Proposition I.1 is, by far, the most popular example used to justify the thesis that many of Euclid’s geometric arguments are diagram-based. Many scholars have recently articulated this thesis in different ways and argued for it. My purpose is to reformulate it in a quite general way, by describing what I take to be the twofold role that diagrams play in Euclid’s plane geometry (EPG). Euclid’s arguments are object-dependent. They are about geometric objects. Hence, they cannot be diagram-based (...) unless diagrams are supposed to have an appropriate relation with these objects. I take this relation to be a quite peculiar sort of representation. Its peculiarity depends on the two following claims that I shall argue for: ( i ) The identity conditions of EPG objects are provided by the identity conditions of the diagrams that represent them; ( ii ) EPG objects inherit some properties and relations from these diagrams. (shrink)

We show that the first-order theory of a large class of plane geometries and the first-order theory of their groups of motions, understood both as groups with a unary predicate singling out line-reflections, and as groups acting on sets, are mutually inter-pretable.

We proved in the first part [1] that plane geometry over Pythagorean fields is axiomatizable by quantifier-free axioms in a language with three individual constants, one binary and three ternary operation symbols. In this paper we prove that two of these operation symbols are superfluous.

Since the application of Postulate I.2 in Euclid's Elements is not uniform, one could wonder in what way should it be applied in Euclid's plane geometry. Besides legitimizing questions like this from the perspective of a philosophy of mathematical practice, we sketch a general perspective of conceptual analysis of mathematical texts, which involves an extended notion of mathematical theory as system of authorizations, and an audience-dependent notion of proof.

In this paper we provide a quantifier-free constructive axiomatization for Euclidean planes in a first-order language with only ternary operation symbols and three constant symbols . We also determine the algorithmic theories of some ‘naturally occurring’ plane geometries.

We describe a first order axiom set which yields the classical first order Euclidean geometry of Tarski when used with classical logic, and yields an intuitionistic Euclidean geometry when used with intuitionistic logic. The first order language has a single six place atomic predicate and no function symbols. The intuitionistic system has a computational interpretation in recursive function theory, that is, a realizability interpretation analogous to those given by Kleene for intuitionistic arithmetic and analysis. This interpretation shows the (...) unprovability in the intuitionistic theory of certain “nonconstructive” theorems of the classical geometry. (shrink)

This paper continues the investigations begun in [6] and continued in [7] about quantifier-free axiomatizations of plane Euclidean geometry using ternary operations. We show that plane Euclidean geometry over Archimedean ordered Euclidean fields can be axiomatized using only two ternary operations if one allows axioms that are not first-order but universal Lw1,w sentences. The operations are: the transport of a segment on a halfline that starts at one of the endpoints of the given segment, and the (...) operation which produces one of the intersection points of a perpendicular on a diameter of a circle with that circle. MSC: 03F65, 51M05, 51M15. (shrink)

In this paper we provide a quantifier-free, constructive axiomatization of metric-Euclidean and of rectangular planes . The languages in which the axiom systems are expressed contain three individual constants and two ternary operations. We also provide an axiom system in algorithmic logic for finite Euclidean planes, and for several minimal metric-Euclidean planes. The axiom systems proposed will be used in a sequel to this paper to provide ‘the simplest possible’ axiom systems for several fragments of plane Euclidean geometry.

In this paper we provide quantifier-free, constructive axiomatizations for several fragments of plane Euclidean geometry over Euclidean fields, such that each axiom contains at most 4 variables. The languages in which they are expressed contain only at most ternary operations. In some precisely defined sense these axiomatizations are the simplest possible.

Since the application of Postulate I.2 in Euclid’s Elements is not uniform, one could wonder in what way should it be applied in Euclid’s plane geometry. Besides legitimizing questions like this from the perspective of a philosophy of mathematical practice, we sketch a general perspective of conceptual analysis of mathematical texts, which involves an extended notion of mathematical theory as system of authorizations, and an audience-dependent notion of proof.

Traditional geometry concerns itself with planimetric and stereometric considerations, which are at the root of the division between plane and solid geometry. To raise the issue of the relation between these two areas brings with it a host of different problems that pertain to mathematical practice, epistemology, semantics, ontology, methodology, and logic. In addition, issues of psychology and pedagogy are also important here. To our knowledge there is no single contribution that studies in detail even one of (...) the aforementioned areas. (shrink)

We show that plane hyperbolic geometry, expressed in terms of points and the ternary relation of collinearity alone, cannot be expressed by means of axioms of complexity at most ∀∃∀, but that there is an axiom system, all of whose axioms are ∀∃∀∃ sentences. This remains true for Klingenberg's generalized hyperbolic planes, with arbitrary ordered fields as coordinate fields.

We provide a universal axiom system for plane hyperbolic geometry in a firstorder language with two sorts of individual variables, ‘points’ and ‘lines’ , containing three individual constants, A0, A1, A2, standing for three non-collinear points, two binary operation symbols, φ and ι, with φ = l to be interpreted as ‘[MATHEMATICAL SCRIPT SMALL L] is the line joining A and B’ , and ι = P to be interpreted as [MATHEMATICAL SCRIPT SMALL L]P is the point of (...) intersection of g and h , and two binary operation symbols, π1 and —2, with πi = g to be interpreted as ‘g is one of the two limiting paralle lines from P to [MATHEMATICAL SCRIPT SMALL L]. (shrink)

In this paper we provide quantifier-free, constructive axiomatizations for 2-dimensional absolute, Euclidean, and hyperbolic geometry. The main novelty consists in the first-order languages in which the axiom systems are formulated.

Using the axiom system provided by Carsten Augat in [1], it is shown that the only 6-variable statement among the axioms of the axiom system for plane hyperbolic geometry (in Tarski's language L B =), we had provided in [3], is superfluous. The resulting axiom system is the simplest possible one, in the sense that each axiom is a statement in prenex form about at most 5 points, and there is no axiom system consisting entirely of at most (...) 4-variable statements. (shrink)

We provide a quantifier-free axiom system for plane hyperbolic geometry in a language containing only absolute geometrically meaningful ternary operations (in the sense that they have the same interpretation in Euclidean geometry as well). Each axiom contains at most 4 variables. It is known that there is no axiom system for plane hyperbolic consisting of only prenex 3-variable axioms. Changing one of the axioms, one obtains an axiom system for plane Euclidean geometry, expressed in (...) the same language, all of whose axioms are also at most 4-variable universal sentences. We also provide an axiom system for plane hyperbolic geometry in Tarski's language L B which might be the simplest possible one in that language. (shrink)

The notion of linguistic geometry is defined in this book. It is pertinent to keep in the record that linguistic geometry differs from classical geometry. Many basic or fundamental concepts and notions of classical geometry are not true or extendable in the case of linguistic geometry. Hence, for simple illustration, facts like two distinct points in classical geometry always define a line passing through them; this is generally not true in linguistic geometry. Suppose (...) we have two linguistic points as tall and light we cannot connect them, or technically, there is no line between them. However, let's take, for instance, two linguistic points, tall and very short, associated with the linguistic variable height of a person. We have a directed line joining from the linguistic point very short to the linguistic point tall. In this case, it is important to note that the direction is essential when the linguistic variable is a person's height. The other way line, from tall to very short, has no meaning. So in linguistic geometry, in general, we may not have a linguistic line; granted, we have a line, but we may not have it in both directions; the line may be directed. The linguistic distance is very far. So, the linguistic line directed or otherwise exists if and only if they are comparable. Hence the very concept of extending the line infinitely does not exist. Likewise, we cannot say as in classical geometry; three noncollinear points determine the plane in linguistic geometry. Further, we do not have the notion of the linguistic area of well-defined figures like a triangle, quadrilateral or any polygon as in the case of classical geometry. The best part of linguistic geometry is that we can define the new notion of linguistic social information geometric networks analogous to social information networks. This will be a boon to non-mathematics researchers in socio-sciences in other fields where natural languages can replace mathematics. (shrink)

Klein’s Erlangen program contains the postulate to study thegroup of automorphisms instead of a structure itself. This postulate, takenliterally, sometimes means a substantial loss of information. For example, thegroup of automorphisms of the field of rational numbers is trivial. Howeverin the case of Euclidean plane geometry the situation is different. We shallprove that the plane Euclidean geometry is mutually interpretable with theelementary theory of the group of authomorphisms of its standard model.Thus both theories differ practically in (...) the language only. (shrink)

Euclidean geometry, as presented by Euclid, consists of straightedge-and-compass constructions and rigorous reasoning about the results of those constructions. We show that Euclidean geometry can be developed using only intuitionistic logic. This involves finding “uniform” constructions where normally a case distinction is used. For example, in finding a perpendicular to line L through point p, one usually uses two different constructions, “erecting” a perpendicular when p is on L, and “dropping” a perpendicular when p is not on L, (...) but in constructive geometry, it must be done without a case distinction. Classically, the models of Euclidean geometry are planes over Euclidean fields. We prove a similar theorem for constructive Euclidean geometry, by showing how to define addition and multiplication without a case distinction about the sign of the arguments. With intuitionistic logic, there are two possible definitions of Euclidean fields, which turn out to correspond to different versions of the parallel postulate.We consider three versions of Euclid’s parallel postulate. The two most important are Euclid’s own formulation in his Postulate 5, which says that under certain conditions two lines meet, and Playfair’s axiom, which says there cannot be two distinct parallels to line L through the same point p. These differ in that Euclid 5 makes an existence assertion, while Playfair’s axiom does not. The third variant, which we call the strong parallel postulate, isolates the existence assertion from the geometry: it amounts to Playfair’s axiom plus the principle that two distinct lines that are not parallel do intersect. The first main result of this paper is that Euclid 5 suffices to define coordinates, addition, multiplication, and square roots geometrically.We completely settle the questions about implications between the three versions of the parallel postulate. The strong parallel postulate easily implies Euclid 5, and Euclid 5 also implies the strong parallel postulate, as a corollary of coordinatization and definability of arithmetic. We show that Playfair does not imply Euclid 5, and we also give some other independence results. Our independence proofs are given without discussing the exact choice of the other axioms of geometry; all we need is that one can interpret the geometric axioms in Euclidean field theory. The independence proofs use Kripke models of Euclidean field theories based on carefully constructed rings of real-valued functions. “Field elements” in these models are real-valued functions. (shrink)

Alfred A. Robb. THEOREM 54 If P1 and P2 be a pair of parallel inertia planes while an inertia plane Q1 has parallel general lines a and b in common with P1 and P2 respectively and if Q2 be an inertia plane parallel to Q1 through some ...

Elementary geometry can be axiomatized constructively by taking as primitive the concepts of the apartness of a point from a line and the convergence of two lines, instead of incidence and parallelism as in the classical axiomatizations. I first give the axioms of a general plane geometry of apartness and convergence. Constructive projective geometry is obtained by adding the principle that any two distinct lines converge, and affine geometry by adding a parallel line construction, etc. (...) Constructive axiomatization allows solutions to geometric problems to be effected as computer programs. I present a formalization of the axiomatization in type theory. This formalization works directly as a computer implementation of geometry. (shrink)

Many studies on the astrolabe were written during the period from the ninth to the eleventh century, but very few of them related to projection, i.e., to the geometrical transformation underlying the design of the instrument. Among those that did, the treatise entitled The Art of the Astrolabe, written in the tenth century by Abū Sahl al-Qūhī, represents a particulary important phase in the history of geometry. This work recently appeared in a critical edition with translation and commentary by (...) Roshdi Rashed. It contains the earliest known theory of the projection of the sphere, a theory developed in a commentary written by a contemporary mathematician, Ibn Sahl. Following R. Rashed, the present article offers here a thorough mathematical analysis of al-Qūhī's treatise and of the commentary by Ibn Sahl. It also presents, with commentary, an account of a contemporary treatise on the projection of the sphere, written by al-[Sdotu]āġānī. The latter work is concerned with the conical projection of a sphere on a plane, from a point on an axis of the sphere, other than its pole. The author consciously avoids the case of stereographic projection, but he studies all the other cases of conical projection which, if we employ the terms of al-Qūhī's theory, are compatible with the movement of the instrument. These three texts provide clear evidence of the emergence, during the second half of the tenth century, of a new field of study, that of projective geometry. (shrink)

Many studies on the astrolabe were written during the period from the ninth to the eleventh century, but very few of them related to projection, i.e., to the geometrical transformation underlying the design of the instrument. Among those that did, the treatise entitled The Art of the Astrolabe, written in the tenth century by Abū Sahl al-Qūhī, represents a particulary important phase in the history of geometry. This work recently appeared in a critical edition with translation and commentary by (...) Roshdi Rashed. It contains the earliest known theory of the projection of the sphere, a theory developed in a commentary written by a contemporary mathematician, Ibn Sahl. Following R. Rashed, the present article offers here a thorough mathematical analysis of al-Qūhī's treatise and of the commentary by Ibn Sahl. It also presents, with commentary, an account of a contemporary treatise on the projection of the sphere, written by al-[Sdotu]āġānī. The latter work is concerned with the conical projection of a sphere on a plane, from a point on an axis of the sphere, other than its pole. The author consciously avoids the case of stereographic projection, but he studies all the other cases of conical projection which, if we employ the terms of al-Qūhī's theory, are compatible with the movement of the instrument. These three texts provide clear evidence of the emergence, during the second half of the tenth century, of a new field of study, that of projective geometry. (shrink)

Thomas Reid (1710–1796) presented a two-dimensional geometry of the visual field in his Inquiry into the human mind (1764), whose axioms are different from those of Euclidean plane geometry. Reid’s ‘geometry of visibles’ is the same as the geometry of the surface of the sphere, described without reference to points and lines outside the surface itself. Interpreters of Reid seem to be divided in evaluating the significance of his geometry of visibles in the history (...) of the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries. The question will be reexamined with particular attention given to his unpublished manuscripts. These include comments on Saccheri’s work and Reid’s repeated attempts to derive Euclid’s parallel postulate from the axioms of incidence. (shrink)

Many studies on the astrolabe were written during the period from the ninth to the eleventh century, but very few of them related to projection, i.e., to the geometrical transformation underlying the design of the instrument. Among those that did, the treatise entitled The Art of the Astrolabe, written in the tenth century by Abu Sahl al-Quhi, represents a particulary important phase in the history of geometry. This work recently appeared in a critical edition with translation and commentary by (...) Roshdi Rashed. It contains the earliest known theory of the projection of the sphere, a theory developed in a commentary written by a contemporary mathematician, Ibn Sahl. Following R. Rashed, the present article offers here a thorough mathematical analysis of al-Quhi's treatise and of the commentary by Ibn Sahl. It also presents, with commentary, an account of a contemporary treatise on the projection of the sphere, written by al-[Sdotu]agani. The latter work is concerned with the conical projection of a sphere on a plane, from a point on an axis of the sphere, other than its pole. The author consciously avoids the case of stereographic projection, but he studies all the other cases of conical projection which, if we employ the terms of al-Quhi's theory, are compatible with the movement of the instrument (i.e. the rotation of the sphere around its axis). These three texts provide clear evidence of the emergence, during the second half of the tenth century, of a new field of study, that of projective geometry. (shrink)

The concept of geometry may evoke a world of pure platonic shapes, such as spheres and cubes, but a deeper understanding of visual experience demands insight into the perceptual organization of naturalistic form. Japanese gardens excel as designed environments where the complex fractal geometry of nature has been simplified to a structural core that retains the essential properties of the natural landscape, thereby presenting an ideal opportunity for investigating the geometry and perceptual significance of such naturalistic characteristics. (...) Here, fronto-parallel perspective, asymmetrical structuring of the ground plane, spatial arrangement of garden elements, tuning of textural qualities and choice of naturalistic form, are presented as a set of physical features that facilitate a systematic analysis of Japanese garden design per se, as well as the geometry of the particular naturalistic features that it aims to enhance. Comparison with Western landscape design before and after contact between Western and Eastern hemispheres illustrates the degree of naturalness achieved in the Japanese garden, and suggests how classical Western landscape design generally differs in this regard. It further reveals how modern Western gardens culminate in a different naturalistic geometry, thus also a distinctly different vision of the natural landscape, even if these designs were greatly influenced by the gardens of China and Japan. (shrink)

We present the basic concepts of space and time, the Galilean and pseudo-Euclidean geometry. We use an elementary geometric framework of affine spaces and groups of affine transformations to illustrate the natural relationship between classical mechanics and theory of relativity, which is quite often hidden, despite its fundamental importance. We have emphasized a passage from the group of Galilean motions to the group of Poincaré transformations of a plane. In particular, a 1-parametric family of natural deformations of the (...) Poincaré group is described. We also visualized the underlying groups of Galilean, Euclidean, and pseudo-Euclidean rotations within the special linear group. (shrink)

This is a reprinting of Ken Pledger’s PhD thesis, submitted to the University of Warsaw in 1980 with the degree awarded in 1981. It develops a one-sorted approach to the theory of plane geometry, based on the idea that the usually two-sorted theory “can be made one-sorted by keeping careful account of whether the incidence relation is iterated an even or odd number of times”.The one-sorted structures can also serve as Kripke frames for modal logics, and the thesis (...) defines and studies two such logics that are validated by projective planes and elliptic planes respectively. It raises questions of logical completeness for these systems that are addressed in the first article of this journal issue. (shrink)