Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Stabilizers and NIP arithmetic regularity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read For NIP subsets of groups, elementary stabilizer combinatorics yields approximation by Bohr neighborhoods in finite groups and by coset nilprogressions with polynomial bounds in the bounded-tripling case.

desk verdict Solid new NIP regularity results, but the proof of the key lemma has a repairable gap that needs fixing before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04271 v1 pith:WXFOPRGC submitted 2025-09-04 math.CO math.GRmath.LO

G. Conant , C. Terry This is my paper
classification math.COmath.GRmath.LO MSC 03C4511B3020D60
keywords NIPsetsVC-dimensionarithmeticregularitystabilizerscosetnilprogressionsBohrneighborhoodsPolynomialBogolyubov-Ruzsaboundedtripling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper gives a new proof of the NIP arithmetic regularity lemma for finite groups, the statement that a finite set whose left translates form a low-VC-dimension family can be approximated, up to small error, by a Bohr neighborhood—a preimage of a small torus ball under a unitary representation. The proof avoids the model-theoretic machinery used in earlier work and instead relies on elementary lemmas about stabilizers—the elements that almost leave the set invariant—together with two imported structure theorems from arithmetic combinatorics. In the bounded-tripling setting, the paper's main new theorem is effective: a finite NIP set A with |A^3|/|A| = k is epsilon-approximated by a coset nilprogression P of rank and step depending only on the VC-dimension, with cover and error bounds polynomial in k and 1/epsilon. This yields, as a corollary, a strong form of the Polynomial Bogolyubov-Ruzsa conjecture for NIP sets. A reader should care because it converts a qualitative 'tame structure' phenomenon into quantitative, nearly optimal bounds, and isolates the remaining sources of ineffectiveness.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a pair of stabilizer lemmas plus a reduction trick. Lemma 3.3 says that for any finite subset X of the right stabilizer of A, most translates of X are nearly contained in A or nearly disjoint from it; Lemma 3.5 says that if X is large and lies in a sufficiently fine left stabilizer, then a set A' of almost all of A can be sandwiched between A' and A'S (S a suitable right stabilizer) so that every set D in that interval is epsilon-close to A. The reduction trick, Lemma 5.1, starts from a stabilizer and passes to a symmetric subset B with doubling |B^u| <= u^{d(d+1)}|B| while keeping B^n inside the stabilizer and keeping |A| controlled by |B|; this is what converts the ineffec

What would settle it

A counterexample to Theorem 5.5: a group G and finite set A with VC-dimensions d_l,d_r and tripling k fixed, plus an epsilon, such that every coset nilprogression P contained in St^r_epsilon(A) has either rank or step exceeding C d_r^2 or covering number cov(A:P) exceeding exp(O(d_l d_r))(k/epsilon)^{O(d_l d_r)}. One explicit way to look: take products of a small approximate group with a large 'independent' NIP set and measure whether the covering bound grows faster than the claimed polynomial in 1/epsilon.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the structure of NIP sets in groups can be extracted from their stabilizers by elementary combinatorics. If A is a nonempty finite subset of a group, its right-hand epsilon-stabilizer St^r_epsilon(A) collects the group elements that move A by less than epsilon|A|; the paper shows that for sets with bounded VC-dimension of their translate families this stabilizer is large and full of structured subsets. The main quantitative result states that, when A also has bounded tripling |A^3|/|A| = k, for every epsilon there is a coset nilprogression P of rank and step O(d_r^2), contained in St^r_epsilon(A), such that A is covered by at most N translates of P and agree

Load-bearing premise

The main theorems take two structure theorems as black boxes—one saying dense symmetric subsets of finite groups contain Bohr neighborhoods, the other saying bounded-tripling subsets are covered by coset nilprogressions—and if either is wrong, or if the first one really requires the model theory the paper says it avoids, the conclusions fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The effective Theorem 5.5 upgrades the earlier bounded-tripling result [11] from ineffective to polynomial in k and 1/epsilon for fixed VC-dimension, with the only ineffective constants coming from the approximate-group structure theorem.
  • Corollary 5.3 gives a strong Polynomial Bogolyubov-Ruzsa statement for NIP sets: a set with |A^3| <= k|A| contains a coset nilprogression of rank and step O(d^2) inside AA^{-1}, and A is covered by O_d(k^{d+O(1)}) translates of it.
  • Corollary 5.7 yields an arithmetic regularity statement for finite groups with polynomial bounds in 1/epsilon and the density parameter, replacing Bohr neighborhoods by coset nilprogressions.
  • In abelian groups, Theorem 5.10 is fully explicit: a proper coset progression of rank O(d^12), with cover and error bounds exp(O(d^14))(k/epsilon^2)^{O(d^2)}, together with the same structure and regularity clauses.
  • In bounded-exponent groups, Theorem 6.4 (nonabelian) and Theorem 6.5 (abelian) strengthen the approximations to actual subgroups, with bounds O_{d,q}((k/epsilon)^{O(d)}) and exp(O_q(d^8))(k/epsilon)^{d+O(1)}, respectively.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same stabilizer lemmas are strong candidates for pushing the polynomial bounds into algorithmic territory: for fixed dimension d, the N in Theorem 5.5 depends polynomially on 1/epsilon, so a randomized search over the finite cover set and a check of containment in the stabilizer could plausibly find P in time polynomial in the input size.
  • The paper's inability to compare VC^l_A(A) with VC^r_A(A) suggests a concrete test: construct finite sets where these two dimensions differ super-polynomially; whichever version of Theorem 5.5 survives such examples would identify the right notion of dimension for nonabelian NIP arithmetic regularity.
  • Corollary 5.3 gives a forbidden-configuration explanation of why the full Polynomial Bogolyubov-Ruzsa conjecture is hard: any counterexample must itself have unbounded VC-dimension as the tripling grows, so the NIP case sits exactly at the polynomial boundary.
  • If a model-theory-free proof of the noncommutative Bogolyubov lemma is ever found, Theorem 4.1 would become completely elementary and effective; if not, the paper has isolated the model-theoretic core of arithmetic regularity in finite groups.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper gives a new proof of the NIP arithmetic regularity lemma for finite groups (Theorem 4.1) and an effective polynomial bound for finite NIP sets of bounded tripling in arbitrary groups (Theorem 5.5). The strategy follows Alon--Fox--Zhao: a stabilizer is dense by Haussler's packing lemma, a well-structured set is found inside the stabilizer, and a stabilizer lemma yields structure and regularity. The new technical engine is Lemma 5.1, a generalized Alon--Fox--Zhao trick for arbitrary subsets of stabilizers, proved via elementary estimates inspired by Sisask and used in combination with the Breuillard--Green--Tao theorem (Theorem 2.21). Corollaries include a strong polynomial Bogolyubov--Ruzsa statement for NIP sets (Corollary 5.3), an abelian refinement (Corollaries 5.9 and Theorem 5.10), and a bounded-exponent refinement (Theorem 6.4 and Theorem 6.5).

Significance. If the proofs are repaired, the paper is a substantial contribution. It replaces much of the model-theoretic machinery of [14] with elementary stabilizer arguments and, for fixed VC-dimension, obtains polynomial dependence on the tripling constant and on $1/\epsilon$ for NIP sets in arbitrary groups. The paper is transparent about its external black boxes: Section 2.3 states that all known proofs of Theorem 2.15 use model theory, and Section 5.4 explicitly says the leading $O_d$ constants in Theorem 5.5 are ineffective because of Breuillard--Green--Tao. The detailed proofs and the clear attribution to Sisask and to Alon--Fox--Zhao are strengths. The main issue identified below is located in the proof of the central Lemma 5.1; it is repairable but must be corrected.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Lemma 5.1, proof of the Claim] The proof of the Claim contains an invalid application of the displayed implication $(\dagger)$. The text asserts $u^{t^*+1}\delta \le u^{n-1}\epsilon$, but $(\dagger)$ applies only to $x$ with $x^w\le c$, and by maximality of $t^*$ we have $u^{(t^*+1)w}>c$. Moreover the separate claim $u^{n-1}\epsilon<2$ is false in the permitted parameter range: for $u=2$, $n=3$, $\epsilon=1/2$ it is $2$, and the actual application in Corollary 5.3 uses $\epsilon=1/2$, $u=3$, and $n=n(w)$ large. A fix is immediate: from $u^{t^*w}\le c$ one obtains $u^{t^*+1}\delta=u(u^{t^*}\delta)\le u\epsilon/n\le \epsilon<2$ because $n\ge u$. Then Proposition 2.4(d) does apply. This correction does not change any statement, but without it Lemma 5.1 and consequently Theorem 5.5, Corollary 5.3, and the later effective results are not rigorously established as printed.
  2. [§2.5, Definition 2.22 and §5.2–5.3] In Corollary 5.3 and Theorem 5.5, Lemma 5.1 is applied with $n=n(w)$, and then Theorem 2.21 is invoked to obtain a nilprogression $P$ with $P\subseteq B^m$ for an integer $m=O_k(1)$. The proof only knows $B^{n(w)}\subseteq \mathrm{St}^\ell_\epsilon(A)$ (or $B^{n(w)}\subseteq S$ in Theorem 5.5), so one needs $m\le n(w)$ to conclude $P\subseteq B^m\subseteq B^{n(w)}$. The manuscript's Definition 2.22 should be made precise: $n(k)$ must be a uniform upper bound on the integer produced by Theorem 2.21 for all symmetric $S$ with $|S^3|\le k|S|$. With that clarification, $m\le n(k)$ and the conclusion follows because $B$ is symmetric and contains the identity. As written, the line "P\subseteq B^n" in the proofs is not justified.
  3. [§6, Theorem 6.5] Theorem 6.5 is stated as a theorem but introduced with "we omit the argument." Since the paper advertises it as a result, the proof should either be supplied or the statement should be labelled as a conjecture or a sketch. This issue does not affect Theorems 4.1 and 5.5, but it is an unproved claim in the manuscript as it stands.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §5.4] The abstract's phrase "effective proof" for Theorem 5.5 is too strong, since Section 5.4 states that the leading $O_d$ constants in Corollary 5.3 and Theorem 5.5 are ineffective. The wording should be qualified, e.g. "polynomial in the tripling and error parameters up to ineffective $O_d$ constants."
  2. [§5.3, proof of Theorem 5.5] The proof refers to "Theorem 2.21(b)", but Theorem 2.21 has no parts. It should say "Theorem 2.21" (or "Fact 2.20(b)" if that is what was intended at that point).
  3. [§5.1, heading] The heading includes the typo "Alox" for "Alon."
  4. [Corollary 5.7] The sentence "Moreover, cov(G : P) ≤ N" appears both in the statement of condition (i) and again immediately after condition (iii). This duplication should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derivation uses standalone structure theorems; self-citations are real evidence and do not encode the target results.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: no claimed prediction is obtained by renaming its input or by defining a parameter in terms of the target conclusion. The chain is: Haussler's Packing Lemma gives density of stabilizers (Prop 2.10 / Cor 2.11); Lemmas 3.3 and 3.5 convert a subset of a stabilizer into regularity and structure statements; Theorem 4.1 applies the noncommutative Bogolyubov lemma (Theorem 2.15) to a dense right stabilizer to obtain a Bohr neighborhood; Theorem 5.5 and Corollary 5.3 apply Lemma 5.1 and Breuillard-Green-Tao to a derived bounded-tripling set B to obtain a coset nilprogression. Theorem 2.15 is a statement about arbitrary dense symmetric finite sets, not about NIP sets and not about the stabilized-regularity conclusion; the paper concedes that existing proofs use model theory (Section 2.3), but that limits the 'avoids model theory' selling point rather than making the cited theorem logically dependent on the target result. Similarly, Breuillard-Green-Tao is an external structure theorem. The NIP hypothesis enters only through Haussler's lemma and Corollary 2.11; the Bohr/nilprogression output is not part of the hypothesis. The acknowledged ineffectiveness of the leading constants from BGT (Section 5.4) is a quality-of-bounds limitation, not circularity. The proof gap in Lemma 5.1 noted by the skeptic is a correctness issue — an invalid inequality in the printed proof — not a self-referential reduction, and it does not make an output equal to an input. No equation defines a stabilizer or a dimension in terms of the predicted structure, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors to force a choice. Therefore the paper has no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof does not introduce fitted parameters or new algebraic entities. It rests on external structure theorems from VC theory, additive combinatorics, and approximate group theory. One of those theorems, the noncommutative Bogolyubov lemma, is authored by the first author and has no known proof without model-theoretic machinery.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Haussler's Packing Lemma (Lemma 2.5)
    Used in Proposition 2.10 to show that stabilizers of NIP sets are large. The paper identifies this as the only nontrivial VC-dimension fact needed.
  • domain assumption Noncommutative Bogolyubov's Lemma (Theorem 2.15)
    Black box from Conant [6]. It is the only source of ineffectiveness in Theorem 4.1, and the paper states that all known proofs use model-theoretic tools at some level.
  • domain assumption Breuillard-Green-Tao structure theorem for approximate groups (Theorem 2.21)
    Used in Theorem 5.5 and Corollary 5.3 to produce coset nilprogressions inside bounded-tripling sets. The leading O_k(1) constants are ineffective, which is admitted in Section 5.4.
  • domain assumption Sanders Bogolyubov-Ruzsa Lemma (Theorem 2.23)
    Used for the effective abelian results in Section 5.4. Provides quasi-polynomial bounds in the doubling constant.
  • domain assumption Bounded-exponent approximate subgroup theorem (Theorem 6.1, from Hrushovski, BGT, van den Dries)
    Used in Section 6 to replace coset nilprogressions by genuine subgroups under an exponent assumption on A^{-1}A.
  • standard math Pluennecke-Ruzsa inequalities (Proposition 2.17)
    Used throughout to control sizes of products A^{epsilon_1} ... A^{epsilon_n} and sumsets mA - nA in the abelian case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stabilizers and NIP arithmetic regularity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WXFOPRGC

@misc{pith2026250904271,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stabilizers and NIP arithmetic regularity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WXFOPRGC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04271}
}
read the original abstract

We give a new proof of the NIP arithmetic regularity lemma for finite groups (due to the authors and Pillay), which describes the approximate structure of "NIP sets" in finite groups, i.e., subsets whose collection of left translates has bounded VC-dimension. Our new proof avoids sophisticated ingredients from the model theory of NIP formulas (e.g., Borel definability and generic compact domination). The key tool is an elaboration on an elementary lemma due to Alon, Fox, and Zhao concerning the behavior of subgroups contained in stabilizers. We adapt this lemma to arbitrary subsets of stabilizers using technical (but elementary) maneuvers based on work of Sisask. Using another trick from Alon, Fox, and Zhao, we then give an effective proof of a related result of the first author and Pillay on finite NIP sets of bounded tripling in arbitrary groups. Along the way, we show that NIP sets satisfy a strong form of the Polynomial Bogolyubov-Ruzsa Conjecture.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    , Structure and regularity for subsets of groups with finite VC-dimension , J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 24 (2022), no. 2, 583–621

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    N. Alon, J. Fox, and Y. Zhao, Efficient arithmetic regularity and removal lemmas for induced bipartite patterns, Discrete Anal. (2019), Paper No. 3, 14

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Assouad, Densit´ e et dimension, Ann

    P. Assouad, Densit´ e et dimension, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 33 (1983), no. 3, 233–282

    work page 1983

  4. [3]

    Bogolio` uboff, Sur quelques propri´ et´ es arithm´ etiques des presque-p´ eriodes, Ann

    N. Bogolio` uboff, Sur quelques propri´ et´ es arithm´ etiques des presque-p´ eriodes, Ann. Chaire Phys. Math. Kiev 4 (1939), 185–205

    work page 1939

  5. [4]

    Breuillard, Lectures on approximate groups and Hilbert’s 5th problem , Recent trends in combinatorics, IMA Vol

    E. Breuillard, Lectures on approximate groups and Hilbert’s 5th problem , Recent trends in combinatorics, IMA Vol. Math. Appl., vol. 159, Springer, [Cham], 2016, pp. 369–404

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    Breuillard, B

    E. Breuillard, B. Green, and T. Tao, The structure of approximate groups , Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. 116 (2012), 115–221

    work page 2012

  7. [6]

    Conant, On finite sets of small tripling or small alternation in arbitrary groups , Combin

    G. Conant, On finite sets of small tripling or small alternation in arbitrary groups , Combin. Probab. Comput. 29 (2020), no. 6, 807–829

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    , Quantitative structure of stable sets in arbitrary finite groups , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 149 (2021), no. 9, 4015–4028

    work page 2021

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Conant, K

    G. Conant, K. Gannon, and J. Hanson, Generic stability, randomizations, and NIP formulas, arXiv:2308.01801, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Conant, E

    G. Conant, E. Hrushovski, and A. Pillay, Compactifications of pseudofinite and pseudo-amenable groups, Groups Geom. Dyn. (to appear)

  3. [10]

    Conant and A

    G. Conant and A. Pillay, Pseudofinite groups and VC-dimension , J. Math. Log. 21 (2021), no. 2, Paper No. 2150009, 23

    2021

  4. [11]

    , Approximate subgroups with bounded VC-dimension, Math. Ann. 388 (2024), no. 1, 1001–1043

    2024

  5. [12]

    , An analytic version of stable arithmetic regularity , arXiv:2401.14363, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Conant, A

    G. Conant, A. Pillay, and C. Terry, A group version of stable regularity , Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 168 (2020), no. 2, 405–413

    2020

  7. [15]

    van den Dries, Approximate groups [according to Hrushovski and Breuillard, Green, Tao], Ast´ erisque (2015), no

    L. van den Dries, Approximate groups [according to Hrushovski and Breuillard, Green, Tao], Ast´ erisque (2015), no. 367-368, Exp. No. 1077, vii, 79–113

    2015

  8. [16]

    W. T. Gowers, B. Green, F. Manners, and T. Tao, On a conjecture of Marton , arXiv:2311.05762, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    , Marton ’s Conjecture in abelian groups with bounded torsion , arXiv:2404.02244, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Green, A Szemer´ edi-type regularity lemma in abelian groups, with applications , Geom

    B. Green, A Szemer´ edi-type regularity lemma in abelian groups, with applications , Geom. Funct. Anal. 15 (2005), no. 2, 340–376

    2005

  11. [19]

    Green and I

    B. Green and I. Z. Ruzsa, Freiman ’s theorem in an arbitrary abelian group, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 75 (2007), no. 1, 163–175

    2007

  12. [20]

    Haussler, Sphere packing numbers for subsets of the Boolean n-cube with bounded Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension , J

    D. Haussler, Sphere packing numbers for subsets of the Boolean n-cube with bounded Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension , J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 69 (1995), no. 2, 217– 232

    1995

  13. [21]

    Hrushovski, Stable group theory and approximate subgroups , J

    E. Hrushovski, Stable group theory and approximate subgroups , J. Amer. Math. Soc. 25 (2012), no. 1, 189–243

    2012

  14. [22]

    Hrushovski, Y

    E. Hrushovski, Y. Peterzil, and A. Pillay, Groups, measures, and the NIP , J. Amer. Math. Soc. 21 (2008), no. 2, 563–596

    2008

  15. [23]

    Lov´ asz and B

    L. Lov´ asz and B. Szegedy, Regularity partitions and the topology of graphons , An irregular mind, Bolyai Soc. Math. Stud., vol. 21, J´ anos Bolyai Math. Soc., Budapest, 2010, pp. 415–446

    2010

  16. [24]

    Lovett, An exposition of Sanders’ quasi-polynomial Freiman-Ruzsa theorem , The- ory of Computing (2015), 1–14

    S. Lovett, An exposition of Sanders’ quasi-polynomial Freiman-Ruzsa theorem , The- ory of Computing (2015), 1–14. 30 G. CONANT AND C. TERRY

    2015

  17. [25]

    Lovett and O

    S. Lovett and O. Regev, A counterexample to a strong variant of the polynomial Freiman-Ruzsa conjecture in Euclidean space, Discrete Anal. (2017), Paper No. 8, 6

    2017

  18. [26]

    Malliaris and S

    M. Malliaris and S. Shelah, Regularity lemmas for stable graphs , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 366 (2014), no. 3, 1551–1585

    2014

  19. [27]

    Massicot and F

    J.-C. Massicot and F. O. Wagner, Approximate subgroups, J. ´Ec. polytech. Math. 2 (2015), 55–64

    2015

  20. [28]

    Moran and A

    S. Moran and A. Yehudayoff, On weak ϵ-nets and the Radon number , Discrete Com- put. Geom. 64 (2020), no. 4, 1125–1140

    2020

  21. [29]

    Pillay, Remarks on compactifications of pseudofinite groups , Fund

    A. Pillay, Remarks on compactifications of pseudofinite groups , Fund. Math. 236 (2017), no. 2, 193–200

    2017

  22. [30]

    I. Z. Ruzsa, Generalized arithmetical progressions and sumsets , Acta Math. Hungar. 65 (1994), no. 4, 379–388

    1994

  23. [31]

    258, 323– 326

    , An analog of Freiman ’s theorem in groups, Ast´ erisque (1999), no. 258, 323– 326

    1999

  24. [32]

    Sanders, On a nonabelian Balog-Szemer´ edi-type lemma, J

    T. Sanders, On a nonabelian Balog-Szemer´ edi-type lemma, J. Aust. Math. Soc. 89 (2010), no. 1, 127–132

    2010

  25. [33]

    PDE 5 (2012), no

    , On the Bogolyubov-Ruzsa lemma , Anal. PDE 5 (2012), no. 3, 627–655

    2012

  26. [34]

    Simon, Rosenthal compacta and NIP formulas , Fund

    P. Simon, Rosenthal compacta and NIP formulas , Fund. Math. 231 (2015), no. 1, 81–92

    2015

  27. [35]

    , VC-sets and generic compact domination , Israel J. Math. 218 (2017), no. 1, 27–41

    2017

  28. [36]

    Sisask, Convolutions of sets with bounded VC-dimension are uniformly continuous, Discrete Anal

    O. Sisask, Convolutions of sets with bounded VC-dimension are uniformly continuous, Discrete Anal. (2021), Paper No. 1, 25

    2021

  29. [37]

    Szemer´ edi,Regular partitions of graphs , Probl` emes combinatoires et th´ eorie des graphes (Colloq

    E. Szemer´ edi,Regular partitions of graphs , Probl` emes combinatoires et th´ eorie des graphes (Colloq. Internat. CNRS, Univ. Orsay, Orsay, 1976), Colloq. Internat. CNRS, vol. 260, CNRS, Paris, 1978, pp. 399–401

    1976

  30. [38]

    Tao, Product set estimates for non-commutative groups, Combinatorica 28 (2008), no

    T. Tao, Product set estimates for non-commutative groups, Combinatorica 28 (2008), no. 5, 547–594

    2008

  31. [39]

    Tao and V

    T. Tao and V. Vu, Additive combinatorics, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathe- matics, vol. 105, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006

    2006

  32. [40]

    Terry and J

    C. Terry and J. Wolf, Stable arithmetic regularity in the finite field model , Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 51 (2019), no. 1, 70–88

    2019

  33. [41]

    , Quantitative structure of stable sets in finite abelian groups , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 373 (2020), no. 6, 3885–3903

    2020

  34. [42]

    M. C. H. Tointon, Freiman ’s theorem in an arbitrary nilpotent group , Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 109 (2014), no. 2, 318–352. Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois Chicago Email address : gconant@uic.edu Department of Mathematics, ...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.