Let , be additive groups (i.e., groups with an abelian addition group law). A map is a homomorphism if one has

for all . A map is an *affine* homomorphism if one has

for all *additive quadruples* in , by which we mean that and . The two notions are closely related; it is easy to verify that is an affine homomorphism if and only if is the sum of a homomorphism and a constant.

Now suppose that also has a translation-invariant metric . A map is said to be a quasimorphism if one has

for all , where denotes a quantity at a bounded distance from the origin. Similarly, is an *affine quasimorphism* if

for all additive quadruples in . Again, one can check that is an affine quasimorphism if and only if it is the sum of a quasimorphism and a constant (with the implied constant of the quasimorphism controlled by the implied constant of the affine quasimorphism). (Since every constant is itself a quasimorphism, it is in fact the case that affine quasimorphisms are quasimorphisms, but now the implied constant in the latter is not controlled by the implied constant of the former.)

“Trivial” examples of quasimorphisms include the sum of a homomorphism and a bounded function. Are there others? In some cases, the answer is no. For instance, suppose we have a quasimorphism . Iterating (2), we see that for any integer and natural number , which we can rewrite as for non-zero . Also, is Lipschitz. Sending , we can verify that is a Cauchy sequence as and thus tends to some limit ; we have for , hence for positive , and then one can use (2) one last time to obtain for all . Thus is the sum of the homomorphism and a bounded sequence.

In general, one can phrase this problem in the language of group cohomology (discussed in this previous post). Call a map a *-cocycle*. A *-cocycle* is a map obeying the identity

for all . Given a -cocycle , one can form its *derivative* by the formula

Such functions are called *-coboundaries*. It is easy to see that the abelian group of -coboundaries is a subgroup of the abelian group of -cocycles. The quotient of these two groups is the first group cohomology of with coefficients in , and is denoted .

If a -cocycle is bounded then its derivative is a bounded -coboundary. The quotient of the group of bounded -cocycles by the derivatives of bounded -cocycles is called the *bounded first group cohomology* of with coefficients in , and is denoted . There is an obvious homomorphism from to , formed by taking a coset of the space of derivatives of bounded -cocycles, and enlarging it to a coset of the space of -coboundaries. By chasing all the definitions, we see that all quasimorphism from to are the sum of a homomorphism and a bounded function if and only if this homomorphism is injective; in fact the quotient of the space of quasimorphisms by the sum of homomorphisms and bounded functions is isomorphic to the kernel of .

In additive combinatorics, one is often working with functions which only have additive structure a fraction of the time, thus for instance (1) or (3) might only hold “ of the time”. This makes it somewhat difficult to directly interpret the situation in terms of group cohomology. However, thanks to tools such as the Balog-Szemerédi-Gowers lemma, one can upgrade this sort of -structure to -structure – at the cost of restricting the domain to a smaller set. Here I record one such instance of this phenomenon, thus giving a tentative link between additive combinatorics and group cohomology. (I thank Yuval Wigderson for suggesting the problem of locating such a link.)

Theorem 1Let , be additive groups with , let be a subset of , let , and let be a function such thatfor additive quadruples in . Then there exists a subset of containing with , a subset of with , and a function such that

for all (thus, the derivative takes values in on ), and such that for each , one has

Presumably the constants and can be improved further, but we have not attempted to optimise these constants. We chose as the domain on which one has a bounded derivative, as one can use the Bogulybov lemma (see e.g, Proposition 4.39 of my book with Van Vu) to find a large Bohr set inside . In applications, the set need not have bounded size, or even bounded doubling; for instance, in the inverse theory over a small finite fields , one would be interested in the situation where is the group of matrices with coefficients in (for some large , and being the subset consisting of those matrices of rank bounded by some bound .

*Proof:* By hypothesis, there are triples such that and

Thus, there is a set with such that for all , one has (6) for pairs with ; in particular, there exists such that (6) holds for values of . Setting , we conclude that for each , one has

Consider the bipartite graph whose vertex sets are two copies of , and and connected by a (directed) edge if and (7) holds. Then this graph has edges. Applying (a slight modification of) the Balog-Szemerédi-Gowers theorem (for instance by modifying the proof of Corollary 5.19 of my book with Van Vu), we can then find a subset of with with the property that for any , there exist triples such that the edges all lie in this bipartite graph. This implies that, for all , there exist septuples obeying the constraints

and for . These constraints imply in particular that

Also observe that

Thus, if and are such that , we see that

for octuples in the hyperplane

By the pigeonhole principle, this implies that for any fixed , there can be at most sets of the form with , that are pairwise disjoint. Using a greedy algorithm, we conclude that there is a set of cardinality , such that each set with , intersects for some , or in other words that

This implies that there exists a subset of with , and an element for each , such that

for all . Note we may assume without loss of generality that and .

By construction of , and permuting labels, we can find 16-tuples such that

and

for . We sum this to obtain

and hence by (8)

where . Since

we see that there are only possible values of . By the pigeonhole principle, we conclude that at most of the sets can be disjoint. Arguing as before, we conclude that there exists a set of cardinality such that

whenever (10) holds.

For any , write arbitrarily as for some (with if , and if ) and then set

Then from (11) we have (4). For we have , and (5) then follows from (9).

## 9 comments

Comments feed for this article

7 July, 2018 at 1:50 pm

Harry CrimminsThe link to the previous post re cohomology appears to be broken.

[Corrected, thanks – T.]8 July, 2018 at 4:02 am

John MangualThe circle has rotational symmetry. We could call this group . The rational points on the circle should be “sort-of” rotationally symmetric. How can we express that mathematically?

We have with and the height of . I'm even straining to find the definition of "height" here… if as reduced fractions, then we have .

This is a set of measure zero, but maybe I can cover each rational point with a small interval? If I rotate this circle by 45 degrees, none of this set overlaps with itself, so this circle is definitely not rotationally symmetric.

8 July, 2018 at 1:43 pm

Allan van HulstThree lines below Z -> R in bold: “we can then one can verify that”

[Corrected, thanks – T.]9 July, 2018 at 1:23 am

Anonymoustwo lines above theorem 1, it seems that “think” should be “thank”.

[Corrected, thanks – T.]9 July, 2018 at 5:59 am

majdoddin“one can check that is an affine quasimorphism if and only if it is the sum of a quasimorphism and a constant.”

But isn’t the sum of quasimorphism and a constant simply a quasimorphism?

Let be a quasimorphism and let for all and for a constant .

Now .

By triangle-inequality we have

.

Now because is a translation invariant metric, the right side is equal to .

[This is technically true, but only if one is willing to lose control of the quasimorphism constants; I have reworded this paragraph to address this point. -T]9 July, 2018 at 11:46 pm

OneGuyOT: Are you gonna write on the Kakeya conjecture anytime soon? My

paper was on the editors table for almost 10 months, but the experts on the field wouldn`t referee it.

10 July, 2018 at 5:35 am

majdoddinIn calculations of the quasimorphism , there is no need to use (2) a second time.

To see it, first notice that your usage of in (2) is implying this definition of Big-O notation (see also here):

if and only if there exist constants and such that for all .

Using this notation, we have for , then for

, and then for all .[The final use of (2) is needed to control for negative . -T.]16 July, 2018 at 6:53 pm

AnonymousDear Terry,

Today is 17th july 1975

Happy birthday to you,I am expecting your new breakthrough works.

28 August, 2018 at 5:51 am

John MangualThe goal in many papers (or a Theorem in a book) pages and pages to show that for some definition of “approximate” or “close” or “looks good” or “kinda-sorta”. Well… we could show that like you said.

Rarely do they use Additive Combinatorics. Sources suggest it could be a good a resource as any. They just don’t.