Riemann Geometry: Where is the Flaw in My Thinking?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gear300
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometry Riemann
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the principles of Riemannian geometry, specifically addressing the nature of lines on a sphere and the concept of parallel lines. Participants explore the implications of these geometric properties and clarify misunderstandings related to the definitions of lines in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that Riemann's geometry posits that any two lines meet, using the example of great circles on a sphere.
  • Another participant points out that longitudinal lines are not "straight" lines and thus may not conform to the properties of great circles.
  • Clarification arises regarding the terminology, with participants discussing whether "longitudinal lines" refers to lines of constant longitude, which do intersect at the poles.
  • A participant reflects on a past experience with a geometry teacher regarding the definition of parallel lines, noting the necessity of the parallel postulate in defining equidistant curves on a sphere.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definitions and implications of lines in Riemannian geometry, with multiple interpretations and clarifications presented throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of "straight" lines and "parallel lines" in the context of Riemannian geometry, as well as the implications of these definitions for the geometry of the sphere.

Gear300
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
9
One of the axioms of Riemann's geometry holds that there are no parallel lines and that any two lines meet. Since Riemann's geometry fits for that of a sphere, any two great circles of the sphere should intersect. However, if we were to take 2 longitudinal lines, then it is possible that these lines never meet. Where is the flaw in my thinking?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Never mind...I overlooked how the longitudinal lines are not by definition "straight" lines.
 
Specifically, they aren't great circles.
 
You mean latitude?
 
Office_Shredder said:
You mean latitude?

Good point. "Longitudinal lines" isn't clear but since he referred to them never meeting, I assumed that was what he meant. "Lines of constant longitude", of course, meet at the north and south poles.
 
By the way, back many many years ago, when I was in high school, I asked my geometry teacher, "why not just define 'parallel lines'" as being lines a constant distance apart? Then it would be obvious that they don't meet and there is only one 'parallel' to a given line through a given point". Being a high school teacher he pretty much just brushed off the question. Now I know that you need the parallel postulate to prove that the set of points at constant distance equidistant from a given line is a "line". The set of lines of lattitude are examples of "equidistant curves" on the spere.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K