every finite nonempty downset satisfies
where is the number of nonzero coordinates. Equality occurs for boxes whose side lengths are or . Section 2 proves this by double induction on and . After splitting the top coordinate layer from the remainder, inequalities (2) and (3) invoke the induction hypotheses, while inequality (4) reduces the required recombination to
Section 3 develops coordinate compressions along the independent generators. Claim 1 shows that compression in one direction preserves compression already achieved in another; Claim 2 shows that compression does not increase any directed boundary contribution and hence does not increase . Corollary 2 transports Theorem 3 to compressed subsets of a direct sum of cyclic groups. In the proof of Theorem 2, equations (6) and (7) express the boundary through occupied and full cyclic cosets, equation (8) compares these quantities using the least order , and equation (9), together with Corollary 2, sandwiches the average support size between and .
The main application concerns popular differences. For finite ,
Theorem 4 bounds the maximum size of an independent subset by
where is the least order of a nonzero group element; for exponent it gives the sharper . Section 4 proves this by observing that an independent supplies at least internal Cayley edges, then applying Theorem 2 or Corollary 1. Example 4 shows sharpness for homocyclic groups of exponents and , up to the displayed lower-order term.
The paper explicitly distinguishes independence from dissociativity. It cites Shkredov–Yekhanin [SY11, Theorem 3.1] for the qualitative estimate
in finite abelian groups. Since independent sets are dissociated, , with equality in exponent or ; thus Theorem 4 supplies sharp constants only in those exponents and does not control dissociated dimension in general groups. Section 5 records, as an unnumbered observation credited to Thomas Bloom (personal communication) rather than a principal theorem, that dissociated and the same small-boundary hypothesis imply for some unspecified absolute ; the paper indicates only that this follows from Hölder's inequality and basic Fourier analysis, and gives no proof. Finally, equation (10) extends the projection inequality obtained in the proof of Theorem 3 to arbitrary finite nonempty subsets of . The structural classification of small-boundary sets and improvements for exponent at least are left open in Section 5.
Relation to E963
For E963, write
The paper’s definition of dissociated is exactly the one needed here: all subset sums of are distinct, equivalently there is no nonzero relation with . Its principal notion of independence is substantially stronger over : an independent set has no nontrivial integer relation at all, hence is linearly independent over . Thus
and equality need not hold; for example, is dissociated but satisfies the integer relation . Consequently, Theorem 4’s upper bound on independent dimension cannot be converted into an upper bound on the dissociation number relevant to E963.
There is nevertheless a precise popular-difference consequence. If is finite, , and an independent set lies in , then the counting argument of Section 4 gives
Because every nonzero real has infinite order, the infinite-order case of Theorem 2 yields
This can control the rationally independent part of a set of frequently occurring differences, but not its largest dissociated subset. For dissociated , the unnumbered observation at the beginning of Section 5 instead gives only
or , with an unspecified absolute constant. This is the paper’s result most directly aligned with E963’s notion.
Accordingly, the connection is limited. All principal inequalities run from many internal translations to an upper bound on independent or dissociated dimension; E963 asks for a universal lower bound on dissociated dimension of an arbitrary real set. In particular, the paper neither proves nor constructs a set violating it.