What Are the Limitations of Rigid Motion in a Hilbert Plane?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dismo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometry Motion
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

In a Hilbert plane, any rigid motion that fixes at least three noncollinear points must be the identity transformation. The discussion establishes that translations fix no points, rotations fix only one point, and reflections fix points along their respective lines. The proof demonstrates that if a rigid motion fixes three noncollinear points, it must also fix all points on the lines connecting these points, leading to a contradiction when considering points not on these lines.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of rigid motions in geometry
  • Familiarity with Hilbert plane axioms
  • Knowledge of distance preservation in transformations
  • Basic concepts of Euclidean geometry
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the axioms of Hilbert planes in detail
  • Explore the properties of rigid motions in Euclidean geometry
  • Learn about distance functions and their implications in transformations
  • Investigate the implications of noncollinearity in geometric proofs
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, geometry enthusiasts, and students studying advanced geometry concepts, particularly those interested in the properties of Hilbert planes and rigid motions.

dismo
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Working in a Hilbert plane, show that any rigid motion that fixes at least three noncollinear points must be the identity.

I am certain that I can claim that:
(i) any translation of the plane will fix none of the points
(ii) any rotation will fix a single point
(iii) any reflection will fix only the points on the line about which the plane is reflected

The trouble is I don't know how to prove that no composition of these could fix only three points in the plane...

Where do I go next?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm unfamiliar with the axioms of a Hilbert plane. If this question were posed in the context of an ordinary Euclidean plane, however, this is how I would approach it. Rigid motions preserve distances (i.e., the distance between points [tex]f(a)[/tex] and [tex]f(b)[/tex] is the same as that between [tex]a[/tex] and [tex]b[/tex], where [tex]f[/tex] is a rigid motion). Given a two points [tex]A[/tex] and [tex]B[/tex] and a third point [tex]X[/tex] not on [tex]\overline{AB}[/tex], there exists exactly one other point [tex]Y \neq X[/tex] such that [tex]d(A,Y) = d(A,X)[/tex] and [tex]d(B,Y) = d(B,X)[/tex] (where [tex]d(\; , \;)[/tex] denotes the distance function). Furthermore, [tex]Y = r_{AB}(X)[/tex], the reflection of [tex]X[/tex] about [tex]\overline{AB}[/tex]. If [tex]X[/tex] is on [tex]\overline{AB}[/tex], then [tex]X[/tex] is the unique point in the plane satisfying these equations. (Neither of these assertions is hard to prove.)

Let [tex]f[/tex] be a rigid motion fixing the three noncollinear points [tex]A,B,C[/tex]. From the last observation, we know that [tex]f[/tex] fixes all of [tex]\overline{AB}, \overline{AC}[/tex], and [tex]\overline{BC}[/tex]. Let [tex]X[/tex] be a point not on any of these lines. Suppose [tex]f(X) \neq X[/tex]; then, by distance conservation, we must have [tex]f(X) = r_{AB}(X) = r_{AC}(X) = r_{BC}(X)[/tex] simultaneously, a contradiction since (by assumption) [tex]\overline{AB} \neq \overline{AC} \neq \overline{BC}[/tex].
 
A Hilbert Plane is just a Euclidean Plane, but without the Parallel Axiom and the Circle–Circle Intersection Property.

So, yeah, your proof works.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K