Random unitaries, amenable linear groups and Jordan’s theorem

arXiv:1703.07892v1 [math.RT] 23 Mar 2017

by
Emmanuel Breuillard∗
WWU Münster
and
Gilles Pisier†
Texas A&M University and UPMC-Paris VI
March 24, 2017

Abstract
It is well known that a dense subgroup G of the complex unitary group U (d) cannot be
amenable as a discrete group when d > 1. When d is large enough we give quantitative versions
of this phenomenon in connection with certain estimates of random Fourier series on the compact
group Ḡ that is the closure of G. Roughly, we show that if Ḡ covers a large enough part of
U (d) in the sense of metric entropy then G cannot be amenable. The results are all based on a
version of a classical theorem of Jordan that says that if G is finite, or amenable as a discrete
2
group, then G contains an Abelian subgroup with index eo(d ) .

MSC: 43A46, 47A56, 22D10

∗
†

breuilla@uni-muenster.de
pisier@math.tamu.edu

1

b a
Let G be a compact group. We denote by mG the normalized Haar measure on G, and by G
maximal family of mutually distinct (up to unitary equivalence) irreducible unitary representations
b let χπ (x) = tr(π(x)) denote as usual its character, so that {χπ | π ∈ G}
b is an
on G. For any π ∈ G
orthonormal system in L2 (G).
Let M√
d be the space of matrices of size d × d with complex entries. We use the standard notation
|a| := a∗ a, i.e. the unique non-negative self-adjoint matrix whose square is a∗ a.
Let T be the unit circle T = {z ∈ C; |z| = 1} in the complex plane. Let U (d) ⊂ Md denote the
group of all unitary matrices.
Our investigation is motivated by the following from [27] (see §5 below):
Theorem 0.1 (Characterization of Subgaussian characters). Let (Gn ) be a sequence of compact
cn be nontrivial and let χn = χπn as well as dn = dπn . The following are
groups, let πn ∈ G
equivalent:
(i) There is a constant C such that
∀n∀a ∈ Mdn

tr|a| ≤ C supg∈Gn |tr(aπn (g))|.

(ii) There is C > 0 such that
∀n

Z

exp (|χn /C|2 )dmGn ≤ exp(1) (= e).

(iii) There is a constant C such that
∀n

dn ≤ C

Z

U (dn )

supg∈Gn |tr(uπn (g))|mU (dn ) (du).

bn are Sidon with constant C in the sense
The property (i) means that the singletons {πn } ⊂ G
defined e.g. in [21], while (ii) means that they are central Λ Sidon with a fixed constant in the
sense of [22]. See §6 for more background on this. Equivalently, (ii) says that the tail behaviour
of χn is dominated (uniformly over n) by that of a standard Gaussian normal random variable. In
other words the χn ’s are uniformly subgaussian. Using the Taylor expansion of x 7→ exp x2 and
Stirling’s formula, it is easy to check that (ii) is equivalent to: There is a constant C such that
√
supp∈2N kχn kp / p ≤ C.
See §3 for more on this.
What is a bit surprising in the preceding statement is that the subgaussian integrability property
of the character expressed by (ii) implies a rather strong property of the whole range of π, that is
perhaps better described as a “density” property like in the next corollary.
Corollary 0.2. The preceding properties are equivalent to
√
(iv) There is a number 0 ≤ α < 2 such that for any n and any u ∈ U (dn ) there is t ∈ Gn and
z ∈ T such that
tr|u − zπn (t)|2 ≤ α2 dn .
Proof. Assume (i). For simplicity let G = Gn , d = dn and π = πn . Then for any u ∈ U (d) we have
1/C ≤ supg∈G,z∈T ℜ(zd−1 tr(uπ(g))). Equivalently
inf g∈G,z∈T d−1 tr|u − zπ(g)|2 ≤ 2(1 − 1/C 2 ),
2

and hence (iv) holds.
Conversely assume (iv). Then for any u ∈ U (d) we have inf g∈G,z∈T d−1 tr|u − zπ(g)|2 ≤ α2 , and
hence 1 − α2 /2 ≤ supg∈G,z∈T ℜ(zd−1 tr(uπ(g))) = supg∈G d−1 |tr(uπ(g))|. Thus
d(1 − α2 /2) ≤ inf u∈U (d) supg∈G |tr(uπ(g))|.
A fortiori (iii) holds.
Remark 0.3. Note that for any u, v ∈ U (dn ) there is z ∈ T or even z ∈ {−1, 1} such that tr|u−zv|2 ≤
2dn . Indeed, the average over all such z’s is equal to 2dn .
Remark 0.4. [On irreducibility] If a unitary representation πn satisfies the inequality appearing in
Theorem 0.1 (i), then it is irreducible. Indeed, if P1 , P2 are mutually orthogonal projections onto
invariant subspaces for πn , and if a is a matrix such that P1 aP2 = a we have tr(aπn (t)) = 0 for all
t, and hence the inequality in (i) implies a = 0, so we must have either P1 = 0 or P2 = 0.
Q
The fundamental example for Corollary 0.2 is very simple: just take G = U (dn ) and let πn
be the coordinates on G. In that case, (iv) obviously holds with α = 0.
Until recently, the second author believed naively that the preceding Theorem 0.1 could be
applied to finite groups. To his surprise, the first author showed him that it is not so (and he
showed him Turing’s paper [40] that already invoked Jordan’s theorem to emphasize that general
phenomenon, back in 1938 !). The reason is roughly that any “large” finite subgroup G ⊂ U (d)
contains a “large” Abelian subgroup Γ ⊂ G (and even a normal one), with an upper bound for
the index, namely [G : Γ] ≤ exp o(d2 ) that contradicts the density expressed in (iv), except for the
trivial case when dn stays bounded. More precisely, the root for this lies in a Theorem of Camille
Jordan from 1878:
Theorem 0.5. Any finite subgroup of U (d) has a normal Abelian subgroup of index bounded by a
function f (d) depending only on d.
We will show in Theorem 5.7 that the bound f (d) ≤ (d + 1)! = exp O(d log(d)) (see below)
implies for any representation π : G → U (d) with finite or amenable range
Z
supg∈G |tr(uπ(g))|mU (d) (du) = O((d log(d))1/2 ),
U (d)

and

Z

exp (|χπ /C|2 )dmG ≤ e ⇒ (1/C) = O((log d/d)1/2 )

and these orders of growth are sharp.
Thus we cannot have a sequence of finite groups Gn satisfying the properties in Theorem 0.1
or Corollary 0.2 unless the dimensions dn stay bounded.
Similar questions have been considered previously in the theory of Sidon sets in duals of noncommutative compact groups. We describe this connection in §6. When the representations πn are
defined on a single compact group G (so that Gn = G for all n), in many cases it is known that
the dimensions dn must be bounded. This was proved by Cecchini [9] for G a Lie group and by
Hutchinson [22] for G a profinite group. Hutchinson’s paper implies the impossibility to have finite
groups in Theorem 0.1 with unbounded dn ’s. We should mention that the latter reference (recently
pointed out to the second author by A. Figà-Talamanca) already used Jordan’s theorem, much like
we do.
3

Although Jordan gave no estimate for the growth of f , it was later proved by Blichfeldt, based
on contributions notably by Bieberbach and Frobenius (see Remark 5.11 for details) that this holds
2
with f (d) = O(dc(d/ log d) ) and a fortiori with f (d) = exp o(d2 ). The latter estimate is enough to
show that Theorem 0.1 is void for finite groups (see Corollary 5.10 for a precise statement).
More precisely, if d ≥ 71, any finite group Γ ⊂ U (d) has a normal Abelian subgroup of index at
most (d + 1)!, which is sharp. This more recent bound (d + 1)! is due to Collins [10], but uses
the classification of finite simple groups. The fact that (d + 1)! is sharp is easy: just consider the
standard irreducible representation on Cd+1 of the group of permutations of order d + 1, restricted
to the d-dimensional subspace (1, · · · , 1)⊥ , and note that the trivial subgroup is the only normal
Abelian subgroup and that its index is (d + 1)!. Before Collins, a slightly weaker bound had been
obtained by Boris Weisfeiler [42] (see [10] for details), before he disappeared in Chile, presumably
murdered in early 1985.

1. On Jordan’s theorem for amenable subgroups of U (d)
If one interprets Corollary 0.2 as a quantitative density property, it is natural to wonder about
other properties of dense subgroups of U (d). In particular, since it is well known that for d ≥ 2
dense√subgroups of U (d) cannot be amenable, one may ask whether a group satisfying (iv) (with
α < 2 fixed and d large enough) must be nonamenable (and a fortiori infinite !). Indeed, this
turns out to be true because Theorem 0.5 extends to amenable subgroups of U (d). The proof is a
reduction to the finite case, showing that any bound valid for finite subgroups of U (d) will also be
true for arbitrary amenable subgroups of U (d). This is due to the first author:
Proposition 1.1. Let f (d) be a bound in Jordan’s Theorem as above. Any subgroup G ⊂ U (d)
that is amenable as a discrete group has a normal Abelian subgroup of index at most f (d). (In
particular if d ≥ 71 this holds with f (d) = (d + 1)! by [10]).

Remark 1.2. Every Abelian subgroup of U (d) can be simultaneously conjugated inside the subgroup
Dd of diagonal matrices, so this implies that up to conjugating G by a matrix in U (d) we have
[G : G ∩ Dd ] ≤ (d + 1)!.
Proof of Proposition 1.1. Being amenable G has a solvable subgroup of finite index, by the Tits
alternative [39]. The closure of G in the usual topology of U (d) is a compact Lie subgroup with
a solvable subgroup of finite index. Without loss of generality we may assume that G is closed.
Then the connected component of the identity G0 is solvable. But solvable compact connected Lie
groups are Abelian, isomorphic to (R/Z)k for some integer k. By a well-known fact due Borel-Serre
[2, Lemme 5.11] and Platonov [41, 10.10], there is a finite subgroup H of G such that HG0 = G.
For an integer n, let Tn := {t ∈ G0 ; tn = 1}. This is a characteristic subgroup of G0 , which is
isomorphic to (Z/nZ)k . Hence it is normalized by H and thus Hn := Tn H is a finite subgroup of G.
We may apply Jordan’s lemma with Collins’ bound [10] to this Hn and obtain an Abelian normal
subgroup An ≤ Hn such that [Hn : An ] ≤ f (d). In particular [Tn : Tn ∩ An ] ≤ f (d). If n = pm is a
power of a prime p, then Tn has no proper subgroup of index < p. So if p > f (d), then An contains
Tn . Fix such a p. Note that the (increasing) union of all Tpm , m ≥ 1, is dense in G0 . This implies
that the intersection of all Z(Tpm ) is Z(G0 ), where Z(K) := {t ∈ G; tk = kt∀k ∈ K} denotes the
centralizer subgroup of K. But any decreasing sequence of compact subgroups of a given compact
Lie group is stationary (“Noetherianity”), so this intersection is finite, and hence there is m ∈ N
such that Z(Tpm ) = Z(G0 ). It follows that A := Apm G0 is an Abelian subgroup of G, which is
normal and of index
[G : A] = [HG0 : Apm G0 ] = [Hpm G0 : Apm G0 ] ≤ [Hpm : Apm ] ≤ f (d).
4

2. Consequence for the metric entropy
2

In this section, we show that Jordan’s theorem (or Proposition 1.1) with f (d) = eo(d ) implies a
non trivial property of the metric entropy of any finite (or amenable) subgroup of U (d).
Let (T, δ) be any set T equipped with a metric or pseudo-metric δ. Given a subset S ⊂ T we
denote by N (S, δ, ε) the smallest number of a covering of S by open balls of δ-radius ε.
We will mainly consider the distances δ2 and δ∞ , corresponding to the Hilbert-Schmidt norm
and the operator norm respectively, defined on Md as follows:
∀u, v ∈ Md

δ2 (u, v) = (d−1 tr|u − v|2 )1/2

∀u, v ∈ Md

δ∞ (u, v) = ku − vk.

Note
(2.1)

δ2 (u, v) ≤ δ∞ (u, v).

Lemma 2.1. For any d and any subgroup G ⊂ U (d) containing an Abelian subgroup of index k we
have
∀ε ∈ (0, 2) N (G, δ2 , ε) ≤ k(2π/ε)d .
Proof. Let G = ∪j≤k tj Γ be the disjoint decomposition into cosets. Then
X
N (G, δ2 , ε) ≤
N (tj Γ, δ2 , ε).
j≤k

Clearly N (tj Γ, δ2 , ε) = N (Γ, δ2 , ε) and since Γ is Abelian the matrices in Γ are simultaneously
diagonalizable so that we may assume that Γ is included in the set Dd of all diagonal matrices with
entries in T. Thus by (2.1) we have N (Γ, δ2 , ε) ≤ N (Dd , δ2 , ε) ≤ N (Dd , δ∞ , ε) ≤ (2π/ε)d , from
which the lemma follows.
Remark 2.2. Let 0 < ε < 2. Let Aε (d) be the smallest number N such that any subgroup G ⊂ U (d)
satisfying
N (G, δ2 , ε) > N
must be non-amenable as a discrete group, and let
Hε (d) = log Aε (d).
By the preceding we have Aε (d) ≤ f (d)(2π/ε)d , and hence Hε (d) ≤ log f (d) + d log(2π/ε). Thus,
assuming d ≥ 71, the bound in Proposition 1.1 implies a fortiori (by Stirling)
Hε (d) ≤ d log(d/e) + d log(2π/ε).
We will show in (2.8) that this is asymptotically sharp if we keep ε > 0 fixed and let d → ∞.
But first we need to clarify the relationship between the various ways to estimate the covering
numbers of groups with respect to a translation invariant metric in the presence of a translation
invariant probability (Haar) measure.
Let N ′ (G, δ2 , ε) be the smallest number of a covering of G by open balls of δ2 -radius ε with centers
in G. It is easy to check that N (G, δ2 , ε) ≤ N ′ (G, δ2 , ε) ≤ N (G, δ2 , ε/2) for any ε > 0.
5

We may consider the closure Ḡ ⊂ U (d) of G equipped with its normalized Haar measure mḠ .
Then by translation invariance, we have
(2.2)

1/mḠ ({g ∈ Ḡ | δ2 (g, 1) < ε}) ≤ N ′ (Ḡ, δ2 , ε) ≤ 1/mḠ ({g ∈ Ḡ | δ2 (g, 1) < ε/2}).

Obviously, we have N ′ (Ḡ, δ2 , ε1 ) ≤ N ′ (G, δ2 , ε) ≤ N ′ (Ḡ, δ2 , ε) for any ε1 > ε.
Thus (say) mḠ ({g ∈ Ḡ | δ2 (g, 1) < 3ε}) < 1/Aε (d) implies that G is non-amenable.
To be more concrete, if we set, say, ε = 1/30, there is c′ > 0 such that for all d large enough if
log

1
≥ c′ d log d
mḠ ({g ∈ Ḡ | δ2 (g, 1) < 1/10})

then G is not amenable. We will now show that this is asymptotically sharp.
Remark 2.3 (A case study). Let G ⊂ U (d) (actually G ⊂ O(d)) be the finite subgroup formed of all
the matrices of the form
Xd
u=
εi ei,σ(i)
1

{−1, 1}d

where (εi ) ∈
and σ is in the symmetric group S(d). The group G is isomorphic to the
semidirect product {−1, 1}d ⋊ S(d). Then
X
tr(u) =
εi
i∈Fix(σ)

δ2 (u, 1)2 = 2(d − tr(u)) = 2

X

i∈Fix(σ)

(1 − εi ) + 2(d − |Fix(σ)|)

where Fix(σ) = {i | σ(i) = i}. For any ε > 0 we have
(2.3)

{u ∈ G | δ2 (u, 1) < ε} = {u ∈ G | tr(u) > d(1 − ε2 /2)}.

Let Xj be the number of permutations in S(d) with exactly j fixed points. Then for any 0 ≤ k < d
X
(2.4)
mG ({u ∈ G | tr(u) > k} = (d!)−1
Xj P({Sj > k})
j>k

where Sj = ε1 + · · · + εj is the sum of j independent (uniformly distributed) choices of signs, and
(2.4) is = 0 when k ≥ d. Thus we have for any 0 ≤ k < d (note that Xd = 1 and P({Sd > k}) ≥ 2−d )
X
Xj .
(d!)−1 2−d ≤ mG ({u ∈ G | tr(u) > k} ≤ (d!)−1
j>k


d

It is easy to see that Xj = j D(d − j) where D(n) denotes the number of derangements of an
n-element set, i.e. the number of permutations without fixed point in S(n). It is well known (see
e.g. [37, p. 67]) that D(n) is of order n!/e when n → ∞, and more precisely: for any n ≥ 1 (note
D(1) = 0)
(2.5)

D(n) = n!(1 −

1
1
1
1
+ − + · · · + (−1)n ).
1! 2! 3!
n!

This shows n! ≥ D(n) ≥ n!/3 for all n > 1. Contenting ourselves (for the moment) with the obvious
bound D(d − j) ≤ (d − j)! we find
(2.6)

(d!)−1 Xj ≤ (j!)−1 ,
6

P
P
and hence (d!)−1 j>k Xj ≤ e(k + 1)!−1 . By Stirling’s formula (d!)−1 j>k Xj ≤ e(e/(k + 1))k+1 .
Therefore for any 0 ≤ k < d
(2.7)

(d!)−1 2−d ≤ mG ({u ∈ G | tr(u) > k} ≤ e(e/(k + 1))k+1 .

Recalling (2.2) and (2.3) and choosing k = [d(1 − ε2 /2)] we find
log N (G, δ2 , ε/2) ≥ log N ′ (G, δ2 , ε) ≥ (k + 1) log((k + 1)) − k − 2,
√
from which we deduce, for any 0 < ε < 2
Hε/2 (d) ≥ (1 − ε2 /2)d log(d/e) − c3 ,

(2.8)

where c3 is a fixed constant independent of d.
Remark 2.4. Similarly, assuming G ⊂ U (d) amenable, let ϕ be an invariant mean on G. Since both
distance and mean are translation invariant it is easy to check that
1/ϕ({g ∈ G | δ2 (g, 1) < ε}) ≤ N ′ (G, δ2 , ε) ≤ 1/ϕ({g ∈ G | δ2 (g, 1) < ε/2}).
By the preceding reasoning ϕ({g ∈ Ḡ | δ2 (g, 1) < 3ε}) < 1/Aε (d) would imply that G is not
amenable. Therefore we must have
ϕ({g ∈ Ḡ | δ2 (g, 1) < 3ε}) ≥ 1/Aε (d) ≥ (f (d)(2π/ε)d )−1 ,
and hence, say taking ε = 1/9
ϕ({g ∈ Ḡ | δ2 (g, 1) < 1/3}) ≥ (18π/d)d /(d + 1).

3. Subgaussian variables
To conform with a commonly used notation, we set
∀x ∈ R+

2

ψ2 (x) = ex − 1.

Given a measure space (T, m) we denote by Lψ2 (T, m) the (Orlicz) space
R formed of all the
measurable complex valued functions F for which there is c > 0 such that ψ2 (|F |/c)dm < ∞.
We denote
Z
(3.1)
kF kψ2 = inf{c > 0 | ψ2 (|F |/c)dm ≤ ψ2 (1)}.
R
When F is real valued with F dm = 0 and m(T ) = 1 it is not hard to show that kF kψ2 is
equivalent to the smallest constant C such that
Z
∀t ∈ R
exp (tF − Ct2 /2)dm ≤ 1.
Since the equality case for C = 1 characterizes the standard Gaussian variables, this explains why
we view (ii) as a subgaussian estimate.
Using the Taylor expansion of the exponential function it is easy to show that kF kψ2 is equivalent
√
(with absolute equivalence constants) to F 7→ supp≥2 kF kp / p. More precisely, we can restrict if
7

we wish to even integers: there is a constant λ > 0 such that for any complex valued measurable
F we have
√
(3.2)
λ−1 kF kψ2 ≤ supn∈N∗ kF k2n / 2n ≤ λkF kψ2 .
Consider the case when T is a compact group G with m = mG and let F = χπ be the character of
b Then, for any i, j ≥ 0, the unitary representation π ⊗i ⊗ π̄ ⊗j admits a decomposition
some π ∈ G.
into irreducibles that we may write as:
(3.3)

π ⊗i ⊗ π̄ ⊗j = ⊕σ∈Gb mπ (i, j; σ)σ,

where the integer mπ (i, j; σ) is the multiplicity (possibly = 0) of σ in π ⊗i ⊗ π̄ ⊗j . Taking the L2 -norm
of the trace of both sides of (3.3) we find
Z
X
|χπ |2(i+j) dm =
mπ (i, j; σ)2 .
b
σ∈G

Therefore, the condition

√
supn∈N∗ kχπ k2n / 2n ≤ C

can be reformulated “arithmetically” as saying that for any i, j ≥ 0 (or merely for all i ≥ 1 with
j = 0)
X
mπ (i, j; σ)2 ≤ C 2(i+j) (2(i + j))i+j .
b
σ∈G

4. Random Fourier series
We describe in this section the connection of Theorem 0.1 and Corollary 0.2 to Gaussian random
Fourier series in the style of [25]. More recent information on general Gaussian random processes
can be found in [38].
We denote by gd a random d × d-matrix with entries {gd (i, j) | 1 ≤ i, j ≤ d} forming an i.i.d.
family of complex valued Gaussian variables with E|gd (i, j)|2 = 1/d, on a suitable probability space
(Ω, P).
Let G a compact group G and let (aσ )σ∈Gb be a family of “Fourier coefficients”, i.e. assuming
P
that σ takes its values in U (dσ ) we assume that aσ ∈ Mdσ . We also assume that dσ tr(|aσ |2 ) < ∞.
The associated random Fourier series is the random process (St )t∈G defined by
X
(4.1)
St (ω) =
d tr(aσ gdσ (ω)σ(t)),
b σ
σ∈G

where the family of random matrices (gdσ )σ∈Gb is an independent one. We associate to it the
pseudo-distance defined on G by δS (s, t) = kSs − St k2 . The main results in [25] show that the
Dudley-Fernique entropy condition
Z ∞
(log N (G, δS , ε))1/2 dε < ∞
0

that was known to characterize the a.s. boundedness of (St ) is also equivalent to the a.s. boundedness of random Fourier series associated to more general randomizations than the Gaussian one. In
particular,
the same characterization holds for independent unitary matrices uniformly distributed
Q
over σ∈Gb U (dσ ) in place of (gdσ )σ∈Gb . In fact these results do not require the irreducibility of
the σ’s, as long as one uses the metric entropy associated to δS . If one removes the irreducibility
8

assumption, even the case of St reduced to a single sum St = tr(agdπ π(t)) with a ∈ Mdπ is non
trivial, and actually it can be argued (by decomposing π into irreducible components) that this
case is equivalent to the one in (4.1). In this paper, we concentrate on the even more special case
when a is the identity matrix.
Let G be any group and let π : G → U (d) be a representation. We will estimate the random
variable Zπ defined on (Ω, P) by
Zπ (ω) = sup |tr(gd (ω)π(t))|.
t∈G

For our considerations, it will be essentially equivalent to replace it by the variable
u 7→ sup |tr(uπ(t))|,
t∈G

defined when u is chosen uniformly in U (d).
We associate to π the (pseudo-)distance δπ defined on G by
δπ (s, t) = (d−1 tr|π(s) − π(t)|2 )1/2 .
We will repeatedly use the observation that
(4.2)

δπ (s, t)2 = 2(1 − d−1 χπ (s−1 t)).

Let ε > 0. We denote by N (π, ε) the smallest number of a covering of G by open balls of radius ε
for the metric δπ . We then introduce the so-called metric entropy integral
Z 2
(log N (π, ε))1/2 dε.
I(π) =
0

Note log N (π, ε) = 0 for all ε > 2 since the diameter of G is at most 2.
In the present very particular situation the Dudley-Fernique theorem for Gaussian random
Fourier series (see [25]), says that there are numerical positive constants b1 , b2 such that for any G,
π and d
(4.3)

b1 I(π) ≤ EZπ ≤ b2 I(π).

By elementary arguments (based on the translation invariance both of the metric δπ and the
measure mG ) we have (as in (2.2)) for any π
mG ({t | δπ (t, 1) < ε})−1 ≤ N (π, ε) ≤ mG ({t | δπ (π, 1) < ε/2})−1 ,
R2
so that I(π) is equivalent to I ′ (π) = 0 (− log mG ({t | δπ (t, 1) < ε}))1/2 dε.
By the comparison arguments from [25] we also have for suitable constants b1 , b2
Z
supt∈G |tr(uπ(t))|mU (d) (du) ≤ b2 I(π).
(4.5)
b1 I(π) ≤

(4.4)

U (d)

A fortiori, this shows
that
R
Mu = U (d) supt∈G |tr(uπ(t))|mU (d) (du) and Mg = E supt∈G |tr(gd π(t))| (= EZπ )
are equivalent.
Actually, in the present situation, the latter equivalence can be proved directly very easily, using
the matricial version of the “contraction principle” in [25, p. 82]. We briefly indicate the argument:
9

one direction uses the fact that the polar decomposition of gd is such that gd (with respect to P)
has the same distribution as the variable u|gd | with respect to mU (d) × P on the product U (d) × Ω.
This implies that uE|gd | can be obtained from gd by the action of a conditional expectation. Since
E|gd | = bd I with bd ≥ b for some numerical constant b > 0, this gives us bMu ≤ Mg . To prove the
converse, we note (“contraction principle”) that a convex function on Md is maximized on the unit
ball at an extreme point, i.e. at a matrix in U (d), and so for any fixed ω, we have
Z
Z
supt∈G |tr(uπ(t))|mU (d) (du)
supt∈G |tr(ugd (ω)π(t))|mU (d) (du) ≤ kgd (ω)k
U (d)

U (d)

and hence after integration in ω with respect to P
Z
Z
supt∈G |tr(ugd (ω)π(t))|mU (d) (du)dP(ω) ≤ Ekgd k
U (d)

U (d)

supt∈G |tr(uπ(t))|mU (d) (du).

Since, as is well known, Ekgd k remains bounded by a constant b′ when d → ∞ (see e.g. [25, p. 78])
this implies the converse inequality Mg ≤ b′ Mu .
Since N (π, ǫ) is a non-increasing function of ǫ, note also the elementary minoration
(4.6)

sup0<ε≤2 ε(log N (π, ε))1/2 ≤ I(π),

which, by (4.5), gives us the lower bound
(4.7)

b1 sup0<ε≤2 ε(log N (π, ε))1/2 ≤

Z

U (d)

supt∈G |tr(uπ(t))|mU (d) (du).

In the Gaussian case, we also have b1 sup0<ε≤2 ε(log N (π, ε))1/2 ≤ Mg . The latter is known as the
Sudakov minoration (see e.g. [30, p. 69] or [24, p. 80]). While the preceding 2-sided bound (4.3)
requires the translation invariance of the distance (or the stationarity of the associated Gaussian
process), Sudakov’s lower bound holds for general Gaussian processes.

5. Proofs
We first indicate where the proof of Theorem 0.1 can be found. By [27, Cor. 5.4] (see also [32])
(i) and (ii) in Theorem 0.1 are equivalent. Moreover, by [27, Prop. 5.3] they are equivalent to
(iii). Note that complete details for this can be found in [32] (together with a correction to another
assertion in [27]). As for the equivalence between (ii) and (iii), a more precise two sided inequality
holds for the corresponding best possible constants:
Lemma 5.1. Let G be a compact group, d ≥ 1 and π : G → U (d) an irreducible unitary representation. We set
C2 (π) = kχπ kψ2 and C3 (π) = R

d
.
U (d) supt∈G |tr(uπ(t))|mU (d) (du)

There is a numerical constant K > 0 such that for any G, d, π
K −1 C3 (π) ≤ C2 (π) ≤ KC3 (π).

10

Proof. Firstly we will show K −1 C3 (π) ≤ C2 (π). Note that 1 = (tr(|u|2 /d))1/2 = ktr(uπ)k2 ≤
ktr(uπ)k∞ for
√ any fixed u ∈ U (d), therefore C3 (π) ≤ d.
Let 0 < ε < 2. Let C = kχπ kψ2 . Then kℜ(χπ )kψ2 ≤ C and hence
exp((d/C)2 (1 − ε2 /2)2 )mG ({ℜ(χ) > d(1 − ε2 /2)}) ≤ e.
Taking the square root of the log, we find
1/2
(d/C)(1 − ε2 /2) ≤ 1 + log 1/mG ({ℜ(χ) > d(1 − ε2 /2)})

and hence using (4.4)

≤ 1 + (log N (π, ε))1/2 .
By (4.7) this is
−1

≤ 1 + (b1 ε)

Z

U (d)

supt∈G |tr(uπ(t))|mU (d) (du) ≤ 1 + (b1 ε)−1 d/C3 (π).

Thus we obtain
(d/C2 (π))(1 − ε2 /2) ≤ 1 + (b1 ε)−1 d/C3 (π),
or equivalently (multiplying by C2 (π)C3 (π)/d)
C3 (π)(1 − ε2 /2) ≤ C2 (π)C3 (π)/d + (b1 ε)−1 C2 (π)
and since C3 (π) ≤ d, choosing say, ε = 1, we obtain C3 (π) ≤ KC2 (π) with K = 2(1 + b−1
1 ).
We now turn to the converse direction. Let
Z
supg∈G |tr(uaπ(g))|mU (d) (du).
Φ(a) =
U (d)

We first claim that for any matrix a ∈ Md
(5.1)

tr|a| ≤ C3 (π)Φ(a).

This follows from a simple averaging argument. Indeed let a = u|a| be the polar decomposition
(|a|2 = a∗ a), then Φ(a) = Φ(|a|) so that to show (5.1) it suffices to show that tr(a) ≤ C3 (π)Φ(a) for
all a in Md . Then for any s ∈ G we have Φ(a) = Φ(π(s)a) (by translation in variance over U (d))
and Φ(a) = Φ(aπ(s−1 )) (by translation in variance over G). By convexity
Z
−1
Φ(a) = Φ(π(s)aπ(s )) ≥ Φ( π(s)aπ(s−1 )m(ds)) = Φ(tr(a)I/d) = tr(a)Φ(I)/d
and this gives us (5.1), since Φ(I) = d/C3 (π) by definition of C3 (π).
We now interpret (5.1) as saying that the norm of a natural inclusion J between two normed
spaces is at most C3 (π): we write kJ : X → Md∗ k ≤ C3 (π) (the space X is Md equipped with the
norm Φ). By duality the inequality (5.1) means that
(5.2)

kJ ∗ : Md → X ∗ k ≤ C3 (π).

By the duality theorem in [25, p. 116] the dual of X can be identified (up to a fixed isomorphic
constant) with the space of Fourier multipliers from L2 (G) → Lψ2 (G). It follows that for any
b ∈ Md
(5.3)

kJ ∗ (b)kX ∗ = sup{|tr(ba)| | Φ(a) ≤ 1} ≃ sup{ktr(baπ)kψ2 | ktr(aπ)k2 ≤ 1}.
11

Since (5.2) implies kJ ∗ (b)kX ∗ ≤ C3 (π)kbkMd , taking b = a = I we obtain from (5.3) the announced
bound
C2 (π) = ktr(π)kψ2 ≤ KC3 (π).
b the duality theorem says that the best
Remark 5.2. More generally if we work with a subset Λ ⊂ G
constant in
X
X
(5.4)
∀aπ
dπ tr|aπ | ≤ CEk
dπ tr(uπ aπ π)k∞
Λ

Λ

and
(5.5)

∀aπ

k

X

Λ

dπ tr(aπ π)kψ2 ≤ Ck

X

Λ

dπ tr(aπ π)k2

are equivalent.
Moreover by the same averaging argument (based on ireducibility of the π’s) the best constant
in (5.4) is the same if we restrict (5.4) to the case when the aπ ’s are scalar matrices.
Remark 5.3. Let C1 (π) be the best constant associated to (i) in Theorem 0.1. More precisely (this
is the Sidon constant of {π} in the sense of §6), we define
C1 (π) = sup{tr|a| | a ∈ Md , supg∈G |tr(aπ(g))| ≤ 1}.
Obviously C3 (π) ≤ C1 (π). In the converse direction, the best known estimate seems to be
(5.6)

C1 (π) ≤ K ′ C3 (π)2 log(1 + C3 (π)),

for some numerical constant K’. To check this we first invoke again the duality theorem in [25, p.
116]. This implies that for any a ∈ Md we have
ktr(π)kψ2 ≤ K ′′ C3 (π)(tr(|a|2 ))1/2 ,
for some numerical constant K ′′ . Then (5.6) can be deduced from the proof of [31, Th. 3.7] if one
takes into account the logarithmic growth described [31, Rem. 1.16].
The next statement follows from Theorem 0.1 by the same simple argument already used in the
Abelian case in [28].
Corollary 5.4. The properties in Theorem 0.1 are equivalent to the following ones:
(v) There are numbers β > 0 and α > 0 such that for any n there is a subset An ⊂ Gn with
2
|An | ≥ e−1 eαdn such that
∀s 6= t ∈ An kπn (s) − πn (t)k > β.

(v)’ There are numbers β ′ > 0 and α′ > 0 such that for any n there is a subset A′n ⊂ Gn with
′ 2
|A′n | ≥ e−1 eα dn such that
∀s 6= t ∈ A′n

(dn−1/2 tr|πn (s) − πn (t)|2 )1/2 > β ′ .

Proof. We will first show that (i) and (ii) in Theorem 0.1 are equivalent to (v)’. This is an easy
consequence of the subgaussian estimate (ii) and of (4.4). Indeed,
√ let π = πn , G = Gn . Recall
ℜχ
(t)).
Therefore
(ii)
implies
assuming
ε
<
δπ (t, 1)2 = 2(1 − d−1
2
π
π
(5.7)

2

mG ({t | δπ (t, 1) < ε}) = mG ({t | ℜχπ (t) > dπ (1 − ε2 /2)}) ≤ ee−γdπ
12

where γ = β(1 − ε2 /2)2 . From this follows by (4.4)
N (π, ε) ≥ mG ({t | ℜχπ (t) > dπ (1 − ε2 /2)})

−1

2

≥ e−1 eγdπ .

Let A ⊂ G be a maximal subset of points such that
∀s 6= t ∈ A δπ (s, t) = (d−1 tr|π(s) − π(t)|2 )1/2 > ε/2.

√
Clearly, |A| ≥ N (π, ε). Therefore, (v)’ follows with β ′ = ε/2 (which can be any number < 1/ 2),
and α′ = γ 1/2 . This shows (ii) implies (v)’. Conversely, assume (v)’. We will show that (iii) holds.
′ 2
Indeed, (v)’ implies a lower bound N (π, β ′ /2) ≥ |An | ≥ e−1 eα dn , and plugging this into (4.5) and
(4.6) we immediately derive (iii).
To complete the proof we will show that (v) and (v)’ are equivalent. Clearly (v)’ implies (v). For
the converse, we will use the following non-commutative analogue of a result from approximation
theory (see e.g. [7]).
Sublemma. Let Bd = {x ∈ Md | (d−1/2 tr|x|2 )1/2 ≤ 1}. For any ξ > 0 there is a constant rξ such
that, for any d, we have
N (Bd , δ∞ , rξ ) ≤ exp (ξd2 ).
To prove the sublemma, given subsets K1 , K2 of Md let us denote for ε > 0 by N (K1 , εK2 ) the
smallest number of a covering of K1 by translates of εK2 . If K3 is another set, obviously we note
for later use that for any r > 0
(5.8)

N (K1 , εrK2 ) ≤ N (K1 , εK3 )N (εK3 , εrK2 ) = N (K1 , εK3 )N (K3 , rK2 ).

Let Bd be the unit ball of Md (equipped with the operator norm). Note Bd ⊂ Bd . The sublemma
is clearly equivalent to the claim that for any ξ > 0 there is rξ such that N (Bd , rξ Bd ) ≤ exp (ξd2 ).
There are many possible proofs of the latter. We choose one for which we have the references at
hand. By [30, Cor. 5.12 p. 80] (up to a change of notation) there is an absolute constant C such
that
supε>0 ε(log N (Bd , εBd ) ≤ Cd Ekgd k.
Since, as we already mentioned, Ekgd k remains bounded when d → ∞ (see e.g. [25, p. 78]) we may
modify the absolute constant C so that
supε>0 ε(log N (Bd , εBd ) ≤ Cd.
Then, choosing ε = C/ξ 1/2 , we find as announced N (Bd , rξ Bd ) ≤ exp (ξd2 ) with rξ = C/ξ 1/2 ,
completing the proof of the sublemma.
We now show that (v) ⇒ (v)’. Assume (v). Again we set G = Gn , π = πn and d = dπ . Then (v)
implies |An | ≤ N (π(G), (β/2)Bd ). By (5.8) we have for any r > 0
|An | ≤ N (π(G), (β/2r)Bd )N (Bd , rBd ).
Choosing r = rξ gives us

|An | exp −(ξd2 ) ≤ N (π(G), (β/2rξ )Bd ),
2

then choosing (say) ξ = α/2 we obtain e−1 eαd /2 ≤ N (π(G), (β/2rξ )Bd ). From this considering as
usual a maximal set of points A′ ⊂ G such that (d−1/2 tr|π(s) − π(t)|2 )1/2 > β/4rξ for all s 6= t ∈ A′ ,
we have necessarily |A′ | ≥ N (π(G), (β/2rξ )Bd ). Thus we obtain (v)’ with β ′ = β/4rα/2 .
13

Lemma 5.5. Let G be a group with an Abelian subgroup Γ of index k < ∞. Let π : G → U (d) be
a unitary representation. Then
p
√
(5.9)
E supt∈G |tr(gd π(t))| ≤ 2 log k + d.

Proof. Up to an extra constant factor, this can be easily derived from Lemma 2.1 and (4.3) by
plugging the estimate of Lemma 2.1 into the upper bound of (4.3). We give a direct proof for the
convenience of the reader. Let G = ∪j≤k tj Γ be the disjoint decomposition into cosets. Let
Yj = sup |tr(gd π(t))| = sup |tr(gd π(tj )π(γ)|.
t∈tj Γ

γ∈Γ

Then
sup |tr(gd π(t))| = sup Yj .
j

t∈G

Since {π(γ) | γ ∈ Γ} are commuting unitary matrices, they are simultaneously diagonalizable, i.e.
∃V ∈ U (d) such that π(γ) = V D(γ)V −1 where D(γ) is a diagonal matrix. Then tr(gd π(tj )π(γ) =
dist

dist

tr(V −1 gd π(tj )V D(γ)). Moreover, V −1 gd π(tj )V = gd . Therefore, Yj = W (gd ) where
X
X
W (gd ) = sup |tr(gd D(γ))| = sup |
gd (i, i)Di,i (γ)| ≤
|gd (i, i)|.
γ∈Γ

γ∈Γ

√
2
2
The function [xd (i, j)] 7→ W (xd / d) is Lipschitz on Cd = R2d (equipped with the Euclidean
norm) with distortion ≤ 1. Therefore (see [29, p. 181] or [23, 24]) for any λ ∈ R
E exp λ(W − EW ) ≤ exp (λ2 /2).
Now
E exp sup λ(Yj − EYj ) ≤
j

X
j

E exp λ(Yj − EYj ) ≤ k exp (λ2 /2).

A fortiori by convexity for any λ > 0
exp (λE sup(Yj − EYj )) ≤ k exp λ2 /2.
j

Let R = E supj (Yj − EYj ). We have exp λR − λ2 /2 ≤ k and hence (take λ = R)
p
R ≤ 2 log k.
Clearly

E sup Yj ≤ E sup(Yj − EYj ) + sup EYj ≤ R + E
j

j

j

X

|gd (i, i)| ≤ R + dE|gd (1, 1)| ≤ R +

From this the announced result follows.
Lemma 5.6. In the situation of Lemma 5.5, we have
√
∀ε < 2 mG ({ℜχπ > d(1 − ε2 /2)}) ≥ k−1 (ε/2π)d ,
and
(5.10)

√
d
},
kχπ kψ2 ≥ c′ min{ d, √
log k

where c′ > 0 is a numerical constant.
14

√
d.

Proof. Going back to the definitions, we find that N (π, ε) is essentially the same as N (π(G), δ2 , ε),
but using only balls centered in π(G). Thus N (π, 2ε) ≤ N (π(G), δ2 , ε) ≤ N (π, ε). By Lemma 2.1
and (4.4)
mG ({ℜχπ > 1 − 2ε2 }) ≥ k−1 (ε/2π)d .
Let r = kχπ kψ2 . Note kℜχπ kψ2 ≤ r. We have for any s > 0
m{ℜχπ > s} ≤ e exp −(s2 /r 2 ),
and hence with s = d(1 − 2ε2 ) we find
k−1 (ε/2π)d ≤ e exp −(d2 (1 − 2ε2 )2 /r 2 ).
Choose say ε = 1/2. Then a simple calculation leads to the announced lower bound for r.
Theorem 5.7. If G is finite or amenable (as a discrete group) then for any d > 1 and any
representation π : G → U (d) we have
Z
p
supg∈G |tr(uπ(g))|mU (d) (du) ≤ c1 d log(d)
(5.11)
U (d)

and
(5.12)

kχπ kψ2 ≥ c2

p

d/ log(d),

where c1 and c2 are positive constants independent of d.
Proof. This follows from Proposition 1.1 and (5.9) and (5.10) applied with k = (d + 1)!.
Remark 5.8. The proof of (5.12) is similar to but simpler than the one used by Hutchinson for
profinite groups in [22], but since he used a weaker bound for f (d) his estimate is weaker.
Remark 5.9. The estimates (5.11) and (5.12) are asymptotically optimal. This can be
Pdseen by considering the same case study G ⊂ U (d) as in Remark 2.3. Indeed, let Z0 = supσ∈S(d) | 1 gd (i, σ(i))|.
We have
Z0 ≤ supv∈G |tr(uv)|.
Pd
Let Vσ = 1 gd (i, σ(i)). Now if σ, σ ′ ∈ S(d) differ on exactly k places we have
kVσ − Vσ′ k22 = 2k/d.

Therefore if r(σ, σ ′ ) denotes the number of i’s where σ(i) 6= σ ′ (i) and if uσ denotes the unitary
matrix associated to σ, we have
kVσ − Vσ′ k2 = (2r(σ, σ ′ )/d)1/2 = δ2 (uσ , uσ′ ).
Note that r(σ, 1) = d − j iff σ has exactly j fixed points.√
We claim that the Sudakov minoration implies EZ0 ≥ c3 d log d for some c3 > 0 independent of d.
Indeed, applying (2.2) to the copy of S(d) formed by the subgroup GS = {uσ | σ ∈ S(d)} ⊂ U (d),
we find
1/mS(d) ({σ ∈ S(d) | (2r(σ, 1)/d)1/2 < ε}) ≤ N (GS , δ2 , ε).
By (2.6)
mS(d) ({σ ∈ S(d) | (2r(σ, 1)/d)1/2 < ε}) =

X

15

j>d(1−ε2 /2)

Xj /d! ≤

X

j>d(1−ε2 /2)

1/j!.

Note that for any 1 ≤ k ≤ d

X

(5.13)

j>k−1

1/j! ≤ e/k! ≤ e(e/k)k .

Taking e.g. ε = 1 and k − 1 = [d/2], the latter sum is ≤ e(2e/d)d/2 thus
e−1 (d/2e)d/2 ≤ N (GS , δ2 , 1).
Note that
supu∈GS |tr(gd u)| = supσ |Vσ | = Z0 ,
and hence by (4.3) and (4.6)
q
√ p
(b1 / 2e) d log d ≈ b1 log(e−1 (d/2e)d/2 ) ≤ EZ0 .

√
This proves our claim and a fortiori that E supv∈G |tr(gd v)| ≥ c3 d log d. By the equivalence of Mg
and Mu observed after (4.5) this proves that
P (5.11) is optimal.
P
We now turn to (5.12). For any u = d1 εi ei,σ(i) ∈ G, let χ(u) = tr(u) = i∈Fix(σ) εi . Then for
any s > 0
X
X
mG ({|χ| > s}) = 2mG ({χ > s}) ≤ (2/d!)
Xj ≤ 2
1/j!.
j>s

j>s

We claim that there are positive constants (independent of d) c4 , c5 and c6 > e such that
∀s > c6

mG ({|χ| > s}) ≤ c4 exp −(c5 s log s).

Indeed, this is easy to derive from (5.13). Now since mG ({|χ| > s}) = 0 for all s > d we may restrict
consideration to e < s < d for which s log s = s2 (log s/s) ≥ s2 (log d/d), and we have automatically
∀s > c6

mG ({|χ| > s}) ≤ c4 exp −(c5 s2 (log d/d)).

Setting F = χ(d/ log d)−1/2 , we find
∀s > c6

mG ({|F | > s}) ≤ c4 exp −(c5 s2 ),

from which it is easy to deduce that, for some c7 , we have kF kψ2 ≤ c7 , or equivalently
p
kχkψ2 ≤ c7 d/ log d,
i.e. the case G = G shows that the growth when d → ∞ of the constant in (5.12) is optimal.

When the representations πn are defined on a single compact group G (so that Gn = G for all
n), the next result was proved in [9] for G a Lie group and in [22] for G a profinite group.

Corollary 5.10. If the groups (Gn ) appearing in Theorem 0.1 are finite (or amenable as discrete
groups) then the equivalent properties in Theorem 0.1 can hold only if the dimensions dn = dim(πn )
remain bounded.
Remark 5.11. The proof of the bound d + 1! in [10] uses the classification of finite simple groups.
However, all that is needed for the last Corollary is a bound of the index that is exp o(d2 ). Such a
2
bound, a much easier one, of the order dc(d/logd) = exp (cd2 /logd) is known. It is due to Blichfeldt,
as indicated in [1, p. 103] and [14, p. 177]. Blichfeldt’s bound improved previous ones due to
himself, then Bieberbach and Frobenius [17]. See [12, §36] for more on the subject. See [5] for a
discussion of Jordan’s ideas, and [6] for more recent related results.
16

Let fs (d) be the best possible f (d) if one restricts to solvable finite subgroups G ⊂ U (d). In [14,
p. 218] L. Dornhoff proves that fs (d) = exp O(d) and that this is optimal. Thus, for such groups
G, we obtain a better bound:
Corollary 5.12. There is a numerical constant C > 0 such that for any d and any solvable finite
subgroup G ⊂ U (d) we have
√
E supx∈G |tr(xgd )| ≤ C d.
Remark 5.13. The preceding bound is essentially optimal since if G is the √
diagonal (finite Abelian)
subgroup of U (d) with entries = ±1 we have clearly E supx∈G |tr(xgd )| ≈ d.

6. Sidon sets
Let G be a compact group.
b is said to be a Sidon set if there is a constant C such that for
Definition 6.1. A subset Λ ⊂ G
any family (aπ ) with aπ ∈ Mdπ and π 7→ aπ finitely supported, we have
X
X
(6.1)
tr|aπ | ≤ C supt∈G |
tr(aπ π(t))|.
The smallest
of Λ.
Q such C is called the Sidon constant
b
Let G = π∈Gb U (dπ ). We say that Λ ⊂ G is randomly Sidon if there is a constant C such that for
any family (aπ ) as before we have
Z
X
X
supt∈G |
tr(aπ uπ π(t))|mG (du).
(6.2)
tr|aπ | ≤ C
G

The set Λ is called local Sidon (resp. local randomly Sidon) if (6.1) (resp. (6.2)) only holds for
all (aπ ) with at most a single non zero term. (Note that these local variants are trivial in the
commutative case.)
See [15] and [21] for early results on random Fourier series and lacunary sets. See [19] for a
more recent account on Sidon sets.
Obviously Sidon implies randomly Sidon. The converse was announced by Rider in [33] and
proved there in the commutative case, but the first (and apparently only) published proof for the
non-commutative case appeared only recently in [32]. It follows automatically that local Sidon and
local randomly Sidon are also equivalent properties.
b is called a Λ(p)-set if there is a constant C such that for any
Fix 1 < p < ∞. The set Λ ⊂ G
P
family (aπ ) as before the function F (t) =
tr(aπ π(t)) satisfies
(6.3)

kF kp ≤ CkF k1 .

When p > 1 we can replace kF k1 by kF k2 in this definition. See [3] for more on Λ(p)-sets.
b is subgaussian
Using more recent terminology and recalling (3.1), let us say for short that Λ ⊂ G
if there is a constant C such that any F as before satisfies
(6.4)

kF kψ2 ≤ CkF k2 .

Using (3.2) this can be related to Λ(p)-sets. The set Λ is called local Λ(p) (resp. local subgaussian)
if, for some C, (6.3) (resp. (6.4)) holds for all F of the form F = tr(aπ π(t)) with π ∈ Λ.
17

The adjective “central” is added to any one of the preceding definitions to designate the property
obtained by restricting it to families (aπ ) formed of scalar multiples of the identity (see [26]).
It was proved by the second author that subgaussian implies Sidon. Since the converse was
already known (due to Rudin [36] in the commutative case and to Figà-Talamanca and Rider [16]
in the non-commutative one), Sidon and subgaussian are equivalent, and similarly for the local
properties. See [27, 28, 32] for more on this.
Q Note that (i) in Theorem 0.1 means equivalently that the set formed of the coordinates on
n≥1 Gn is a local Sidon set, while (ii) means that it is a central local subgaussian set, and (iii)
means that it is a central local randomly Sidon set. Actually using an averaging argument based
on the irreducibilty of the π’s, it is rather easy to show that a central local randomly Sidon set is
local randomly Sidon.
In the non-commutative case, these notions took a serious stepback when it was discovered that
b satisfying them except in
for most classical compact groups G there are no infinite subsets Λ ⊂ G
the case when the dimensions (dπ )π∈Λ are bounded. More precisely, Cecchini [9] proved that there
b with unbounded dimensions if G is a compact Lie group. Giulini and
are no infinite Λ(4)-sets in G
Travaglini [18] improving results due to Price and Rider proved that for any compact connected
semisimple Lie group G there are no infinite local Λp sets for p > 1. Related results appear in
[26, 34, 35, 13, 20]. Cartwright and McMullen [8] characterized the compact connected groups that
admit an infinite local Sidon set, and proved that they contain an infinite Sidon set. Hutchinson
[22] proved that there are no infinite central local subgaussian sets with unbounded dimensions for
G profinite.
Following the recent paper [4] the second author investigated what remains of Theorem 0.1
when one replaces t 7→ πn (t) by a matrix valued function t 7→ ϕn (t) on an arbitrary probability
space (T, m) satisfying the same moment conditions as t 7→ πn (t), namely the following:
∃C ′ ∀n kϕn kL∞ (Mdn ) ≤ C ′

(6.5)

(6.6)

Z

∀i, j, k, l

ϕn (i, j)ϕn (k, ℓ)dm = d−1
n δi,k δj,ℓ .

1/2

In other words, {dn ϕn (i, j) | 1 ≤ i, j ≤ dn } is an orthonormal system for each n. The analogue of
the local subgaussian condition is then:
(6.7)

∃C ′′ ∀n ≥ 1 ∀a ∈ Mdn

ktr(aϕn )kψ2 ≤ C ′′ ktr(aϕn )k2 = C ′′ (dn −1 tr|a|2 )1/2 .

Under these conditions, there is a constant C (depending only on C ′ , C ′′ ) such that
(6.8)

∀n ≥ 1 ∀a ∈ Mdn

tr|a| ≤ C supt1 ,t2 ∈T |tr(aϕn (t1 )ϕn (t2 ))|.

This generalizes the implication local subgaussian ⇒ local Sidon mentioned above for representations. This is proved in [31, Remark 3.14]. Obviously, in this general setting there is no obstruction
preventing ϕ from having a finite range. Nevertheless, if the range of ϕ is in some sense close to a
group it is natural to expect that an analogue of Corollary 5.10 holds. For instance, fix ε > 0 and
χ ≥ 1. Assume that there is a subgroup Gn ⊂ GL(dn ), amenable as a discrete group, such that
(6.9)

∀n ≥ 1 supu∈Gn kuk ≤ χ and ∀t ∈ T

∃u ∈ Gn such that kϕn (t) − uk ≤ ε.

Then, here is one possible generalization of Corollary 5.10:
Corollary 6.2. Assume (6.5) (6.8) and (6.9). If ε < (C(C ′ + χ))−1 , then supn dn < ∞.
18

Proof. Let δ = C −1 − (C ′ + χ)ε. By our assumption δ > 0. We first claim that
∀n ≥ 1 ∀a ∈ Mdn

δtr|a| ≤ supu∈Gn |tr(ua)|.

Indeed, by (6.5) and (6.9) for any t1 , t2 ∈ T
|tr(aϕn (t1 )ϕn (t2 ))| ≤ |tr(a(ϕn (t1 ) − u1 )ϕn (t2 ))| + |tr(au1 (ϕn (t2 ) − u2 ))| + |tr(au1 u2 )|
and hence
|tr(aϕn (t1 )ϕn (t2 ))| ≤ (C ′ + χ)εtr|a| + supu1 ,u2 ∈Gn |tr(u1 u2 a)| = (C ′ + χ)εtr|a| + supu∈Gn |tr(ua)|.
From this and (6.8) the claim is immediate. By a well known averaging argument, since Gn is
amenable, there is v ∈ GL(dn ) with kvkkv −1 k ≤ χ2 such that G′n = vGn v −1 ⊂ U (dn ). Then our
claim implies
δtr|v −1 av| ≤ supu∈G′n |tr(ua)|,
and hence δχ−2 tr|a| ≤ δtr|v −1 av| ≤ supu∈G′n |tr(ua)|. Thus we conclude by Corollary 5.10 and
Remark 0.4.
Remark 6.3. In a paper in preparation we plan to give a characterization of the sequences of
irreducible unitary representations πn : Gn → U (dn ) for which Theorem 0.1 holds. We will
give a structural description of the irreducible compact subgroups of U (d) for which the inclusion
π : G → U (d) has a bounded constant C2 (π) (with the notation in Lemma 5.1).

References
[1] H.F. Blichfeldt, Finite collineation groups, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1917.
[2] A. Borel and J.P. Serre, Théorèmes de finitude en cohomologie galoisienne, Comm. Math.
Helv. vol. 39, 1964–1965.
[3] J. Bourgain, Λp -sets in analysis: results, problems and related aspects. Handbook of the
geometry of Banach spaces, Vol. I, 195–232, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2001.
[4] J. Bourgain and M. Lewko, Sidonicity and variants of Kaczmarz’s problem, preprint, arxiv,
April 2015.
[5] E. Breuillard, An exposition of Camille Jordan’s original proof of his theorem on finite subgroups of invertible matrices, notes available at
http://www.math.u-psud.fr/breuilla/cour.html.
[6] E. Breuillard and B. Green, Approximate groups III: the unitary case,
[7] B. Carl, Entropy numbers of diagonal operators with an application to eigenvalue problems.
J. Approx. Theory 32 (1981), 135–150.
[8] D. Cartwright and J. McMullen, A structural criterion for the existence of infinite Sidon sets.
Pacific J. Math. 96 (1981), 301–317.
[9] C. Cecchini, Lacunary Fourier series on compact Lie groups. J. Funct. Anal. 11 (1972) 191–203.

19

[10] M. Collins, On Jordan’s theorem for complex linear groups, J. Group Theory 10 (2007), 411–
423.
[11] M. Collins, Bounds for finite primitive complex linear groups, Journal of Algebra 319 (2008)
759–776.
[12] C. Curtis and I. Reiner, Representation theory of finite groups and associative algebras, Interscience, New-York, 1962.
[13] A. Dooley, Norms of characters and lacunarity for compact Lie groups. J. Funct. Anal. 32
(1979), 254–267.
[14] L. Dornhoff, Group representation theory, part A, Ordinary representation theory. Marcel
Dekker, New-York, 1971.
[15] A. Figà-Talamanca, Random Fourier series on compact groups. Theory of Group Representations and Fourier Analysis (C.I.M.E., II Ciclo, Montecatini Terme, 1970) pp. 1–63 Edizioni
Cremonese, Rome, 1971.
[16] A. Figà-Talamanca and D. Rider, A theorem of Littlewood and lacunary series for compact
groups. Pacific J. Math. 16 (1966) 505–514.
[17] G. Frobenius, Über den L. Bieberbach gefundenen Beweis eines Satzes von C. Jordan, Sitzber.
Preuss. Akad. Wiss. (1911) 241–248.
[18] S. Giulini and G. Travaglini, Lp -estimates for matrix coefficients of irreducible representations
of compact groups. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 80 (1980), 448–450.
[19] C. Graham and K. Hare, Interpolation and Sidon sets for compact groups. Springer, New York,
2013. xviii+249 pp.
[20] K. Hare, Central Sidonicity for compact Lie groups. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 45 (1995),
547–564.
[21] E. Hewitt and K. Ross, Abstract harmonic analysis, Volume II, Structure and Analysis for
Compact Groups, Analysis on Locally Compact Abelian Groups, Springer, Heidelberg, 1970.
[22] M. Hutchinson, Local Λ sets for profinite groups, Pacific J. Math. 80 (1980) 81–88.
[23] M. Ledoux, The concentration of measure phenomenon, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 89. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001.
[24] M. Ledoux and M. Talagrand, Probability in Banach Spaces. Isoperimetry and Processes,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
[25] M.B. Marcus and G. Pisier, Random Fourier series with Applications to Harmonic Analysis.
Annals of Math. Studies n◦ 101, Princeton Univ. Press, 1981.
[26] W. A. Parker, Central Sidon and central Λp sets. J. Austral. Math. Soc. 14, 62–74 (1972).
[27] G. Pisier, De nouvelles caractérisations des ensembles de Sidon. Advances in Maths. Supplementary studies, vol 7B (1981) 685–726.

20

[28] G. Pisier, Condition d’entropie et caractérisations arithmétiques des ensembles de Sidon. Modern Topics in Harmonic Analysis - Torino/Milano - June/July 1982, Inst. di Alta Math - Rome
(1983) vol. II., 911–944.
[29] G. Pisier, Probabilistic methods in the geometry of Banach spaces, Probability and analysis
(Varenna, 1985), 167–241, Lecture Notes in Math. 1206, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.
[30] G. Pisier, The volume of Convex Bodies and Banach Space Geometry. Cambridge University
Press, 1989.
[31] G. Pisier, On uniformly bounded orthonormal Sidon systems, preprint, arxiv 2016. To appear
in Math. Res. Letters.
[32] G. Pisier, Spectral gap properties of the unitary groups: around Rider’s results on noncommutative Sidon sets, arxiv 2016, to appear.
[33] D. Rider, Randomly continuous functions and Sidon sets. Duke Math. J. 42 (1975) 752–764.
[34] D. Rider, Norms of characters and central Λp sets for U (n). Conference on Harmonic Analysis
(Univ. Maryland, College Park, Md., 1971), pp. 287–294. Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 266,
Springer, Berlin, 1972.
[35] D. Rider, Central lacunary sets. Monatsh. Math. 76 (1972), 328–338.
[36] W. Rudin, Trigonometric series with gaps. J. Math. and Mech. 9 (1960) 203–227.
[37] R. Stanley, Enumerative combinatorics, vol. 1 Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997.
[38] M. Talagrand, Upper and Lower Bounds for Stochastic Processes, Springer, Berlin, 2014.
[39] J. Tits, Free Subgroups in Linear Groups, Journal of Agebra 20, (1972) 250–270.
[40] A. Turing, Finite approximations to Lie groups, Annals of Math. 39 (1938), 105–111.
[41] B. A. F. Wehrfritz, Infinite linear groups, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, (1973),
Ergebnisse der Matematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 76.
[42] B. Weisfeiler, Post-classification version of Jordan’s theorem on finite linear groups, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 81 (1984), 5278–5279.

21

