Solution

ID: past-exam-of-the-mathematics-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2013/iii/paper-11/5/solution

We first prove the needed Petridis minimal-growth lemma, including the expansion estimate rather than assuming it. For finite nonempty sets , choose a nonempty minimizing . For any finite set , define
Then . An element from has already appeared in an earlier , so the new contribution of has size at most
The inequality follows from minimality of on subsets of , with an empty subset contributing zero. Summing proves . Iteration gives , for every ; in particular, by translating into .
Apply this with , so . It follows that
This is the required Plünnecke inequality.
We will also use the mixed-sumset bound . To justify it, the Ruzsa triangle inequality says
Choose one representation for each . The map is injective: adding the two coordinates recovers , then the chosen representation recovers . This proves the inequality. Apply it with , , and the minimal-growth set already chosen. The bounds on and give the mixed-sumset estimate, including .
The Ruzsa covering lemma states: if are finite, , and , then there is , , such that . Choose maximal with the translates , , pairwise disjoint. They lie in , so . Maximality says each meets some , which writes . This proves both assertions.
Let . The mixed-sumset bounds give and . Apply the Ruzsa covering lemma to and the set . There is of size with
Induction then gives . The number of possible sums of elements from the -element set is at most the number of multiplicity vectors, namely . Since for any , we obtain the explicit polynomial growth of iterated sumsets
For fixed , this polynomial in is eventually smaller than . For example, take and choose so that for every ; such a threshold exists because . Therefore
For , a finite integer set has (list the increasing sums ). Thus , and the asserted bound holds for every . Nonemptiness is implicit in the doubling constant hypothesis.

New to topics? Read the docs here!