B Existence of parallels in axiomatic plane geometries

  • Thread starter Thread starter lavinia
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Existence Plane
Click For Summary
Parallels are acknowledged in both Euclidean and Hyperbolic geometries, but each relies on distinct postulates regarding their existence. The discussion raises the question of whether parallels can be proven without invoking a parallel postulate, suggesting that they might be derivable from other fundamental postulates about points and lines. It is noted that while geometric intuition suggests that two perpendicular lines to a given line must be parallel, this intuition does not hold in non-Euclidean geometries like spherical geometry. The conversation also explores the implications of symmetry in geometry and whether it can be assumed or must be proven. Ultimately, the existence of parallels appears to hinge on specific axioms, with a consensus that without the parallel postulate, one can construct consistent geometries lacking parallels.
  • #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:
Mathematics 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 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 Klystron
  • #37
yes! this is the famous euclidean algorithm for finding gcd's.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K