I Math Myth: Parallels do not intersect

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Parallel lines, commonly understood in Euclidean geometry as lines that do not intersect, can behave differently in other geometries, such as spherical geometry, where they may intersect at infinity. Observations from standing on railroad tracks illustrate this concept, as they appear parallel but can converge at the horizon. The discussion emphasizes the need for a broader definition of parallel lines that accommodates various geometrical contexts. It suggests that the traditional definition may be too limiting and proposes exploring definitions that apply across different geometries. Ultimately, the definition of parallel lines should be context-dependent to ensure clarity in mathematical discussions.
Messages
19,816
Reaction score
10,802
From @fresh_42's Insight
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/10-math-things-we-all-learnt-wrong-at-school/

Please discuss!

Have you ever stood on a railroad track? Nobody would deny that the rails are in parallel. Do they intersect? Certainly not soon because locomotives normally do not derail. However, you will likely have looked to the horizon while standing on the rails. And - surprise - they do intersect at the horizon, or mathematically: at infinity. But infinity on a ball where we live isn't at infinity. It is actually somewhere. We see that there are possible geometries, in which parallels do intersect.

parallels.png
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
High School Geometry is 99% Euclidean. And in that context, parallel lines do not intersect. If you are taking about railroad tracks on a spherical surface, technically they are not lines, but arcs following the spherical surface. If you make railroad tracks great circles, the will intersect about 6000 miles from their usable zone.
 
Less controversial is that we should not define parallel lines to be a pair of lines that do not intersect - since this is the case in 3D Euclidean Geometry, which is a familiar topic. So what is the best definition for "parallel lines" from the viewpoint of making a definition that works well in all types of geometries?
 
Stephen Tashi said:
Less controversial is that we should not define parallel lines to be a pair of lines that do not intersect - since this is the case in 3D Euclidean Geometry, which is a familiar topic. So what is the best definition for "parallel lines" from the viewpoint of making a definition that works well in all types of geometries?
It would depend on what you need the definition for.
 
Thread 'Erroneously  finding discrepancy in transpose rule'
Obviously, there is something elementary I am missing here. To form the transpose of a matrix, one exchanges rows and columns, so the transpose of a scalar, considered as (or isomorphic to) a one-entry matrix, should stay the same, including if the scalar is a complex number. On the other hand, in the isomorphism between the complex plane and the real plane, a complex number a+bi corresponds to a matrix in the real plane; taking the transpose we get which then corresponds to a-bi...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 142 ·
5
Replies
142
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K