image
Physics Forums Logo
image
image
* Register * Upgrade Blogs Library Staff Rules Mark Forums Read
image
image   image
image

image Godel again Share It Thread Tools Search this Thread image
Old Jun9-09, 11:27 PM                  #1
junglebeast

junglebeast is Offline:
Posts: 428
Godel again

"For example, Euclidean geometry without the parallel postulate is incomplete; it is not possible to prove or disprove the parallel postulate from the remaining axioms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...eness_theorems

The parallel postulate says that, if a line segment intersects 2 lines that both have angles less than 90 degrees, then those two lines must intersect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate

Why is it be impossible to prove this postulate? This seems intuitively obvious and seems like it would be very easy to prove on the basis of simply calculating the intersection point.
  Reply With Quote
Old Jun9-09, 11:56 PM                  #2
sylas
 
sylas's Avatar

sylas is Offline:
Posts: 1,010
Blog Entries: 3
Recognitions:
PF Contributor PF Contributor
Re: Godel again

Originally Posted by junglebeast View Post
"For example, Euclidean geometry without the parallel postulate is incomplete; it is not possible to prove or disprove the parallel postulate from the remaining axioms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...eness_theorems

The parallel postulate says that, if a line segment intersects 2 lines that both have angles less than 90 degrees, then those two lines must intersect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate

Why is it be impossible to prove this postulate? This seems intuitively obvious and seems like it would be very easy to prove on the basis of simply calculating the intersection point.
What axioms are you going to use to prove it? What assumptions do you make in your calculation?

There are quite a number of axioms which are equivalent to the parallel postulate, in the sense that they can be proved from the postulate, and which allow you to prove the postulate.

There are also geometries which satisfy all the other axioms of Euclid, and in which the parallel postulate is not true. For example... a hyperboloid geometry. This shows it must be impossible to prove the postulate from the other axioms.

Cheers -- sylas
  Reply With Quote
Old Jun10-09, 12:31 AM                  #3
CRGreathouse

CRGreathouse is Offline:
Posts: 2,939
Recognitions:
Homework Helper Homework Helper
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Re: Godel again

Originally Posted by junglebeast View Post
Why is it be impossible to prove this postulate?
It's not.

It's impossible to prove it from Euclid's postulates. Stronger postulates could allow it to be proven. Examples:
* Trivially: Euclid's axioms + the parallel postulate
* Less trivial: Euclid's axioms + "a rectangle exists"

One nice way to think of it is that hyperbolic geometry is a model of Euclid's axioms where the parallel postulate fails.
  Reply With Quote
image image
Reply
Thread Tools


Similar Threads for: Godel again
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Book on Godel nicksauce Science Book Discussion 2 Nov9-08 04:33 AM
On Godel theorem Demystifier Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 38 Jan15-08 07:38 PM
Godel and Inconsistency Ursole Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 3 Jun10-04 02:47 AM
Godel newton1 General Math 4 Jun14-03 09:30 AM

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. © 2009 Physics Forums
Sciam | physorgPhysorg.com Science News Partner
image
image   image