Incompleteness of Euclidean Geometry: Proving the Parallel Postulate

Click For Summary
Euclidean geometry is incomplete without the parallel postulate, as it cannot be proven or disproven using the remaining axioms. The parallel postulate asserts that if a line segment intersects two lines with angles less than 90 degrees, those lines must intersect. While it seems intuitively obvious, proving it requires additional assumptions or stronger postulates. There exist geometries, such as hyperbolic geometry, that satisfy all other Euclidean axioms while negating the parallel postulate. This illustrates the impossibility of deriving the parallel postulate solely from Euclid's original axioms.
junglebeast
Messages
514
Reaction score
2
"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/Gödel's_incompleteness_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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
junglebeast said:
"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/Gödel's_incompleteness_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
 
junglebeast said:
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.
 
If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K