Undergrad 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
19,824
Reaction score
10,826
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.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

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
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K