Existence of parallels in axiomatic plane geometries

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lavinia
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Existence Plane
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of parallel lines in different axiomatic plane geometries, specifically Euclidean and Hyperbolic geometries. Participants explore whether parallels can be proven without relying on a parallel postulate and examine the implications of various axioms on the nature of lines and points in these geometries.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if parallels can be derived from other postulates without invoking a parallel postulate, suggesting that the existence of parallels should be provable based on axioms describing points and lines.
  • Another participant asserts that a parallel postulate is necessary, indicating that geometries without parallels, such as spherical geometry, are possible.
  • Some participants argue that the axioms of elliptic geometry do not exclude parallels as claimed, and they emphasize the need to reconsider definitions of points in the context of spherical geometry.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of geometric intuition regarding perpendicular lines and their relationship to parallelism, with some arguing that this intuition is rooted in Euclidean geometry and may not apply universally.
  • A later reply introduces the idea of Riemannian manifolds and geodesics to explore the existence of parallels, suggesting a contradiction arises if one assumes no parallels exist while adhering to certain axioms.
  • Participants highlight that the projective plane does not satisfy the separation postulate, which complicates the discussion about symmetry and the nature of lines in different geometries.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of a parallel postulate and the implications of various axioms across different geometries. There is no consensus on whether parallels can be proven without a parallel postulate, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the nature of symmetry and definitions of points in these geometries.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the definitions and axioms used may lead to different interpretations of geometries, particularly concerning the nature of points and lines in elliptic and projective geometries. The discussion also touches on the limitations of existing axioms in fully capturing the properties of these geometries.

  • #31
I agree with you that ratios preceded numbers. I.e. the ability to compare things of the same kind is the fundamental idea, i.e. equivalence relations, or when are two things to be considered the same in some sense. e.g. if you consider two plane vectors as the same if they have the same length and direction, you have an equivalence relation that can be used to define complex numbers, i.e. to add them you use vector addition and to multiply them you add their angles and multiply their lengths.
It is interesting that again to define multiplication you need a unit vector, i.e. to define addition of angles, as well as multiplication of lengths.

numbers arise when you try to capture the essence of an equvalence class by some one thing. but "numbers" also imply to me some way to have computational operations on the classes that obey some of the usual laws.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
pbuk said:
Bear in mind that when we write "two lines that intersect intersect in exactly one point" we are defining what a point is;

I thought point was a primitive of the axioms rather than a definition in it based on other primitives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_axioms

Or am I missing something?

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #33
bhobba said:
I thought point was a primitive of the axioms rather than a definition in it based on other primitives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_axioms
Maybe (this thread is not using Hilbert's axiomatisation), but I don't think it is wrong to say "we are defining what a point is" rather than "we are adopting a primitive notion of what a point is".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: lavinia
  • #34
@mathwonk

So starting with two geometrically determined line segments what does it mean to compare them with no unit as a guide?

Is it modular arithmetic?
 
  • #35
Part of the axiom system is the ability to compare two segments and say whether they are equal and if not, which is larger. Euclid's axioms are full of conditions on the notion of "equal", which he seems to apply to lengths, areas, volumes and angles. His theorem statements also include statements about angles being equal, greater than or less than another. See his postulates 4,5 and all 5 common notions, as well as many propositions, e.g. all of the first 20 or so that I have quickly scanned, contain one of these comparison words. Hilbert has a set of axioms for congruence, and one can define less than and greater than in terms of congruence to a subset.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
mathwonk said:
Part of the axiom system is the ability to compare two segments and say whether they are equal and if not, which is larger. Euclid's axioms are full of conditions on the notion of "equal", which he seems to apply to lengths, areas, volumes and angles. His theorem statements also include statements about angles being equal, greater than or less than another. See his postulates 4,5 and all 5 common notions, as well as many propositions, e.g. all of the first 20 or so that I have quickly scanned, contain one of these comparison words. Hilbert has a set of axioms for congruence, and one can define less than and greater than in terms of congruence to a subset.

It would seem that one can lay multiples of one segment down on the other and get remainders. With the remainder one can repeat the process. If eventually one gets only repeats of congruent segments then the process ends in a finite number of steps and the two original segments are rational multiples of each other. If the process continues forever then they are not.

Examples.

The two segments are in a ratio of 5 to 3. Lay the smaller segment on the larger to get a remainder that is in a ratio of 5 to 2. Lay the smaller segment twice on the larger to get a remainder in a ratio of 5 to 1. All segments are multiples of this and the process stops.

If one introduces a unit it seems that one will end of with a segment whose length is the greatest common divisor to the original two.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron
  • #37
yes! this is the famous euclidean algorithm for finding gcd's.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K