Revision as of 13:36, 6 November 2010 editAkriasas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,258 edits →Applications: links← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:05, 21 December 2024 edit undoFarkle Griffen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,608 editsm →Axioms: Added anchorTag: Visual edit | ||
(795 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Mathematical model of the physical space}} | |||
]'' by ].]] | |||
{{redirect|Plane geometry}} | |||
'''Euclidean geometry''' is a mathematical system attributed to the ]n ] ], whose '']'' is the earliest known systematic discussion of ]. Euclid's method consists in assuming a small set of intuitively appealing ]s, and deducing many other ]s (]s) from these. Although many of Euclid's results had been stated by earlier mathematicians,<ref>Eves, vol. 1., p. 19</ref> Euclid was the first to show how these propositions could fit into a comprehensive deductive and ].<ref>Eves (1963), vol. 1, p. 10</ref> The ''Elements'' begins with ], still taught in ] as the first ] and the first examples of ]. It goes on to the ] of ]. Much of the ''Elements'' states results of what are now called ] and ], couched in geometrical language.<ref>Eves, p. 19</ref> | |||
]'s '']'' featuring a Greek mathematician – perhaps representing ] or ] – using a ] to draw a geometric construction.]] | |||
{{General geometry|branches}} | |||
'''Euclidean geometry''' is a mathematical system attributed to ancient ] ], which he described in his textbook on ], '']''. Euclid's approach consists in assuming a small set of intuitively appealing ]s (postulates) and deducing many other ]s (]s) from these. Although many of Euclid's results had been stated earlier,<ref name = eves1_19>{{harvnb|Eves|1963|p=19}}.</ref> Euclid was the first to organize these propositions into a ], this is anachronistic-->logical system]] in which each result is '']'' from axioms and previously proved theorems.<ref>{{harvnb|Eves|1963|p=10}}.</ref> | |||
The ''Elements'' begins with '''plane geometry'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA-->, still taught in ] (high school) as the first ] and the first examples of ]s. It goes on to the ] of ]. Much of the ''Elements'' states results of what are now called ] and ], explained in geometrical language.<ref name = eves1_19/> | |||
For over two thousand years, the adjective "Euclidean" was unnecessary because no other sort of geometry had been conceived. Euclid's axioms seemed so intuitively obvious that any theorem proved from them was deemed true in an absolute sense. Today, however, many other ] ] are known, the first ones having been discovered in the early 19th century. An implication of ]'s theory of ] is that ] is a good approximation to the properties of physical space only where the ] is not too strong.<ref>Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973), p. 47</ref> | |||
For more than two thousand years, the adjective "Euclidean" was unnecessary because | |||
Euclid's axioms seemed so intuitively obvious (with the possible exception of the ]) that theorems proved from them were deemed absolutely true, and thus no other sorts of geometry were possible. Today, however, many other ] ] are known, the first ones having been discovered in the early 19th century. An implication of ]'s theory of ] is that physical space itself is not Euclidean, and ] is a good approximation for it only over short distances (relative to the strength of the ]).<ref>Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973), p. 47.</ref> | |||
Euclidean geometry is an example of ], in that it proceeds logically from axioms describing basic properties of geometric objects such as points and lines, to propositions about those objects. This is in contrast to ], introduced almost 2,000 years later by ], which uses ] to express geometric properties by means of ]s. | |||
==The ''Elements''== | ==The ''Elements''== | ||
{{main|Euclid's Elements}} | {{main|Euclid's Elements}} | ||
The ''Elements'' |
The ''Elements'' is mainly a systematization of earlier knowledge of geometry. Its improvement over earlier treatments was rapidly recognized, with the result that there was little interest in preserving the earlier ones, and they are now nearly all lost. | ||
There are 13 books in the ''Elements'': | |||
Books I-IV and VI discuss plane geometry. Many results about plane figures are proved, e.g., ''If a triangle has two equal angles, then the sides subtended by the angles are equal.'' The ] is proved.<ref>Euclid, book IX, proposition 20</ref> | |||
Books I–IV and VI discuss plane geometry. Many results about plane figures are proved, for example, "In any triangle, two angles taken together in any manner are less than two right angles." (Book I proposition 17) and the ] "In right-angled triangles the square on the side subtending the right angle is equal to the squares on the sides containing the right angle." (Book I, proposition 47) | |||
Books V and VII-X deal with number theory, with numbers treated geometrically via their representation as line segments with various lengths. Notions such as ] and ] and ]s are introduced. The infinitude of prime numbers is proved. | |||
Books V and VII–X deal with ], with numbers treated geometrically as lengths of line segments or areas of surface regions. Notions such as ] and ] and ]s are introduced. It is proved that there are infinitely many prime numbers. | |||
Books XI-XIII concern solid geometry. A typical result is the 1:3 ratio between the volume of a cone and a cylinder with the same height and base. | |||
Books XI–XIII concern ]. A typical result is the 1:3 ratio between the volume of a cone and a cylinder with the same height and base. The ]s are constructed. | |||
] | |||
===Axioms=== | ===Axioms=== | ||
] | |||
Euclidean geometry is an ], in which all ] ("true statements") are derived from a small number of axioms.<ref name=Wolfe> | |||
Euclidean geometry is an ], in which all ]s ("true statements") are derived from a small number of simple axioms. Until the advent of ], these axioms were considered to be obviously true in the physical world, so that all the theorems would be equally true. However, Euclid's reasoning from assumptions to conclusions remains valid independently from the physical reality.<ref name=Wolfe>The assumptions of Euclid are discussed from a modern perspective in | |||
The assumptions of Euclid are discussed from a modern perspective in {{cite book |title=Introduction to Non-Euclidean Geometry |author=Harold E. Wolfe |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=VPHn3MutWhQC&pg=PA9 |page=9 |isbn=1406718521 |year=2007 |publisher=Mill Press}} | |||
{{cite book |title=Introduction to Non-Euclidean Geometry |author=Harold E. Wolfe |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VPHn3MutWhQC&pg=PA9 |page=9 |isbn=978-1-4067-1852-2 |year=2007 |publisher=Mill Press}} | |||
</ref> | |||
Near the beginning of the first book of the ''Elements'', Euclid gives five ]s (axioms) for plane geometry, stated in terms of constructions (as translated by Thomas Heath):<ref>tr. Heath, pp. 195–202.</ref> | |||
Let the following be postulated: | :Let the following be postulated: | ||
# To draw a ] from any ] to any point. | # To draw a ] from any ] to any point. | ||
# To produce |
# To produce (extend) a ] continuously in a straight line. | ||
# To describe a ] with any |
# To describe a ] with any centre and distance (radius). | ||
# That all right |
# That all ]s are equal to one another. | ||
# |
# ]]: That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles are less than two right angles. | ||
Although Euclid |
Although Euclid explicitly only asserts the existence of the constructed objects, in his reasoning he also implicitly assumes them to be unique. | ||
The ''Elements'' also include the following five "common notions": | The ''Elements'' also include the following five "{{Visible anchor|common notions}}": | ||
# Things that equal the same thing also equal one another. | # Things that are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another (the ] of a ]). | ||
# If equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal. | # If equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal (Addition property of equality). | ||
# If equals are subtracted from equals, then the |
# If equals are subtracted from equals, then the differences are equal (subtraction property of equality). | ||
# Things that coincide with one another equal one another. | # Things that coincide with one another are equal to one another (reflexive property). | ||
# The whole is greater than the part. | # The whole is greater than the part. | ||
Modern scholars agree that Euclid's postulates do not provide the complete logical foundation that Euclid required for his presentation.<ref>{{citation|first=Gerard A.|last=Venema|title=Foundations of Geometry|year=2006|publisher=Prentice-Hall|page=8|isbn=978-0-13-143700-5}}.</ref> Modern ] use more extensive and complete sets of axioms. | |||
===The parallel postulate=== | |||
===Parallel postulate=== | |||
{{main|Parallel postulate}} | {{main|Parallel postulate}} | ||
To the ancients, the parallel postulate seemed less obvious than the others. Euclid himself seems to have considered it as being qualitatively different from the others, as evidenced by the organization of the ''Elements'': |
To the ancients, the parallel postulate seemed less obvious than the others. They aspired to create a system of absolutely certain propositions, and to them, it seemed as if the parallel line postulate required proof from simpler statements. It is now known that such a proof is impossible since one can construct consistent systems of geometry (obeying the other axioms) in which the parallel postulate is true, and others in which it is false.<ref>{{Citation|title=History of the Parallel Postulate|journal=The American Mathematical Monthly|volume=27|issue=1|pages=16–23|date=Jan 1920|author=Florence P. Lewis|doi=10.2307/2973238|publisher=The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 27, No. 1|postscript=.|jstor=2973238}}</ref> Euclid himself seems to have considered it as being qualitatively different from the others, as evidenced by the organization of the ''Elements'': his first 28 propositions are those that can be proved without it. | ||
Many alternative axioms can be formulated |
Many alternative axioms can be formulated which are ] to the parallel postulate (in the context of the other axioms). For example, ] states: | ||
: |
:In a ], through a point not on a given straight line, at most one line can be drawn that never meets the given line. | ||
The "at most" clause is all that is needed since it can be proved from the remaining axioms that at least one parallel line exists. | |||
] | |||
] | |||
==Methods of proof== | |||
Euclidean geometry is ]. Postulates 1, 2, 3, and 5 assert the existence and uniqueness of certain geometric figures, and these assertions are of a constructive nature: that is, we are not only told that certain things exist, but are also given methods for creating them with no more than a ].<ref>Ball, p. 56</ref> In this sense, Euclidean geometry is more concrete than many modern axiomatic systems such as ], which often assert the existence of objects without saying how to construct them, or even assert the existence of objects that cannot be constructed within the theory.<ref name=set_theory> | |||
===Methods of proof=== | |||
Within Euclid's assumptions, it is quite easy to give a formula for area of triangles and squares. However, in a more general context like set theory, it is not as easy to prove that the area of a square is the sum of areas of its pieces, for example. See ] and ]. | |||
Euclidean Geometry is '']''. Postulates 1, 2, 3, and 5 assert the existence and uniqueness of certain geometric figures, and these assertions are of a constructive nature: that is, we are not only told that certain things exist, but are also given methods for creating them with no more than a ].<ref>Ball, p. 56.</ref> In this sense, Euclidean geometry is more concrete than many modern axiomatic systems such as ], which often assert the existence of objects without saying how to construct them, or even assert the existence of objects that cannot be constructed within the theory.<ref name=set_theory>Within Euclid's assumptions, it is quite easy to give a formula for area of triangles and squares. However, in a more general context like set theory, it is not as easy to prove that the area of a square is the sum of areas of its pieces, for example. See ] and ].</ref> Strictly speaking, the lines on paper are '']'' of the objects defined within the formal system, rather than instances of those objects. For example, a Euclidean straight line has no width, but any real drawn line will have. Though nearly all modern mathematicians consider ] just as sound as constructive ones, they are often considered less ], intuitive, or practically useful. Euclid's constructive proofs often supplanted fallacious nonconstructive ones, e.g. some Pythagorean proofs that assumed all numbers are rational, usually requiring a statement such as "Find the greatest common measure of ..."<ref>{{cite book|author=Daniel Shanks|title=Solved and Unsolved Problems in Number Theory|year=2002|publisher=American Mathematical Society}}</ref> | |||
Euclid often used ].<ref>{{cite journal |title=On the Status of Proofs by Contradiction in the Seventeenth Century |first=Paolo |last=Mancosu |journal=Synthese |year=1991 |volume=88 |number=1 |pages=15–41 |doi=10.1007/BF00540091 |jstor=20116923 }}</ref> | |||
</ref> Strictly speaking, the lines on paper are '']'' of the objects defined within the formal system, rather than instances of those objects. For example a Euclidean straight line has no width, but any real drawn line will. Although ] are today considered by nearly all mathematicians to be just as sound as constructive ones, Euclid's constructive proofs often supplanted fallacious nonconstructive ones, e.g., some of the Pythagoreans' proofs involving irrational numbers, which usually required a statement such as "Find the greatest common measure of ..."<ref>{{cite book|author=Daniel Shanks|title=Solved and Unsolved Problems in Number Theory|year=2002|publisher=American Mathematical Society}}</ref> | |||
==Notation and terminology== | |||
Euclid often used ]. Euclidean geometry also allows the method of superposition, in which a figure is transferred to another point in space. For example, proposition I.4, side-angle-side congruence of triangles, is proved by moving one of the two triangles so that one of its sides coincides with the other triangle's equal side, and then proving that the other sides coincide as well. Some modern treatments add a sixth postulate, the rigidity of the triangle, which can be used as an alternative to superposition.<ref>Coxeter, p. 5</ref> | |||
==System of measurement and arithmetic== | |||
Euclidean geometry has two fundamental types of measurements: angle and distance. The angle scale is absolute, and Euclid uses the right angle as his basic unit, so that, e.g., a 45-degree angle would be referred to as half of a right angle. The distance scale is relative; one arbitrarily picks a line segment with a certain length as the unit, and other distances are expressed in relation to it. | |||
A line in Euclidean geometry is a model of the ]. A line segment is a part of a line that is bounded by two end points, and contains every point on the line between its end points. Addition is represented by a construction in which one line segment is copied onto the end of another line segment to extend its length, and similarly for subtraction. | |||
Measurements of area and volume are derived from distances. For example, a rectangle with a width of 3 and a length of 4 has an area that represents the product, 12. Because this geometrical interpretation of multiplication was limited to three dimensions, there was no direct way of interpreting the product of four or more numbers, and Euclid avoided such products, although they are implied, e.g., in the proof of book IX, proposition 20. | |||
] to them. The last figure is neither. Note that congruences alter some properties, such as location and orientation, but leave others unchanged, like ] and ]s. The latter sort of properties are called ]s and studying them is the essence of geometry.]] | |||
Euclid refers to a pair of lines, or a pair of planar or solid figures, as "equal" (ἴσος) if their lengths, areas, or volumes are equal, and similarly for angles. The stronger term "]" refers to the idea that an entire figure is the same size and shape as another figure. Alternatively, two figures are congruent if one can be moved on top of the other so that it matches up with it exactly. (Flipping it over is allowed.) Thus, for example, a 2x6 rectangle and a 3x4 rectangle are equal but not congruent, and the letter R is congruent to its mirror image. Figures that would be congruent except for their differing sizes are referred to as similar. | |||
==Notation and terminology== | |||
===Naming of points and figures=== | ===Naming of points and figures=== | ||
Points are customarily named using capital letters of the alphabet. Other figures, such as lines, triangles, or circles, are named by listing a sufficient number of points to pick them out unambiguously from the relevant figure, e.g., triangle ABC would typically be a triangle with vertices at points A, B, and C. | Points are customarily named using capital letters of the alphabet. Other figures, such as lines, triangles, or circles, are named by listing a sufficient number of points to pick them out unambiguously from the relevant figure, e.g., triangle ABC would typically be a triangle with vertices at points A, B, and C. | ||
===Complementary and supplementary angles=== | === Complementary and supplementary angles === | ||
Angles whose sum is a right angle are called ] |
Angles whose sum is a right angle are called ]. Complementary angles are formed when a ray shares the same vertex and is pointed in a direction that is in between the two original rays that form the right angle. The number of rays in between the two original rays is infinite. | ||
Angles whose sum is a straight angle are ]. Supplementary angles are formed when a ray shares the same vertex and is pointed in a direction that is in between the two original rays that form the straight angle (180 degree angle). The number of rays in between the two original rays is infinite. | |||
===Modern versions of Euclid's notation=== | |||
In modern terminology, angles would normally be measured in ]s or ]. | |||
=== Modern versions of Euclid's notation === | |||
Modern school textbooks often define separate figures called ]s (infinite), ] (semi-infinite), and ]s (of finite length). Euclid, rather than discussing a ray as an object that extends to infinity in one direction, would normally use locutions such as "if the line is extended to a sufficient length," although he occasionally referred to "infinite lines." A "line" in Euclid could be either straight or curved, and he used the more specific term "straight line" when necessary. | |||
In modern terminology, angles would normally be measured in ]s or ]s. | |||
Modern school textbooks often define separate figures called ]s (infinite), ] (semi-infinite), and ]s (of finite length). Euclid, rather than discussing a ray as an object that extends to infinity in one direction, would normally use locutions such as "if the line is extended to a sufficient length", although he occasionally referred to "infinite lines". A "line" for Euclid could be either straight or curved, and he used the more specific term "straight line" when necessary. | |||
==Some important or well known results== | |||
== Some important or well known results == | |||
<gallery perRow="4"> | |||
<gallery perrow="4"> | |||
Image:pons_asinorum.png|The '''bridge of asses theorem''' states that A=B and C=D. | |||
File:pons_asinorum_dzmanto.png|The '']'' or ''bridge of asses theorem'' states that in an isosceles triangle, α = β and γ = δ. | |||
Image:sum_of_angles_of_triangle.png|The sum of angles A, B, and C is equal to 180 degrees. | |||
File:Sum_of_angles_of_triangle_dzmanto.png|The ''triangle angle sum theorem'' states that the sum of the three angles of any triangle, in this case angles α, β, and γ, will always equal 180 degrees. | |||
Image:Pythagorean.svg|'''Pythagoras' theorem''': The sum of the areas of the two squares on the legs (''a'' and ''b'') of a right triangle equals the area of the square on the hypotenuse (''c''). | |||
File:Pythagorean.svg|The '']'' states that the sum of the areas of the two squares on the legs (''a'' and ''b'') of a right triangle equals the area of the square on the hypotenuse (''c''). | |||
Image:Thales' Theorem Simple.svg|'''Thales' theorem''': if AC is a diameter, then the angle at B is a right angle. | |||
File:Thales' Theorem Simple.svg|'']'' states that if AC is a diameter, then the angle at B is a right angle. | |||
</gallery> | </gallery> | ||
=== |
===Pons asinorum=== | ||
The ] ('' |
The ] (''bridge of asses'') states that ''in isosceles triangles the angles at the base equal one another, and, if the equal straight lines are produced further, then the angles under the base equal one another''.<ref>Euclid, book I, proposition 5, tr. Heath, p. 251.</ref> Its name may be attributed to its frequent role as the first real test in the ''Elements'' of the intelligence of the reader and as a bridge to the harder propositions that followed. It might also be so named because of the geometrical figure's resemblance to a steep bridge that only a sure-footed donkey could cross.<ref>Ignoring the alleged difficulty of Book I, Proposition 5, ] mentions another interpretation. This rests on the resemblance of the figure's lower straight lines to a steeply inclined bridge that could be crossed by an ass but not by a horse: "But there is another view (as I have learnt lately) which is more complimentary to the ass. It is that, the figure of the proposition being like that of a trestle bridge, with a ramp at each end which is more practicable the flatter the figure is drawn, the bridge is such that, while a horse could not surmount the ramp, an ass could; in other words, the term is meant to refer to the sure-footedness of the ass rather than to any want of intelligence on his part." (in "Excursis II", volume 1 of Heath's translation of ''The Thirteen Books of the Elements'').</ref> | ||
===Congruence of triangles=== | ===Congruence of triangles=== | ||
] | ] | ||
Triangles are congruent if they have all three sides equal (SSS), two sides and the angle between them equal (SAS), or two angles and a side equal (ASA) (Book I, propositions 4, 8, and 26). |
Triangles are congruent if they have all three sides equal (SSS), two sides and the angle between them equal (SAS), or two angles and a side equal (ASA) (Book I, propositions 4, 8, and 26). Triangles with three equal angles (AAA) are similar, but not necessarily congruent. Also, triangles with two equal sides and an adjacent angle are not necessarily equal or congruent. | ||
===Triangle angle sum=== | |||
===Sum of the angles of a triangle=== | |||
The sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to |
The sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to a straight angle (180 degrees).<ref>Euclid, book I, proposition 32.</ref> This causes an equilateral triangle to have three interior angles of 60 degrees. Also, it causes every triangle to have at least two acute angles and up to one ] or ]. | ||
=== |
===Pythagorean theorem=== | ||
The celebrated ] (book I, proposition 47) states that in any right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs (the two sides that meet at a right angle). | The celebrated ] (book I, proposition 47) states that in any right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs (the two sides that meet at a right angle). | ||
===Thales' theorem=== | ===Thales' theorem=== | ||
] to them. The last figure is neither. Congruences alter some properties, such as location and orientation, but leave others unchanged, like ] and ]s. The latter sort of properties are called ]s and studying them is the essence of geometry.|218x218px]] | |||
] (book I, proposition 32, named after ]) states that if A, B, and C are points on a circle where the line AC is a diameter of the circle, then the angle ABC is a right angle. Tradition has it that Thales sacrificed an ox to celebrate this theorem.<ref>Heath, p. 318</ref> | |||
], named after ] states that if A, B, and C are points on a circle where the line AC is a diameter of the circle, then the angle ABC is a right angle. Cantor supposed that Thales proved his theorem by means of Euclid Book I, Prop. 32 after the manner of Euclid Book III, Prop. 31.<ref>Heath, p. 135. .</ref><ref>Heath, p. 318.</ref> | |||
===Scaling of area and volume=== | ===Scaling of area and volume=== | ||
In modern terminology, the area of a plane figure is proportional to the square of any of its linear dimensions, <math>A \propto L^2</math>, and the volume of a solid to the cube, <math>V \propto L^3</math>. Euclid proved these results in various special cases such as the area of a circle<ref>Euclid, book XII, proposition 2</ref> and the volume of a parallelepipedal solid.<ref>Euclid, book XI, proposition 33</ref> Euclid determined some, but not all, of the relevant constants of proportionality. |
In modern terminology, the area of a plane figure is proportional to the square of any of its linear dimensions, <math>A \propto L^2</math>, and the volume of a solid to the cube, <math>V \propto L^3</math>. Euclid proved these results in various special cases such as the area of a circle<ref>Euclid, book XII, proposition 2.</ref> and the volume of a parallelepipedal solid.<ref>Euclid, book XI, proposition 33.</ref> Euclid determined some, but not all, of the relevant constants of proportionality. For instance, it was his successor ] who proved that a sphere has 2/3 the volume of the circumscribing cylinder.<ref>Ball, p. 66.</ref> | ||
==System of measurement and arithmetic== | |||
==Applications== | |||
Euclidean geometry has two fundamental types of measurements: ] and ]. The angle scale is absolute, and Euclid uses the ] as his basic unit, so that, for example, a 45-] angle would be referred to as half of a right angle. The distance scale is relative; one arbitrarily picks a line segment with a certain nonzero length as the unit, and other distances are expressed in relation to it. Addition of distances is represented by a construction in which one line segment is copied onto the end of another line segment to extend its length, and similarly for subtraction. | |||
{{Expand section|date=March 2009}} | |||
Because of Euclidean geometry's fundamental status in mathematics, it would be impossible to give more than a representative sampling of applications here. | |||
Measurements of ] and ] are derived from distances. For example, a ] with a width of 3 and a length of 4 has an area that represents the product, 12. Because this geometrical interpretation of multiplication was limited to three dimensions, there was no direct way of interpreting the product of four or more numbers, and Euclid avoided such products, although they are implied, for example in the proof of book IX, proposition 20. | |||
<gallery perRow="3"> | |||
Image:us land survey officer.jpg|A surveyor uses a ] | |||
Image:Ambersweet oranges.jpg|] applies to a stack of ]s. | |||
Image:Parabola with focus and arbitrary line.svg|A parabolic mirror brings parallel rays of light to a focus. | |||
</gallery> | |||
Euclid refers to a pair of lines, or a pair of planar or solid figures, as "equal" (ἴσος) if their lengths, areas, or volumes are equal respectively, and similarly for angles. The stronger term "]" refers to the idea that an entire figure is the same size and shape as another figure. Alternatively, two figures are congruent if one can be moved on top of the other so that it matches up with it exactly. (Flipping it over is allowed.) Thus, for example, a 2x6 rectangle and a 3x4 rectangle are equal but not congruent, and the letter R is congruent to its mirror image. Figures that would be congruent except for their differing sizes are referred to as ]. ] in a pair of similar shapes are equal and ] are in proportion to each other. | |||
As suggested by the etymology of the word, one of the earliest reasons for interest in geometry was ],<ref>Ball, p. 5</ref> and certain practical results from Euclidean geometry, such as the right-angle property of the 3-4-5 triangle, were used long before they were proved formally.<ref>Eves, vol. 1, p. 5; Mlodinow, p. 7</ref> The fundamental types of measurements in Euclidean geometry are distances and angles, and both of these quantities can be measured directly by a surveyor. Historically, distances were often measured by chains such as ], and angles using graduated circles and, later, the ]. | |||
==In engineering== | |||
An application of Euclidean solid geometry is the ], such as the problem of finding the most efficient ] in n dimensions. This problem has applications in ]. | |||
===Design and Analysis=== | |||
] uses Euclidean geometry to analyze the focusing of light by lenses and mirrors. | |||
*'''Stress Analysis''': ] - Euclidean geometry is pivotal in determining ] in mechanical components, which is essential for ensuring ] and ]. | |||
] | |||
*'''Gear Design''': ] - The design of gears, a crucial element in many ]s, relies heavily on Euclidean geometry to ensure proper tooth shape and ] for efficient ]. | |||
<gallery perRow="3"> | |||
] | |||
Image:Damascus Khan asad Pacha cropped.jpg|Geometry is used in art and architecture. | |||
Image:Water tower cropped.jpg|The water tower consists of a cone, a cylinder, and a hemisphere. Its volume can be calculated using solid geometry. | |||
Image:Origami crane cropped.jpg|Geometry can be used to design ]. | |||
</gallery> | |||
* '''Heat Exchanger Design''': ] - In ], Euclidean geometry is used to design ], where the geometric configuration greatly influences ]. See ]s and ]s for more details. | |||
Geometry is used extensively in ]. | |||
] | |||
* '''Lens Design''': ] - In optical engineering, Euclidean geometry is critical in the design of lenses, where precise geometric shapes determine the ] properties. ] analyzes the focusing of ] by ]es and ]. | |||
Geometry can be used to design ]. Some ] are impossible using ], but can be solved using origami.<ref>, accessed 2009 Feb 25</ref> | |||
] | |||
=== Dynamics === | |||
==As a description of the structure of space== | |||
* '''Vibration Analysis''': ] - Euclidean geometry is essential in analyzing and understanding the ] in ], aiding in the design of systems that can withstand or utilize these ] effectively. | |||
Euclid believed that his axioms were self-evident statements about physical reality. Taken as a physical description of space, postulate 2 ( a line) asserts that space does not have holes or boundaries (i.e., space is homogenous); postulate 4 (equality of right angles) says that space is homogeneous and isotropic, so that figures may be moved to any location while maintaining congruence; and postulate 5 that space is flat (has no ]).<ref>Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, 2005, p. 29</ref> As discussed in more detail below, Einstein's theory of relativity significantly modifies this view. | |||
]]] | |||
* '''Wing Design''': ] - The application of Euclidean geometry in ] is evident in ] ], ]s, and ]s where geometric shape directly impacts ] and ] characteristics. | |||
The ambiguous character of the axioms as originally formulated by Euclid makes it possible for different commentators to disagree about some of their other implications for the structure of space, such as whether or not it is infinite<ref name="Heath, p. 200">Heath, p. 200</ref> (see below) and what its ] is. Modern, more rigorous reformulations of the system<ref>e.g., Tarski (1951)</ref> typically aim for a cleaner separation of these issues. Interpreting Euclid's axioms in the spirit of this more modern approach, axioms 1-4 are consistent with either infinite or finite space (as in ]), and all five axioms are consistent with a variety of topologies (e.g., a plane, a cylinder, or a ] for two-dimensional Euclidean geometry). | |||
] | |||
* '''Satellite Orbits''': ] - Euclidean geometry helps in calculating and predicting the ]s of ], essential for successful ] and ] operations. Also see ], ], and ]. | |||
==Later work== | |||
] | |||
===Archimedes and Apollonius=== | |||
] | |||
] (ca. 287 BCE – ca. 212 BCE), a colorful figure about whom many historical anecdotes are recorded, is remembered along with Euclid as one of the greatest of ancient mathematicians. Although the foundations of his work were put in place by Euclid, his work, unlike Euclid's, is believed to have been entirely his own original accomplishment.<ref>Eves, p. 27</ref> He proved equations for the volumes and areas of various figures in two and three dimensions, and enunciated the ] of finite numbers. | |||
===CAD Systems=== | |||
] (ca. 262 BCE–ca. 190 BCE) is mainly known for his investigation of conic sections. | |||
*'''3D Modeling''': In ] systems, Euclidean geometry is fundamental for creating accurate 3D models of mechanical parts. These models are crucial for visualizing and testing designs before ]. | |||
* '''Design and Manufacturing''': Much of ] relies on Euclidean geometry. The design geometry in CAD/CAM typically consists of shapes bounded by ], ]s, ]s, ], and other similar Euclidean forms. Today, CAD/CAM is essential in the design of a wide range of products, from ]s and ]s to ]s and ]s. | |||
], 1648.]] | |||
* '''Evolution of Drafting Practices''': Historically, advanced Euclidean geometry, including theorems like ] and ], was integral to drafting practices. However, with the advent of modern CAD systems, such in-depth knowledge of these theorems is less necessary in contemporary design and manufacturing processes. | |||
===The 17th century: Descartes=== | |||
{{see also|History of CAD software}} | |||
] (1596–1650) developed ], an alternative method for formalizing geometry.<ref>Ball, pp. 268ff</ref> In this approach, a point is represented by its ] (''x'', ''y'') coordinates, a line is represented by its equation, and so on. In Euclid's original approach, the ] follows from Euclid's axioms. In the Cartesian approach, the axioms are the axioms of algebra, and the equation expressing the Pythagorean theorem is then a definition of one of the terms in Euclid's axioms, which are now considered to be theorems. The equation | |||
] | |||
:<math>|PQ|=\sqrt{(p-r)^2+(q-s)^2} </math> | |||
defining the distance between two points ''P'' = (''p'', ''q'') and ''Q''=(''r'', ''s'') is then known as the ''Euclidean ]'', and other metrics define ]. | |||
=== Circuit Design === | |||
In terms of analytic geometry, the restriction of classical geometry to compass and straightedge constructions means a restriction to first- and second-order equations, e.g., ''y'' = 2''x'' + 1 (a line), or ''x''<sup>2</sup> + ''y''<sup>2</sup> = 7 (a circle). | |||
* '''PCB Layouts''': ] utilizes Euclidean geometry for the efficient placement and routing of components, ensuring functionality while ]. Efficient layout of electronic components on PCBs is critical for minimizing ] and optimizing ]. | |||
] | |||
=== Electromagnetic and Fluid Flow Fields === | |||
Also in the 17th century, ], motivated by the theory of ], introduced the concept of idealized points, lines, and planes at infinity. The result can be considered as a type of generalized geometry, ], but it can also be used to produce proofs in ordinary Euclidean geometry in which the number of special cases is reduced.<ref>Eves (1963)</ref> | |||
* '''Antenna Design''': ] - Euclidean ] helps in designing antennas, where the spatial arrangement and dimensions directly affect antenna and ] performance in transmitting and receiving ]s. | |||
], Extremely high gain ~70 dBi.]] | |||
* '''Field Theory''': ] - In the study of ] fields and ]s, Euclidean geometry aids in visualizing and solving ] problems. This is essential for understanding ] field and ] interactions in three-dimensional space. The relationship of which is characterized by an ] ] or a ]. | |||
].]] | |||
]]] | |||
=== |
=== Controls === | ||
* '''Control System Analysis''': ] - The application of Euclidean geometry in ] helps in the analysis and design of ], particularly in understanding and ] system stability and ]. | |||
Geometers of the 18th century struggled to define the boundaries of the Euclidean system. Many tried in vain to prove the fifth postulate from the first four. By 1763 at least 28 different proofs had been published, but all were found to be incorrect.<ref>Hofstadter 1979, p. 91.</ref> | |||
] | |||
* '''Calculation Tools''': ] - Euclidean geometry is integral in using Jacobian matrices for transformations and control systems in both ] and ] fields, providing insights into system behavior and properties. The Jacobian serves as a linearized ] in statistical ] and ]; see ]. The Jacobian is also used in ], ], ], and ]s. | |||
Leading up to this period, geometers also tried to determine what constructions could be accomplished in Euclidean geometry. For example, the problem of ] with a compass and straightedge is one that naturally occurs within the theory, since the axioms refer to constructive operations that can be carried out with those tools. However, centuries of efforts failed to find a solution to this problem, until ] published a proof in 1837 that such a construction was impossible. Other constructions that were proved to be impossible include ] and ]. In the case of doubling the cube, the impossibility of the construction originates from the fact that the compass and straightedge method involve first- and second-order equations, while doubling a cube requires the solution of a third-order equation. | |||
==Other general applications== | |||
] discussed a generalization of Euclidean geometry called ], which retains the fifth postulate unmodified while weakening postulates three and four in a way that eliminates the notions of angle (whence right triangles become meaningless) and of equality of length of line segments in general (whence circles become meaningless) while retaining the notions of parallelism as an equivalence relation between lines, and equality of length of parallel line segments (so line segments continue to have a midpoint). | |||
Because of Euclidean geometry's fundamental status in mathematics, it is impractical to give more than a representative sampling of applications here. | |||
<gallery perrow="3"> | |||
===The 19th century and non-Euclidean geometry=== | |||
File:us land survey officer.jpg|A surveyor uses a ] | |||
In the early 19th century, ] and ] systematically developed the use of signed angles and line segments as a way of simplifying and unifying results.<ref>Eves (1963), p. 64</ref> | |||
File:Ambersweet oranges.jpg|] applies to a stack of ]s. | |||
File:Parabola with focus and arbitrary line.svg|A parabolic mirror brings parallel rays of light to a focus. | |||
</gallery> | |||
As suggested by the etymology of the word, one of the earliest reasons for interest in and also one of the most common current uses of geometry is ].<ref>Ball, p. 5.</ref> In addition it has been used in ] and the ]. Certain practical results from Euclidean geometry (such as the right-angle property of the 3-4-5 triangle) were used long before they were proved formally.<ref>Eves, vol. 1, p. 5; Mlodinow, p. 7.</ref> The fundamental types of measurements in Euclidean geometry are distances and angles, both of which can be measured directly by a surveyor. Historically, distances were often measured by chains, such as ], and angles using graduated circles and, later, the ]. | |||
The century's most significant development in geometry occurred when, around 1830, ] and ] separately published work on ], in which the parallel postulate is not valid.<ref>Ball, p. 485</ref> Since non-Euclidean geometry is provably self-consistent, the parallel postulate cannot be proved from the other postulates. | |||
An application of Euclidean solid geometry is the ], such as the problem of finding the most efficient ] in n dimensions. This problem has applications in ]. | |||
In the 19th century, it was also realized that Euclid's ten axioms and common notions do not suffice to prove all of theorems stated in the ''Elements''. For example, Euclid assumed implicitly that any line contains at least two points, but this assumption cannot be proved from the other axioms, and therefore needs to be an axiom itself. The very first geometric proof in the ''Elements,'' shown in the figure above, is that any line segment is part of a triangle; Euclid constructs this in the usual way, by drawing circles around both endpoints and taking their intersection as the third ]. His axioms, however, do not guarantee that the circles actually intersect, because they do not assert the geometrical property of continuity, which in Cartesian terms is equivalent to the ] property of the real numbers. Starting with ] in 1882, many improved axiomatic systems for geometry have been proposed, the best known being those of ],<ref>* ], 1997 (1958). ''Foundations and Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics''. Dover.</ref> ],<ref>Birkhoff, G. D., 1932, "A Set of Postulates for Plane Geometry (Based on Scale and Protractors)," Annals of Mathematics 33.</ref> and ].<ref name="Tarski 1951">Tarski (1951)</ref> | |||
<gallery perrow="3"> | |||
===The 20th century and general relativity=== | |||
File:Damascus Khan asad Pacha cropped.jpg|Geometry is used in art and architecture. | |||
]. The rays of starlight were bent by the Sun's gravity on their way to the earth. This is interpreted as evidence in favor of Einstein's prediction that gravity would cause deviations from Euclidean geometry.]] | |||
File:Water tower cropped.jpg|The water tower consists of a cone, a cylinder, and a hemisphere. Its volume can be calculated using solid geometry. | |||
] theory of ] shows that the true geometry of spacetime is ].<ref>Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973), p. 191</ref> For example, if a triangle is constructed out of three rays of light, then in general the interior angles do not add up to 180 degrees due to gravity. A relatively weak gravitational field, such as the Earth's or the sun's, is represented by a metric that is approximately, but not exactly, Euclidean. Until the 20th century, there was no technology capable of detecting the deviations from Euclidean geometry, but Einstein predicted that such deviations would exist. They were later verified by observations such as the slight bending of starlight by the Sun during a solar eclipse in 1919, and non-Euclidean geometry is now, for example, an integral part of the software that runs the ] system.<ref>Rizos, Chris. ]. . 1999.</ref> It is possible to object to the non-Euclidean interpretation of general relativity on the grounds that light rays might be improper physical models of Euclid's lines, or that relativity could be rephrased so as to avoid the geometrical interpretations. However, one of the consequences of Einstein's theory is that there is no possible physical test that can do any better than a beam of light as a model of a geometrical line. Thus, the only logical possibilities are to accept non-Euclidean geometry as physically real, or to reject the entire notion of physical tests of the axioms of geometry, which can then be imagined as a formal system without any intrinsic real-world meaning. | |||
File:Origami crane cropped.jpg|Geometry can be used to design origami. | |||
</gallery> | |||
Geometry is used extensively in ]. | |||
==Treatment of infinity== | |||
===Infinite objects=== | |||
Euclid sometimes distinguished explicitly between "finite lines" (e.g., Postulate 2) and "] lines" (book I, proposition 12). However, he typically did not make such distinctions unless they were necessary. The postulates do not explicitly refer to infinite lines, although for example some commentators interpret postulate 3, existence of a circle with any radius, as implying that space is infinite.<ref name="Heath, p. 200"/> | |||
Geometry can be used to design ]. Some ] are impossible using ], but can be ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://mars.wne.edu/~thull/omfiles/geoconst.html |title=Origami and Geometric Constructions |author=Tom Hull |access-date=2013-12-29 |archive-date=2019-06-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190618084941/http://mars.wne.edu/~thull/omfiles/geoconst.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> | |||
The notion of ] had previously been discussed extensively by the ], but nobody had been able to put them on a firm logical basis, with paradoxes such as ] occurring that had not been resolved to universal satisfaction. Euclid used the ] rather than infinitesimals.<ref>Ball, p. 31</ref> | |||
==Later history{{anchor|History}}== | |||
Later ancient commentators such as ] (410-485 CE) treated many questions about infinity as issues demanding proof and, e.g., Proclus claimed to prove the infinite divisibility of a line, based on a proof by contradiction in which he considered the cases of even and odd numbers of points constituting it.<ref>Heath, p. 268</ref> | |||
{{see also|History of geometry|Non-Euclidean geometry#History}} | |||
===Archimedes and Apollonius=== | |||
At the turn of the 20th century, ] produced controversial work on ] models of Euclidean geometry, in which the distance between two points may be infinite or infinitesimal, in the ]–] sense.<ref>Giuseppe Veronese, On Non-Archimedean Geometry, 1908. English translation in Real Numbers, Generalizations of the Reals, and Theories of Continua, ed. Philip Ehrlich, Kluwer, 1994.</ref> Fifty years later, ] provided a rigorous logical foundation for Veronese's work.<ref>Robinson, Abraham (1966). Non-standard analysis.</ref> | |||
] | |||
] ({{circa|287 BCE|212 BCE}}), a colorful figure about whom many historical anecdotes are recorded, is remembered along with Euclid as one of the greatest of ancient mathematicians. Although the foundations of his work were put in place by Euclid, his work, unlike Euclid's, is believed to have been entirely original.<ref>Eves, p. 27.</ref> He proved equations for the volumes and areas of various figures in two and three dimensions, and enunciated the ] of finite numbers. | |||
] ({{circa|240 BCE|190 BCE}}) is mainly known for his investigation of conic sections. | |||
===Infinite processes=== | |||
One reason that the ancients treated the parallel postulate as less certain than the others is that verifying it physically would require us to inspect two lines to check that they never intersected, even at some very distant point, and this inspection could potentially take an infinite amount of time.<ref>For the assertion that this was the historical reason for the ancients considering the parallel postulate less obvious than the others, see Nagel and Newman 1958, p. 9.</ref> | |||
], 1648.]] | |||
The modern formulation of ] was not developed until the 17th century, but some later commentators consider it to be implicit in some of Euclid's proofs, e.g., the proof of the infinitude of primes.<ref>Cajori (1918), p. 197</ref> | |||
===17th century: Descartes=== | |||
Supposed paradoxes involving infinite series, such as ], predated Euclid. Euclid avoided such discussions, giving, for example, the expression for the partial sums of the ] in IX.35 without commenting on the possibility of letting the number of terms become infinite. | |||
] (1596–1650) developed ], an alternative method for formalizing geometry which focused on turning geometry into algebra.<ref>Ball, pp. 268ff.</ref> | |||
In this approach, a point on a plane is represented by its ] (''x'', ''y'') coordinates, a line is represented by its equation, and so on. | |||
==Logical basis== | |||
{{expert-subject|mathematics}} | |||
{{Expand section|date=June 2010}} | |||
{{See also|Hilbert's axioms|Axiomatic system|Real closed field}} | |||
In Euclid's original approach, the ] follows from Euclid's axioms. In the Cartesian approach, the axioms are the axioms of algebra, and the equation expressing the Pythagorean theorem is then a definition of one of the terms in Euclid's axioms, which are now considered theorems. | |||
===Classical logic=== | |||
Euclid frequently used the method of ], and therefore the traditional presentation of Euclidean geometry assumes ], in which every proposition is either true or false, i.e., for any proposition P, the proposition "P or not P" is automatically true. | |||
The equation | |||
===Modern standards of rigor=== | |||
:<math>|PQ|=\sqrt{(p_x-q_x)^2+(p_y-q_y)^2} \, </math> | |||
Placing Euclidean geometry on a solid axiomatic basis was a preoccupation of mathematicians for centuries.<ref name=Smith>A detailed discussion can be found in {{cite book |title=Methods of geometry |author= James T. Smith |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=mWpWplOVQ6MC&pg=RA1-PA19 |chapter=Chapter 2: Foundations |pages=19 ''ff'' |isbn=0471251836 |publisher=Wiley |year=2000}} | |||
defining the distance between two points ''P'' = (''p<sub>x</sub>'', ''p<sub>y</sub>'') and ''Q'' = (''q<sub>x</sub>'', ''q<sub>y</sub>'') is then known as the ''Euclidean ]'', and other metrics define ]. | |||
</ref> The role of ]s, or undefined concepts, was clearly put forward by ] of the ] delegation at the 1900 Paris conference:<ref name = Smith/><ref name=revue> | |||
In terms of analytic geometry, the restriction of classical geometry to compass and straightedge constructions means a restriction to first- and second-order equations, e.g., ''y'' = 2''x'' + 1 (a line), or ''x''<sup>2</sup> + ''y''<sup>2</sup> = 7 (a circle). | |||
{{cite book |title=Revue de métaphysique et de morale, Volume 8 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=4aoLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA592 |page=592 |author=Société française de philosophie |publisher=Hachette |year=1900}} | |||
Also in the 17th century, ], motivated by the theory of ], introduced the concept of idealized points, lines, and planes at infinity. The result can be considered as a type of generalized geometry, ], but it can also be used to produce proofs in ordinary Euclidean geometry in which the number of special cases is reduced.<ref>Eves (1963).</ref> | |||
</ref> | |||
{{blockquote|text=...when we begin to formulate the theory, we can imagine that the undefined symbols are ''completely devoid of meaning'' and that the unproved propositions are simply ''conditions'' imposed upon the undefined symbols. | |||
].]] | |||
Then, the ''system of ideas'' that we have initially chosen is simply ''one interpretation'' of the undefined symbols; but..this interpretation can be ignored by the reader, who is free to replace it in his mind by ''another interpretation''.. that satisfies the conditions... | |||
===18th century=== | |||
''Logical'' questions thus become completely independent of ''empirical'' or ''psychological'' questions... | |||
Geometers of the 18th century struggled to define the boundaries of the Euclidean system. Many tried in vain to prove the fifth postulate from the first four. By 1763, at least 28 different proofs had been published, but all were found incorrect.<ref>Hofstadter 1979, p. 91.</ref> | |||
Leading up to this period, geometers also tried to determine what constructions could be accomplished in Euclidean geometry. For example, the problem of ] with a compass and straightedge is one that naturally occurs within the theory, since the axioms refer to constructive operations that can be carried out with those tools. However, centuries of efforts failed to find a solution to this problem, until ] published a proof in 1837 that such a construction was impossible. Other constructions that were proved impossible include ] and ]. In the case of doubling the cube, the impossibility of the construction originates from the fact that the compass and straightedge method involve equations whose order is an integral power of two,<ref>Theorem 120, Elements of Abstract Algebra, Allan Clark, Dover, {{ISBN|0-486-64725-0}}.</ref> while doubling a cube requires the solution of a third-order equation. | |||
The system of undefined symbols can then be regarded as the ''abstraction'' obtained from the ''specialized theories'' that result when...the system of undefined symbols is successively replaced by each of the interpretations...|source=''Essai d'une théorie algébrique des nombre entiers, avec une Introduction logique à une théorie déductive qulelconque'' |sign=Padoa}} | |||
] discussed a generalization of Euclidean geometry called ], which retains the fifth postulate unmodified while weakening postulates three and four in a way that eliminates the notions of angle (whence right triangles become meaningless) and of equality of length of line segments in general (whence circles become meaningless) while retaining the notions of parallelism as an ] between lines, and equality of length of parallel line segments (so line segments continue to have a midpoint). | |||
That is, mathematics is context-independent knowledge within a hierarchical framework. As said by Bertrand Russell:<ref name=Newman> | |||
===19th century=== | |||
{{cite book |title= The world of mathematics |volume=3 |editor=James Roy Newman |author=Bertrand Russell |chapter=Mathematics and the metaphysicians |isbn=0486411516 |year=2000 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=_b2ShqRj8YMC&pg=PA1577 |page=1577 |edition=Reprint of Simon and Schuster 1956 |publisher=Courier Dover Publications }} | |||
{{comparison_of_geometries.svg}} | |||
</ref> | |||
In the early 19th century, ] and ] systematically developed the use of signed angles and line segments as a way of simplifying and unifying results.<ref>Eves (1963), p. 64.</ref> | |||
{{blockquote|text=If our hypothesis is about ''anything'', and not about some one or more particular things, then our deductions constitute mathematics. Thus, mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true |source =''Mathematics and the metaphysicians'' |sign=Bertrand Russell}} | |||
=== |
====Higher dimensions==== | ||
In the 1840s ] developed the ]s, and ] and ] the ]s. These are ]s which extend the ]. Later it was understood that the quaternions are also a Euclidean geometric system with four real Cartesian coordinates.{{Sfn|Stillwell|2001|p=18–21|ps=; In four-dimensional Euclidean geometry, a ] is simply a (w, x, y, z) Cartesian coordinate. ] did not see them as such when he ]. ] would be the first to consider ], publishing his discovery of the regular ]s in 1852, but Hamilton would never be influenced by that work, which remained obscure into the 20th century. Hamilton found the quaternions when he realized that a fourth dimension, in some sense, would be necessary in order to model rotations in three-dimensional space. Although he described a quaternion as an ''ordered four-element multiple of real numbers'', the quaternions were for him an extension of the complex numbers, not a Euclidean space of four dimensions.}} Cayley used quaternions to study ].{{Sfn|Perez-Gracia|Thomas|2017|ps=; "It is actually Cayley whom we must thank for the correct development of quaternions as a representation of rotations."}} | |||
{{blockquote|text=Geometry is the science of correct reasoning on incorrect figures.|source=''How to Solve It'', p. 208 |sign=George Polyá}} | |||
*]: In his dissertation to Trinity College, Cambridge, Bertrand Russell summarized the changing role of Euclid's geometry in the minds of philosophers up to that time.<ref name= Russell> | |||
At mid-century ] developed the general concept of ], extending Euclidean geometry to ]. He defined ''polyschemes'', later called ]s, which are the ] of ]s and ]. He developed their theory and discovered all the regular polytopes, i.e. the <math>n</math>-dimensional analogues of regular polygons and ]. He found there are six ], and three in all higher dimensions. | |||
{{cite book |title=An essay on the foundations of geometry |author=Bertrand Russell |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1897 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=NecGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1 |chapter=Introduction}} | |||
{{Regular convex 4-polytopes}} | |||
</ref> It was a conflict between certain knowledge, independent of experiment, and empiricism, requiring experimental input. This issue became clear as it was discovered that the ] was not necessarily valid and its applicability was an empirical matter, deciding whether the applicable geometry was Euclidean or ]. | |||
*]: Hilbert's axioms had the goal of identifying a ''simple'' and ''complete'' set of ''independent'' axioms from which the most important geometric theorems could be deduced. The outstanding objectives were to make Euclidean geometry rigorous (avoiding hidden assumptions) and to make clear the ramifications of the parallel postulate. | |||
*]: Birkhoff proposed four postulates for Euclidean geometry that can be confirmed experimentally with scale and protractor.<ref name=Brikhoff> | |||
Schläfli performed this work in relative obscurity and it was published in full only posthumously in 1901. It had little influence until it was rediscovered and ] by ]. | |||
{{cite book |title=Basic Geometry |author=George David Birkhoff, Ralph Beatley |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=TB6xYdomdjQC&pg=PA38 |chapter=Chapter 2: The five fundamental principles |isbn=0821821016 |publisher=AMS Bookstore |year=1999 |pages=38 ''ff'' |edition=3rd}} | |||
In 1878 ] introduced what is now termed ], unifying Hamilton's quaternions with ]'s algebra and revealing the geometric nature of these systems, especially in four dimensions. The operations of geometric algebra have the effect of mirroring, rotating, translating, and mapping the geometric objects that are being modeled to new positions. The ] on the surface of the ] is the simplest and most symmetric flat embedding of the Cartesian product of two circles (in the same sense that the surface of a cylinder is "flat"). | |||
</ref><ref name=Smith2> | |||
====Non-Euclidean geometry==== | |||
{{cite book |title=Cited work |author=James T. Smith |pages=84 ''ff'' |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=mWpWplOVQ6MC&pg=RA1-PA84 |chapter=Chapter 3: Elementary Euclidean Geometry }} | |||
{{Main|Non-Euclidean geometry}} | |||
The century's most influential development in geometry occurred when, around 1830, ] and ] separately published work on ], in which the parallel postulate is not valid.<ref>Ball, p. 485.</ref> Since non-Euclidean geometry is provably relatively consistent with Euclidean geometry, the parallel postulate cannot be proved from the other postulates. | |||
In the 19th century, it was also realized that Euclid's ten axioms and common notions do not suffice to prove all of the theorems stated in the ''Elements''. For example, Euclid assumed implicitly that any line contains at least two points, but this assumption cannot be proved from the other axioms, and therefore must be an axiom itself. The very first geometric proof in the ''Elements,'' shown in the figure above, is that any line segment is part of a triangle; Euclid constructs this in the usual way, by drawing circles around both endpoints and taking their intersection as the third ]. His axioms, however, do not guarantee that the circles actually intersect, because they do not assert the geometrical property of continuity, which in Cartesian terms is equivalent to the ] property of the real numbers. Starting with ] in 1882, many improved axiomatic systems for geometry have been proposed, the best known being those of ],<ref>* ], 1997 (1958). ''Foundations and Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics''. Dover.</ref> ],<ref>Birkhoff, G. D., 1932, "A Set of Postulates for Plane Geometry (Based on Scale and Protractors)", Annals of Mathematics 33.</ref> and ].<ref name="Tarski 1951">Tarski (1951).</ref> | |||
</ref><ref name=Moise> | |||
===20th century and relativity=== | |||
{{cite book |title=Elementary geometry from an advanced standpoint |author=Edwin E. Moise |url=http://books.google.com/books?cd=1&id=3UjvAAAAMAAJ&dq=isbn%3A9780201508673&q=Birkhoff#search_anchor | |||
]. The rays of starlight were bent by the Sun's gravity on their way to Earth. This is interpreted as evidence in favor of Einstein's prediction that gravity would cause deviations from Euclidean geometry.]] | |||
|isbn=0201508672 |year=1990 |publisher=Addison-Wesley |edition=3rd}} | |||
] theory of ] involves a four-dimensional ], the ], which is ]. This shows that non-Euclidean geometries, which had been introduced a few years earlier for showing that the ] cannot be proved, are also useful for describing the physical world. | |||
</ref> The notions of ''angle'' and ''distance'' become primitive concepts.<ref name=Silvester> | |||
However, the three-dimensional "space part" of the Minkowski space remains the space of Euclidean geometry. This is not the case with ], for which the geometry of the space part of space-time is not Euclidean geometry.<ref>Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973), p. 191.</ref> For example, if a triangle is constructed out of three rays of light, then in general the interior angles do not add up to 180 degrees due to gravity. A relatively weak gravitational field, such as the Earth's or the Sun's, is represented by a metric that is approximately, but not exactly, Euclidean. Until the 20th century, there was no technology capable of detecting these deviations in rays of light from Euclidean geometry, but Einstein predicted that such deviations would exist. They were later verified by observations such as the slight bending of starlight by the Sun during a solar eclipse in 1919, and such considerations are now an integral part of the software that runs the ] system.<ref>Rizos, Chris. ]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100612004027/http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/gps/gps_survey/chap3/312.htm |date=2010-06-12 }}. 1999.</ref> | |||
{{cite book |title=Geometry: ancient and modern |author=John R. Silvester |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=VtH_QG6scSUC&pg=PA5 |chapter=§1.4 Hilbert and Birkhoff |isbn=0198508255 |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2001}} | |||
==As a description of the structure of space== | |||
</ref> | |||
Euclid believed that his ] were self-evident statements about physical reality. Euclid's proofs depend upon assumptions perhaps not obvious in Euclid's fundamental axioms,<ref name=Trudeau>{{cite book |title=The Non-Euclidean Revolution|author=Richard J. Trudeau |pages=39 ''ff'' |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YRB4VBCLB3IC&pg=PA39 |chapter=Euclid's axioms |publisher= Birkhäuser |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-8176-4782-7}}</ref> in particular that certain movements of figures do not change their geometrical properties such as the lengths of sides and interior angles, the so-called ''Euclidean motions'', which include translations, reflections and rotations of figures.<ref name=Euclidean_Motion> | |||
*]:] (1902–1983) and his students defined ''elementary'' Euclidean geometry as the geometry that can be expressed in ] and does not depend on ] for its logical basis.<ref name=Tarski0> | |||
See, for example: {{cite book |title=Shape analysis and classification: theory and practice |author1=Luciano da Fontoura Costa |author2=Roberto Marcondes Cesar |page=314 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=x_wiWedtc0cC&pg=PA314 |isbn=0-8493-3493-4 |year=2001 |publisher=CRC Press}} and {{cite book |title=Computational Line Geometry |author1=Helmut Pottmann |author2=Johannes Wallner |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3Mk2JIJKsGwC&pg=PA60 |page=60 |isbn=978-3-642-04017-7 |year=2010 |publisher=Springer}} The ''group of motions'' underlie the metric notions of geometry. See {{cite book |title=Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint: Geometry |author=Felix Klein |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fj-ryrSBuxAC&pg=PA167 |page=167 |isbn=0-486-43481-8 |publisher=Courier Dover |year=2004 |edition=Reprint of 1939 Macmillan Company}}</ref> Taken as a physical description of space, postulate 2 (extending a line) asserts that space does not have holes or boundaries; postulate 4 (equality of right angles) says that space is ] and figures may be moved to any location while maintaining ]; and postulate 5 (the ]) that space is flat (has no ]).<ref name=Penrose>{{cite book |author=Roger Penrose |title= The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe |year=2007 |page= 29 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=coahAAAACAAJ&q=editions:cYahAAAACAAJ |isbn=978-0-679-77631-4 |publisher=Vintage Books}}</ref> | |||
{{cite book |chapter=What is elementary geometry |author=Alfred Tarski |quote=we regard as elementary that part of Euclidean geometry which can be formulated and established without the help of any set-theoretical devices | |||
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=eVVKtnKzfnUC&pg=PA16 |page=16 |isbn=1406753556 |editor=Leon Henkin, Patrick Suppes & Alfred Tarski |publisher=Brouwer Press |year=2007 |title=Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics - The Axiomatic Method with Special Reference to Geometry and Physics |edition=Proceedings of International Symposium at Berkeley 1957-58; Reprint}} | |||
As discussed above, ]'s ] significantly modifies this view. | |||
</ref> This is in contrast to Hilbert's axioms, which involve point sets.<ref name=Simmons> | |||
The ambiguous character of the axioms as originally formulated by Euclid makes it possible for different commentators to disagree about some of their other implications for the structure of space, such as whether or not it is infinite<ref name="Heath, p. 200">Heath, p. 200.</ref> (see below) and what its ] is. Modern, more rigorous reformulations of the system<ref>e.g., Tarski (1951).</ref> typically aim for a cleaner separation of these issues. Interpreting Euclid's axioms in the spirit of this more modern approach, axioms 1–4 are consistent with either infinite or finite space (as in ]), and all five axioms are consistent with a variety of topologies (e.g., a plane, a cylinder, or a ] for two-dimensional Euclidean geometry). | |||
{{cite book |title=Logic from Russell to Church |editors=Dov M. Gabbay, John Woods|chapter=Tarski's logic |author=Keith Simmons |page=574 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=K5dU9bEKencC&pg=PA574 |isbn=0444516204 |year=2009 |publisher=Elsevier}} | |||
==Treatment of infinity== | |||
</ref> Tarski proved his ] of elementary Euclidean geometry to be consistent and complete in a certain ]: there is an algorithm which, for every proposition, can show it to be either true or false.<ref name="Tarski 1951"/> (This doesn't violate ], because Euclidean geometry cannot describe a sufficient amount of ] for the theorem to apply.<ref>Franzén 2005, p. 25-26.</ref>) This is equivalent to the decidability of ], of which elementary Euclidean geometry is a model. | |||
===Infinite objects=== | |||
===Constructive approaches and pedagogy=== | |||
Euclid sometimes distinguished explicitly between "finite lines" (e.g., Postulate 2) and "] lines" (book I, proposition 12). However, he typically did not make such distinctions unless they were necessary. The postulates do not explicitly refer to infinite lines, although for example some commentators interpret postulate 3, existence of a circle with any radius, as implying that space is infinite.<ref name="Heath, p. 200"/> | |||
The process of abstract axiomatization as exemplified by ] reduces geometry to theorem proving or ]. In contrast, the Greeks used construction postulates, and emphasized problem solving.<ref name=Panza> | |||
The notion of ] had previously been discussed extensively by the ], but nobody had been able to put them on a firm logical basis, with paradoxes such as ] occurring that had not been resolved to universal satisfaction. Euclid used the ] rather than infinitesimals.<ref>Ball, p. 31.</ref> | |||
{{cite book |title=Analysis and synthesis in mathematics: history and philosophy |editor=Michael Otte, Marco Panza |author=Petri Mäenpää |chapter=From backward reduction to configurational analysis|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=WFav-N0tv7AC&pg=PA210 |page=210 |isbn=0792345703 |year=1999 |publisher=Springer}} | |||
Later ancient commentators, such as ] (410–485 CE), treated many questions about infinity as issues demanding proof and, e.g., Proclus claimed to prove the infinite divisibility of a line, based on a proof by contradiction in which he considered the cases of even and odd numbers of points constituting it.<ref>Heath, p. 268.</ref> | |||
</ref> For the Greeks, constructions are more primitive than existence propositions, and can be used to prove existence propositions, but not ''vice versa''. To describe problem solving adequately requires a richer system of logical concepts.<ref name=Panza/> The contrast in approach may be summarized:<ref name=Corsi> | |||
{{cite book |title=Deduction, Computation, Experiment: Exploring the Effectiveness of Proof |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=jVPW-_qsYDgC&printsec=frontcover |page=1 |author=Carlo Cellucci |chapter=Why proof? What is proof? |editor=Rossella Lupacchini, Giovanna Corsi |isbn=8847007836 |year=2008 |publisher=Springer}} | |||
</ref> | |||
*Axiomatic proof: Proofs are deductive derivations of propositions from primitive premises that are ‘true’ in some sense. The aim is to justify the proposition. | |||
*Analytic proof: Proofs are non-deductive derivations of hypothesis from problems. The aim is to find hypotheses capable of giving a solution to the problem. One can argue that Euclid's axioms were arrived upon in this manner. In particular, it is thought that Euclid felt the ] was forced upon him, as indicated by his reluctance to make use of it,<ref name=Weisstein0> | |||
At the turn of the 20th century, ], ], ], and others produced controversial work on ] models of Euclidean geometry, in which the distance between two points may be infinite or infinitesimal, in the ]–] sense.<ref>Giuseppe Veronese, On Non-Archimedean Geometry, 1908. English translation in Real Numbers, Generalizations of the Reals, and Theories of Continua, ed. Philip Ehrlich, Kluwer, 1994.</ref> Fifty years later, ] provided a rigorous logical foundation for Veronese's work.<ref>Robinson, Abraham (1966). Non-standard analysis.</ref> | |||
{{cite book |title=CRC concise encyclopedia of mathematics |author=Eric W. Weisstein |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Zg1_QZsylysC&pg=PA942 |page=942 |chapter=Euclid's postulates |isbn=1584883472 |year=2003 |publisher=CRC Press |edition=2nd}} | |||
===Infinite processes=== | |||
</ref> and his arrival upon it by the method of contradiction.<ref name=Bennett> | |||
Ancient geometers may have considered the parallel postulate – that two parallel lines do not ever intersect – less certain than the others because it makes a statement about infinitely remote regions of space, and so cannot be physically verified.<ref>Nagel and Newman, 1958, p. 9.</ref> | |||
The modern formulation of ] was not developed until the 17th century, but some later commentators consider it implicit in some of Euclid's proofs, e.g., the proof of the infinitude of primes.<ref>Cajori (1918), p. 197.</ref> | |||
{{cite book |title=Logic made easy: how to know when language deceives you |author=Deborah J. Bennett |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=_fo3vTO8qGcC&pg=PA34 |page=34 |isbn=0393057488 |year=2004 |publisher=W. W. Norton & Company}} | |||
Supposed paradoxes involving infinite series, such as ], predated Euclid. Euclid avoided such discussions, giving, for example, the expression for the partial sums of the ] in IX.35 without commenting on the possibility of letting the number of terms become infinite. | |||
</ref> | |||
==Logical basis== | |||
] proposed a problem solving basis for geometry.<ref name=Kolmogorov> | |||
{{Expand section|date=June 2010}} | |||
{{See also|Hilbert's axioms|Axiomatic system|Real closed field}} | |||
===Classical logic=== | |||
{{cite book |title=Geometry: A textbook for grades 6-8 of secondary school '''' |edition=3rd |author=AN Kolmogorov, AF Semenovich, RS Cherkasov |publisher="Prosveshchenie" Publishers |location = Moscow |year=1982 |pages=372–376 }} A description of the approach, which was based upon geometric transformations, can be found in ''Teaching geometry in the USSR'' | |||
Euclid frequently used the method of ], and therefore the traditional presentation of Euclidean geometry assumes ], in which every proposition is either true or false, i.e., for any proposition P, the proposition "P or not P" is automatically true. | |||
===Modern standards of rigor=== | |||
</ref><ref name=Prasolov> | |||
Placing Euclidean geometry on a solid axiomatic basis was a preoccupation of mathematicians for centuries.<ref name=Smith>A detailed discussion can be found in {{cite book |title=Methods of geometry |author= James T. Smith |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mWpWplOVQ6MC&pg=RA1-PA19 |chapter=Chapter 2: Foundations |pages=19 ''ff'' |isbn=0-471-25183-6 |publisher=Wiley |year=2000}}</ref> The role of ]s, or undefined concepts, was clearly put forward by ] of the ] delegation at the 1900 Paris conference:<ref name = Smith/><ref name=revue>{{cite book |title=Revue de métaphysique et de morale, Volume 8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4aoLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA592 |page=592 |author=Société française de philosophie |publisher=Hachette |year=1900}}</ref> {{blockquote|text=...when we begin to formulate the theory, we can imagine that the undefined symbols are ''completely devoid of meaning'' and that the unproved propositions are simply ''conditions'' imposed upon the undefined symbols. | |||
Then, the ''system of ideas'' that we have initially chosen is simply ''one interpretation'' of the undefined symbols; but..this interpretation can be ignored by the reader, who is free to replace it in his mind by ''another interpretation''.. that satisfies the conditions... | |||
{{cite book |title=Geometry |author=Viktor Vasilʹevich Prasolov, Vladimir Mikhaĭlovich Tikhomirov |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=t7kbhDDUFSkC&pg=PA198 |page=198 |isbn=0821820389 |year=2001 |publisher=AMS Bookstore}} | |||
''Logical'' questions thus become completely independent of ''empirical'' or ''psychological'' questions... | |||
</ref> This work was a precursor of a modern formulation in terms of ].<ref name=Maenpaa> | |||
The system of undefined symbols can then be regarded as the ''abstraction'' obtained from the ''specialized theories'' that result when...the system of undefined symbols is successively replaced by each of the interpretations...|source=''Essai d'une théorie algébrique des nombre entiers, avec une Introduction logique à une théorie déductive quelconque'' |sign=Padoa}} | |||
{{cite book |title=Twenty-five years of constructive type theory: proceedings of a congress held in Venice, October 1995 |editor=Giovanni Sambin, Jan M. Smith |author=Petri Mäenpää | |||
|chapter=Analytic program derivation in type theory |page=113 |url=http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pLnKggT_In4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA113 |isbn=0198501277 |year=1998 |publisher=Oxford University Press}} | |||
That is, mathematics is context-independent knowledge within a hierarchical framework. As said by ]:<ref name=Newman>{{cite book |title= The world of mathematics |volume=3 |editor=James Roy Newman |author=Bertrand Russell |chapter=Mathematics and the metaphysicians |isbn=0-486-41151-6 |year=2000|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_b2ShqRj8YMC&pg=PA1577 |page=1577 |edition=Reprint of Simon and Schuster 1956 |publisher=Courier Dover Publications }}</ref> | |||
</ref> This development has implications for pedagogy as well.<ref name=Hoyles> | |||
{{blockquote|text=If our hypothesis is about ''anything'', and not about some one or more particular things, then our deductions constitute mathematics. Thus, mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. |source =''Mathematics and the metaphysicians'' |sign=Bertrand Russell}} | |||
Such foundational approaches range between ] and ]. | |||
{{cite journal |title=The curricular shaping of students' approach to proof |author=Celia Hoyles |journal=For the Learning of Mathematics |publisher=FLM Publishing Association |volume=17 |number=1 |pages=7–16 |date=Feb. 1997 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/40248217 |accessed=29/06/2010 09:39}} | |||
===Axiomatic formulations=== | |||
</ref> | |||
{{blockquote|text=Geometry is the science of correct reasoning on incorrect figures.|source=''How to Solve It'', p. 208 |sign=]}} | |||
{{blockquote|text =If proof simply follows conviction of truth rather than contributing to its construction and is only experienced as a demonstration of something already known to be true, it is likely to remain meaningless and purposeless in the eyes of students. |source=''The curricular shaping of students' approach to proof'' |sign=Celia Hoyles}} | |||
* Euclid's axioms: In his dissertation to Trinity College, Cambridge, Bertrand Russell summarized the changing role of Euclid's geometry in the minds of philosophers up to that time.<ref name= Russell>{{cite book |title=An essay on the foundations of geometry |author=Bertrand Russell |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1897 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NecGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1 |chapter=Introduction}}</ref> It was a conflict between certain knowledge, independent of experiment, and empiricism, requiring experimental input. This issue became clear as it was discovered that the ] was not necessarily valid and its applicability was an empirical matter, deciding whether the applicable geometry was Euclidean or ]. | |||
* ]: Hilbert's axioms had the goal of identifying a ''simple'' and ''complete'' set of ''independent'' axioms from which the most important geometric theorems could be deduced. The outstanding objectives were to make Euclidean geometry rigorous (avoiding hidden assumptions) and to make clear the ramifications of the parallel postulate. | |||
* ]: Birkhoff proposed four postulates for Euclidean geometry that can be confirmed experimentally with scale and protractor. This system relies heavily on the properties of the ].<ref name=Brikhoff>{{cite book |title=Basic Geometry |author1=George David Birkhoff |author2=Ralph Beatley |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TB6xYdomdjQC&pg=PA38 |chapter=Chapter 2: The five fundamental principles |isbn=0-8218-2101-6 |publisher=AMS Bookstore |year=1999 |pages=38 ''ff'' |edition=3rd}}</ref><ref name=Smith2>{{cite book |title=Cited work |author=James T. Smith |pages=84 ''ff'' |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mWpWplOVQ6MC&pg=RA1-PA84 |chapter=Chapter 3: Elementary Euclidean Geometry |date=10 January 2000 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=9780471251835 }}</ref><ref name=Moise>{{cite book |title=Elementary geometry from an advanced standpoint |author=Edwin E. Moise |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3UjvAAAAMAAJ&q=Birkhoff | |||
|isbn=0-201-50867-2 |year=1990 |publisher=Addison–Wesley |edition=3rd}}</ref> The notions of ''angle'' and ''distance'' become primitive concepts.<ref name=Silvester>{{cite book |title=Geometry: ancient and modern |author=John R. Silvester |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VtH_QG6scSUC&pg=PA5 |chapter=§1.4 Hilbert and Birkhoff |isbn=0-19-850825-5 |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2001}}</ref> | |||
* ]: ] (1902–1983) and his students defined ''elementary'' Euclidean geometry as the geometry that can be expressed in ] and does not depend on ] for its logical basis,<ref name=Tarski0>{{cite book |chapter=What is elementary geometry |author=Alfred Tarski |quote=We regard as elementary that part of Euclidean geometry which can be formulated and established without the help of any set-theoretical devices|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eVVKtnKzfnUC&pg=PA16 |page=16 |isbn=978-1-4067-5355-4 |editor1=Leon Henkin |editor2=Patrick Suppes |editor3=Alfred Tarski |publisher=Brouwer Press |year=2007 |title=Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics – The Axiomatic Method with Special Reference to Geometry and Physics |edition=Proceedings of International Symposium at Berkeley 1957–8; Reprint}}</ref> in contrast to Hilbert's axioms, which involve point sets.<ref name=Simmons>{{cite book |title=Logic from Russell to Church |editor=Dov M. Gabbay |editor2=John Woods|chapter=Tarski's logic |author=Keith Simmons |page=574 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K5dU9bEKencC&pg=PA574 |isbn=978-0-444-51620-6 |year=2009 |publisher=Elsevier}}</ref> Tarski proved that his axiomatic formulation of elementary Euclidean geometry is consistent and complete in a certain ]: there is an algorithm that, for every proposition, can be shown either true or false.<ref name="Tarski 1951"/> (This does not violate ], because Euclidean geometry cannot describe a sufficient amount of ] for the theorem to apply.<ref>Franzén, Torkel (2005). Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its Use and Abuse. AK Peters. {{ISBN|1-56881-238-8}}. Pp. 25–26.</ref>) This is equivalent to the decidability of ], of which elementary Euclidean geometry is a model. | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
*] | |||
* ] | |||
*] | |||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
===Classical theorems=== | ===Classical theorems=== | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
*] | |||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | |||
== Notes == | == Notes == | ||
{{ |
{{Reflist|35em}} | ||
{{notelist}} | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
*{{cite book | last = Ball | first = W.W. Rouse |
* {{cite book | last = Ball | first = W. W. Rouse | author-link = W. W. Rouse Ball | title = A Short Account of the History of Mathematics | url = https://archive.org/details/shortaccountofhi0000ball/page/50 | edition = 4th ed. | year = 1960 | publisher = Dover Publications | location = New York | isbn = 0-486-20630-0 | pages = }} | ||
*{{cite book | last = Coxeter | first = H.S.M. | |
* {{cite book | last = Coxeter | first = H. S. M. | author-link = H. S. M. Coxeter| title = Introduction to Geometry | year = 1961 | publisher = Wiley | location = New York}} | ||
*{{cite book|first=Howard|last= Eves|title=A Survey of Geometry|publisher=Allyn and Bacon|year=1963}} | * {{cite book|first=Howard|last= Eves|title=A Survey of Geometry (Volume One)|publisher=Allyn and Bacon|year=1963}} | ||
* {{cite book | last = Heath | first = Thomas L. | author-link = T. L. Heath | title = The Thirteen Books of Euclid's Elements | url = https://archive.org/details/thirteenbooksofe00eucl | url-access = registration | edition = 2nd ed. | year = 1956 | publisher = Dover Publications | location = New York }} In 3 vols.: vol. 1 {{ISBN|0-486-60088-2}}, vol. 2 {{ISBN|0-486-60089-0}}, vol. 3 {{ISBN|0-486-60090-4}}. Heath's authoritative translation of Euclid's Elements, plus his extensive historical research and detailed commentary throughout the text. | |||
*{{cite book|first=Torkel|last= Franzén|authorlink=Torkel Franzén|title=Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its Use and Abuse|publisher= AK Peters|year=2005|isbn= 1-56881-238-8}} | |||
* {{cite book|first1=Charles W. |last1=Misner |author1-link=Charles W. Misner |first2=Kip S. |last2=Thorne |author2-link= Kip S. Thorne |first3=John Archibald |last3=Wheeler |author3-link=John Archibald Wheeler |title=] |publisher = W. H. Freeman|year= 1973}} | |||
*{{cite book | last = Heath | first = Thomas L. | authorlink = T. L. Heath | title = The Thirteen Books of Euclid's Elements | format = 3 vols. | edition = 2nd ed. | year = 1956 | publisher = Dover Publications | location = New York | isbn = 0-486-60088-2 (vol. 1), ISBN 0-486-60089-0 (vol. 2), ISBN 0-486-60090-4 (vol. 3) }} Heath's authoritative translation of Euclid's Elements plus his extensive historical research and detailed commentary throughout the text. | |||
* {{cite book|author=Mlodinow|title=Euclid's Window|url=https://archive.org/details/euclidswindowsto00mlod|url-access=registration|publisher = The Free Press|year= 2001|isbn=9780684865232}} | |||
*{{cite book|first=Douglas R.|last=Hofstadter|authorlink=Douglas Hofstadter|title=Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid|location= New York|publisher= Basic Books|year= 1979}} | |||
*{{cite book| |
* {{cite book|author1=Nagel, E. |author2=Newman, J. R.|title=Gödel's Proof|url=https://archive.org/details/gdelsproof00nage |publisher = New York University Press|year= 1958}} | ||
* {{cite book|first1=Alfred |last1=Tarski |author-link=Alfred Tarski |year=1951 |title=A Decision Method for Elementary Algebra and Geometry |publisher=Univ. of California Press}} | |||
*{{cite book|author=Mlodinow|title=Euclid's Window|publisher = The Free Press|year= 2001}} | |||
* {{Cite journal|last=Stillwell|first=John|date=January 2001|title=The Story of the 120-Cell|url=https://www.ams.org/notices/200101/fea-stillwell.pdf|journal=Notices of the AMS|volume=48|issue=1|pages=17–25}} | |||
*{{cite book|author=Nagel, E. and Newman, J.R.|title=Gödel's Proof|publisher = New York University Press|year= 1958}} | |||
* {{Cite journal|last1=Perez-Gracia|first1=Alba|last2=Thomas|first2=Federico|date=2017|title=On Cayley's Factorization of 4D Rotations and Applications|url=https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/113067/1749-ON-CAYLEYS-FACTORIZATION-OF-4D-ROTATIONS-AND-APPLICATIONS.pdf|journal=Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebras|volume=27|pages=523–538|doi=10.1007/s00006-016-0683-9|hdl=2117/113067|s2cid=12350382|hdl-access=free}} | |||
*] (1951) ''A Decision Method for Elementary Algebra and Geometry''. Univ. of California Press. | |||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
{{Commons category}} | |||
* (a treatment using analytic geometry; PDF format, GFDL licensed) | |||
* {{springer|title=Euclidean geometry|id=p/e036350}} | |||
* {{springer|title=Plane trigonometry|id=p/p072810}} | |||
* {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111026045325/http://www-math.mit.edu/~kedlaya/geometryunbound/ |date=2011-10-26 }} (a treatment using analytic geometry; PDF format, GFDL licensed) | |||
{{Ancient Greek mathematics}} | |||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Euclidean Geometry}} | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
{{ |
{{Authority control}} | ||
{{Areas of mathematics}} | |||
{{Geometry-footer}} | |||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Euclidean Geometry}} | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 22:05, 21 December 2024
Mathematical model of the physical space "Plane geometry" redirects here. For other uses, see Plane geometry (disambiguation).Geometry | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Projecting a sphere to a plane | ||||||||||
Branches | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Zero-dimensional | ||||||||||
One-dimensional | ||||||||||
Two-dimensional
|
||||||||||
Three-dimensional | ||||||||||
Four- / other-dimensional | ||||||||||
Geometers | ||||||||||
by name
|
||||||||||
by period
|
||||||||||
Euclidean geometry is a mathematical system attributed to ancient Greek mathematician Euclid, which he described in his textbook on geometry, Elements. Euclid's approach consists in assuming a small set of intuitively appealing axioms (postulates) and deducing many other propositions (theorems) from these. Although many of Euclid's results had been stated earlier, Euclid was the first to organize these propositions into a logical system in which each result is proved from axioms and previously proved theorems.
The Elements begins with plane geometry, still taught in secondary school (high school) as the first axiomatic system and the first examples of mathematical proofs. It goes on to the solid geometry of three dimensions. Much of the Elements states results of what are now called algebra and number theory, explained in geometrical language.
For more than two thousand years, the adjective "Euclidean" was unnecessary because Euclid's axioms seemed so intuitively obvious (with the possible exception of the parallel postulate) that theorems proved from them were deemed absolutely true, and thus no other sorts of geometry were possible. Today, however, many other self-consistent non-Euclidean geometries are known, the first ones having been discovered in the early 19th century. An implication of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity is that physical space itself is not Euclidean, and Euclidean space is a good approximation for it only over short distances (relative to the strength of the gravitational field).
Euclidean geometry is an example of synthetic geometry, in that it proceeds logically from axioms describing basic properties of geometric objects such as points and lines, to propositions about those objects. This is in contrast to analytic geometry, introduced almost 2,000 years later by René Descartes, which uses coordinates to express geometric properties by means of algebraic formulas.
The Elements
Main article: Euclid's ElementsThe Elements is mainly a systematization of earlier knowledge of geometry. Its improvement over earlier treatments was rapidly recognized, with the result that there was little interest in preserving the earlier ones, and they are now nearly all lost.
There are 13 books in the Elements:
Books I–IV and VI discuss plane geometry. Many results about plane figures are proved, for example, "In any triangle, two angles taken together in any manner are less than two right angles." (Book I proposition 17) and the Pythagorean theorem "In right-angled triangles the square on the side subtending the right angle is equal to the squares on the sides containing the right angle." (Book I, proposition 47)
Books V and VII–X deal with number theory, with numbers treated geometrically as lengths of line segments or areas of surface regions. Notions such as prime numbers and rational and irrational numbers are introduced. It is proved that there are infinitely many prime numbers.
Books XI–XIII concern solid geometry. A typical result is the 1:3 ratio between the volume of a cone and a cylinder with the same height and base. The platonic solids are constructed.
Axioms
Euclidean geometry is an axiomatic system, in which all theorems ("true statements") are derived from a small number of simple axioms. Until the advent of non-Euclidean geometry, these axioms were considered to be obviously true in the physical world, so that all the theorems would be equally true. However, Euclid's reasoning from assumptions to conclusions remains valid independently from the physical reality.
Near the beginning of the first book of the Elements, Euclid gives five postulates (axioms) for plane geometry, stated in terms of constructions (as translated by Thomas Heath):
- Let the following be postulated:
- To draw a straight line from any point to any point.
- To produce (extend) a finite straight line continuously in a straight line.
- To describe a circle with any centre and distance (radius).
- That all right angles are equal to one another.
- : That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles are less than two right angles.
Although Euclid explicitly only asserts the existence of the constructed objects, in his reasoning he also implicitly assumes them to be unique.
The Elements also include the following five "common notions":
- Things that are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another (the transitive property of a Euclidean relation).
- If equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal (Addition property of equality).
- If equals are subtracted from equals, then the differences are equal (subtraction property of equality).
- Things that coincide with one another are equal to one another (reflexive property).
- The whole is greater than the part.
Modern scholars agree that Euclid's postulates do not provide the complete logical foundation that Euclid required for his presentation. Modern treatments use more extensive and complete sets of axioms.
Parallel postulate
Main article: Parallel postulateTo the ancients, the parallel postulate seemed less obvious than the others. They aspired to create a system of absolutely certain propositions, and to them, it seemed as if the parallel line postulate required proof from simpler statements. It is now known that such a proof is impossible since one can construct consistent systems of geometry (obeying the other axioms) in which the parallel postulate is true, and others in which it is false. Euclid himself seems to have considered it as being qualitatively different from the others, as evidenced by the organization of the Elements: his first 28 propositions are those that can be proved without it.
Many alternative axioms can be formulated which are logically equivalent to the parallel postulate (in the context of the other axioms). For example, Playfair's axiom states:
- In a plane, through a point not on a given straight line, at most one line can be drawn that never meets the given line.
The "at most" clause is all that is needed since it can be proved from the remaining axioms that at least one parallel line exists.
Methods of proof
Euclidean Geometry is constructive. Postulates 1, 2, 3, and 5 assert the existence and uniqueness of certain geometric figures, and these assertions are of a constructive nature: that is, we are not only told that certain things exist, but are also given methods for creating them with no more than a compass and an unmarked straightedge. In this sense, Euclidean geometry is more concrete than many modern axiomatic systems such as set theory, which often assert the existence of objects without saying how to construct them, or even assert the existence of objects that cannot be constructed within the theory. Strictly speaking, the lines on paper are models of the objects defined within the formal system, rather than instances of those objects. For example, a Euclidean straight line has no width, but any real drawn line will have. Though nearly all modern mathematicians consider nonconstructive proofs just as sound as constructive ones, they are often considered less elegant, intuitive, or practically useful. Euclid's constructive proofs often supplanted fallacious nonconstructive ones, e.g. some Pythagorean proofs that assumed all numbers are rational, usually requiring a statement such as "Find the greatest common measure of ..."
Euclid often used proof by contradiction.
Notation and terminology
Naming of points and figures
Points are customarily named using capital letters of the alphabet. Other figures, such as lines, triangles, or circles, are named by listing a sufficient number of points to pick them out unambiguously from the relevant figure, e.g., triangle ABC would typically be a triangle with vertices at points A, B, and C.
Complementary and supplementary angles
Angles whose sum is a right angle are called complementary. Complementary angles are formed when a ray shares the same vertex and is pointed in a direction that is in between the two original rays that form the right angle. The number of rays in between the two original rays is infinite.
Angles whose sum is a straight angle are supplementary. Supplementary angles are formed when a ray shares the same vertex and is pointed in a direction that is in between the two original rays that form the straight angle (180 degree angle). The number of rays in between the two original rays is infinite.
Modern versions of Euclid's notation
In modern terminology, angles would normally be measured in degrees or radians.
Modern school textbooks often define separate figures called lines (infinite), rays (semi-infinite), and line segments (of finite length). Euclid, rather than discussing a ray as an object that extends to infinity in one direction, would normally use locutions such as "if the line is extended to a sufficient length", although he occasionally referred to "infinite lines". A "line" for Euclid could be either straight or curved, and he used the more specific term "straight line" when necessary.
Some important or well known results
- The pons asinorum or bridge of asses theorem states that in an isosceles triangle, α = β and γ = δ.
- The triangle angle sum theorem states that the sum of the three angles of any triangle, in this case angles α, β, and γ, will always equal 180 degrees.
- The Pythagorean theorem states that the sum of the areas of the two squares on the legs (a and b) of a right triangle equals the area of the square on the hypotenuse (c).
- Thales' theorem states that if AC is a diameter, then the angle at B is a right angle.
Pons asinorum
The pons asinorum (bridge of asses) states that in isosceles triangles the angles at the base equal one another, and, if the equal straight lines are produced further, then the angles under the base equal one another. Its name may be attributed to its frequent role as the first real test in the Elements of the intelligence of the reader and as a bridge to the harder propositions that followed. It might also be so named because of the geometrical figure's resemblance to a steep bridge that only a sure-footed donkey could cross.
Congruence of triangles
Triangles are congruent if they have all three sides equal (SSS), two sides and the angle between them equal (SAS), or two angles and a side equal (ASA) (Book I, propositions 4, 8, and 26). Triangles with three equal angles (AAA) are similar, but not necessarily congruent. Also, triangles with two equal sides and an adjacent angle are not necessarily equal or congruent.
Triangle angle sum
The sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to a straight angle (180 degrees). This causes an equilateral triangle to have three interior angles of 60 degrees. Also, it causes every triangle to have at least two acute angles and up to one obtuse or right angle.
Pythagorean theorem
The celebrated Pythagorean theorem (book I, proposition 47) states that in any right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs (the two sides that meet at a right angle).
Thales' theorem
Thales' theorem, named after Thales of Miletus states that if A, B, and C are points on a circle where the line AC is a diameter of the circle, then the angle ABC is a right angle. Cantor supposed that Thales proved his theorem by means of Euclid Book I, Prop. 32 after the manner of Euclid Book III, Prop. 31.
Scaling of area and volume
In modern terminology, the area of a plane figure is proportional to the square of any of its linear dimensions, , and the volume of a solid to the cube, . Euclid proved these results in various special cases such as the area of a circle and the volume of a parallelepipedal solid. Euclid determined some, but not all, of the relevant constants of proportionality. For instance, it was his successor Archimedes who proved that a sphere has 2/3 the volume of the circumscribing cylinder.
System of measurement and arithmetic
Euclidean geometry has two fundamental types of measurements: angle and distance. The angle scale is absolute, and Euclid uses the right angle as his basic unit, so that, for example, a 45-degree angle would be referred to as half of a right angle. The distance scale is relative; one arbitrarily picks a line segment with a certain nonzero length as the unit, and other distances are expressed in relation to it. Addition of distances is represented by a construction in which one line segment is copied onto the end of another line segment to extend its length, and similarly for subtraction.
Measurements of area and volume are derived from distances. For example, a rectangle with a width of 3 and a length of 4 has an area that represents the product, 12. Because this geometrical interpretation of multiplication was limited to three dimensions, there was no direct way of interpreting the product of four or more numbers, and Euclid avoided such products, although they are implied, for example in the proof of book IX, proposition 20.
Euclid refers to a pair of lines, or a pair of planar or solid figures, as "equal" (ἴσος) if their lengths, areas, or volumes are equal respectively, and similarly for angles. The stronger term "congruent" refers to the idea that an entire figure is the same size and shape as another figure. Alternatively, two figures are congruent if one can be moved on top of the other so that it matches up with it exactly. (Flipping it over is allowed.) Thus, for example, a 2x6 rectangle and a 3x4 rectangle are equal but not congruent, and the letter R is congruent to its mirror image. Figures that would be congruent except for their differing sizes are referred to as similar. Corresponding angles in a pair of similar shapes are equal and corresponding sides are in proportion to each other.
In engineering
Design and Analysis
- Stress Analysis: Stress Analysis - Euclidean geometry is pivotal in determining stress distribution in mechanical components, which is essential for ensuring structural integrity and durability.
- Gear Design: Gear - The design of gears, a crucial element in many mechanical systems, relies heavily on Euclidean geometry to ensure proper tooth shape and engagement for efficient power transmission.
- Heat Exchanger Design: Heat exchanger - In thermal engineering, Euclidean geometry is used to design heat exchangers, where the geometric configuration greatly influences thermal efficiency. See shell-and-tube heat exchangers and plate heat exchangers for more details.
- Lens Design: Lens - In optical engineering, Euclidean geometry is critical in the design of lenses, where precise geometric shapes determine the focusing properties. Geometric optics analyzes the focusing of light by lenses and mirrors.
Dynamics
- Vibration Analysis: Vibration - Euclidean geometry is essential in analyzing and understanding the vibrations in mechanical systems, aiding in the design of systems that can withstand or utilize these vibrations effectively.
- Wing Design: Aircraft Wing Design - The application of Euclidean geometry in aerodynamics is evident in aircraft wing design, airfoils, and hydrofoils where geometric shape directly impacts lift and drag characteristics.
- Satellite Orbits: Satellite Orbits - Euclidean geometry helps in calculating and predicting the orbits of satellites, essential for successful space missions and satellite operations. Also see astrodynamics, celestial mechanics, and elliptic orbit.
CAD Systems
- 3D Modeling: In CAD (computer-aided design) systems, Euclidean geometry is fundamental for creating accurate 3D models of mechanical parts. These models are crucial for visualizing and testing designs before manufacturing.
- Design and Manufacturing: Much of CAM (computer-aided manufacturing) relies on Euclidean geometry. The design geometry in CAD/CAM typically consists of shapes bounded by planes, cylinders, cones, tori, and other similar Euclidean forms. Today, CAD/CAM is essential in the design of a wide range of products, from cars and airplanes to ships and smartphones.
- Evolution of Drafting Practices: Historically, advanced Euclidean geometry, including theorems like Pascal's theorem and Brianchon's theorem, was integral to drafting practices. However, with the advent of modern CAD systems, such in-depth knowledge of these theorems is less necessary in contemporary design and manufacturing processes.
Circuit Design
- PCB Layouts: Printed Circuit Board (PCB) Design utilizes Euclidean geometry for the efficient placement and routing of components, ensuring functionality while optimizing space. Efficient layout of electronic components on PCBs is critical for minimizing signal interference and optimizing circuit performance.
Electromagnetic and Fluid Flow Fields
- Antenna Design: Antenna Design - Euclidean geometry of antennas helps in designing antennas, where the spatial arrangement and dimensions directly affect antenna and array performance in transmitting and receiving electromagnetic waves.
- Field Theory: Complex Potential Flow - In the study of inviscid flow fields and electromagnetic fields, Euclidean geometry aids in visualizing and solving potential flow problems. This is essential for understanding fluid velocity field and electromagnetic field interactions in three-dimensional space. The relationship of which is characterized by an irrotational solenoidal field or a conservative vector field.
Controls
- Control System Analysis: Control Systems - The application of Euclidean geometry in control theory helps in the analysis and design of control systems, particularly in understanding and optimizing system stability and response.
- Calculation Tools: Jacobian - Euclidean geometry is integral in using Jacobian matrices for transformations and control systems in both mechanical and electrical engineering fields, providing insights into system behavior and properties. The Jacobian serves as a linearized design matrix in statistical regression and curve fitting; see non-linear least squares. The Jacobian is also used in random matrices, moment, statistics, and diagnostics.
Other general applications
Because of Euclidean geometry's fundamental status in mathematics, it is impractical to give more than a representative sampling of applications here.
- A surveyor uses a level
- Sphere packing applies to a stack of oranges.
- A parabolic mirror brings parallel rays of light to a focus.
As suggested by the etymology of the word, one of the earliest reasons for interest in and also one of the most common current uses of geometry is surveying. In addition it has been used in classical mechanics and the cognitive and computational approaches to visual perception of objects. Certain practical results from Euclidean geometry (such as the right-angle property of the 3-4-5 triangle) were used long before they were proved formally. The fundamental types of measurements in Euclidean geometry are distances and angles, both of which can be measured directly by a surveyor. Historically, distances were often measured by chains, such as Gunter's chain, and angles using graduated circles and, later, the theodolite.
An application of Euclidean solid geometry is the determination of packing arrangements, such as the problem of finding the most efficient packing of spheres in n dimensions. This problem has applications in error detection and correction.
- Geometry is used in art and architecture.
- The water tower consists of a cone, a cylinder, and a hemisphere. Its volume can be calculated using solid geometry.
- Geometry can be used to design origami.
Geometry is used extensively in architecture.
Geometry can be used to design origami. Some classical construction problems of geometry are impossible using compass and straightedge, but can be solved using origami.
Later history
See also: History of geometry and Non-Euclidean geometry § HistoryArchimedes and Apollonius
Archimedes (c. 287 BCE – c. 212 BCE), a colorful figure about whom many historical anecdotes are recorded, is remembered along with Euclid as one of the greatest of ancient mathematicians. Although the foundations of his work were put in place by Euclid, his work, unlike Euclid's, is believed to have been entirely original. He proved equations for the volumes and areas of various figures in two and three dimensions, and enunciated the Archimedean property of finite numbers.
Apollonius of Perga (c. 240 BCE – c. 190 BCE) is mainly known for his investigation of conic sections.
17th century: Descartes
René Descartes (1596–1650) developed analytic geometry, an alternative method for formalizing geometry which focused on turning geometry into algebra.
In this approach, a point on a plane is represented by its Cartesian (x, y) coordinates, a line is represented by its equation, and so on.
In Euclid's original approach, the Pythagorean theorem follows from Euclid's axioms. In the Cartesian approach, the axioms are the axioms of algebra, and the equation expressing the Pythagorean theorem is then a definition of one of the terms in Euclid's axioms, which are now considered theorems.
The equation
defining the distance between two points P = (px, py) and Q = (qx, qy) is then known as the Euclidean metric, and other metrics define non-Euclidean geometries.
In terms of analytic geometry, the restriction of classical geometry to compass and straightedge constructions means a restriction to first- and second-order equations, e.g., y = 2x + 1 (a line), or x + y = 7 (a circle).
Also in the 17th century, Girard Desargues, motivated by the theory of perspective, introduced the concept of idealized points, lines, and planes at infinity. The result can be considered as a type of generalized geometry, projective geometry, but it can also be used to produce proofs in ordinary Euclidean geometry in which the number of special cases is reduced.
18th century
Geometers of the 18th century struggled to define the boundaries of the Euclidean system. Many tried in vain to prove the fifth postulate from the first four. By 1763, at least 28 different proofs had been published, but all were found incorrect.
Leading up to this period, geometers also tried to determine what constructions could be accomplished in Euclidean geometry. For example, the problem of trisecting an angle with a compass and straightedge is one that naturally occurs within the theory, since the axioms refer to constructive operations that can be carried out with those tools. However, centuries of efforts failed to find a solution to this problem, until Pierre Wantzel published a proof in 1837 that such a construction was impossible. Other constructions that were proved impossible include doubling the cube and squaring the circle. In the case of doubling the cube, the impossibility of the construction originates from the fact that the compass and straightedge method involve equations whose order is an integral power of two, while doubling a cube requires the solution of a third-order equation.
Euler discussed a generalization of Euclidean geometry called affine geometry, which retains the fifth postulate unmodified while weakening postulates three and four in a way that eliminates the notions of angle (whence right triangles become meaningless) and of equality of length of line segments in general (whence circles become meaningless) while retaining the notions of parallelism as an equivalence relation between lines, and equality of length of parallel line segments (so line segments continue to have a midpoint).
19th century
In the early 19th century, Carnot and Möbius systematically developed the use of signed angles and line segments as a way of simplifying and unifying results.
Higher dimensions
In the 1840s William Rowan Hamilton developed the quaternions, and John T. Graves and Arthur Cayley the octonions. These are normed algebras which extend the complex numbers. Later it was understood that the quaternions are also a Euclidean geometric system with four real Cartesian coordinates. Cayley used quaternions to study rotations in 4-dimensional Euclidean space.
At mid-century Ludwig Schläfli developed the general concept of Euclidean space, extending Euclidean geometry to higher dimensions. He defined polyschemes, later called polytopes, which are the higher-dimensional analogues of polygons and polyhedra. He developed their theory and discovered all the regular polytopes, i.e. the -dimensional analogues of regular polygons and Platonic solids. He found there are six regular convex polytopes in dimension four, and three in all higher dimensions.
Regular convex 4-polytopes | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Symmetry group | A4 | B4 | F4 | H4 | |||
Name | 5-cell Hyper-tetrahedron |
16-cell Hyper-octahedron |
8-cell Hyper-cube |
24-cell
|
600-cell Hyper-icosahedron |
120-cell Hyper-dodecahedron | |
Schläfli symbol | {3, 3, 3} | {3, 3, 4} | {4, 3, 3} | {3, 4, 3} | {3, 3, 5} | {5, 3, 3} | |
Coxeter mirrors | |||||||
Mirror dihedrals | 𝝅/3 𝝅/3 𝝅/3 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 | 𝝅/3 𝝅/3 𝝅/4 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 | 𝝅/4 𝝅/3 𝝅/3 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 | 𝝅/3 𝝅/4 𝝅/3 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 | 𝝅/3 𝝅/3 𝝅/5 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 | 𝝅/5 𝝅/3 𝝅/3 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 | |
Graph | |||||||
Vertices | 5 tetrahedral | 8 octahedral | 16 tetrahedral | 24 cubical | 120 icosahedral | 600 tetrahedral | |
Edges | 10 triangular | 24 square | 32 triangular | 96 triangular | 720 pentagonal | 1200 triangular | |
Faces | 10 triangles | 32 triangles | 24 squares | 96 triangles | 1200 triangles | 720 pentagons | |
Cells | 5 tetrahedra | 16 tetrahedra | 8 cubes | 24 octahedra | 600 tetrahedra | 120 dodecahedra | |
Tori | 1 5-tetrahedron | 2 8-tetrahedron | 2 4-cube | 4 6-octahedron | 20 30-tetrahedron | 12 10-dodecahedron | |
Inscribed | 120 in 120-cell | 675 in 120-cell | 2 16-cells | 3 8-cells | 25 24-cells | 10 600-cells | |
Great polygons | 2 squares x 3 | 4 rectangles x 4 | 4 hexagons x 4 | 12 decagons x 6 | 100 irregular hexagons x 4 | ||
Petrie polygons | 1 pentagon x 2 | 1 octagon x 3 | 2 octagons x 4 | 2 dodecagons x 4 | 4 30-gons x 6 | 20 30-gons x 4 | |
Long radius | |||||||
Edge length | |||||||
Short radius | |||||||
Area | |||||||
Volume | |||||||
4-Content |
Schläfli performed this work in relative obscurity and it was published in full only posthumously in 1901. It had little influence until it was rediscovered and fully documented in 1948 by H.S.M. Coxeter.
In 1878 William Kingdon Clifford introduced what is now termed geometric algebra, unifying Hamilton's quaternions with Hermann Grassmann's algebra and revealing the geometric nature of these systems, especially in four dimensions. The operations of geometric algebra have the effect of mirroring, rotating, translating, and mapping the geometric objects that are being modeled to new positions. The Clifford torus on the surface of the 3-sphere is the simplest and most symmetric flat embedding of the Cartesian product of two circles (in the same sense that the surface of a cylinder is "flat").
Non-Euclidean geometry
Main article: Non-Euclidean geometryThe century's most influential development in geometry occurred when, around 1830, János Bolyai and Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky separately published work on non-Euclidean geometry, in which the parallel postulate is not valid. Since non-Euclidean geometry is provably relatively consistent with Euclidean geometry, the parallel postulate cannot be proved from the other postulates.
In the 19th century, it was also realized that Euclid's ten axioms and common notions do not suffice to prove all of the theorems stated in the Elements. For example, Euclid assumed implicitly that any line contains at least two points, but this assumption cannot be proved from the other axioms, and therefore must be an axiom itself. The very first geometric proof in the Elements, shown in the figure above, is that any line segment is part of a triangle; Euclid constructs this in the usual way, by drawing circles around both endpoints and taking their intersection as the third vertex. His axioms, however, do not guarantee that the circles actually intersect, because they do not assert the geometrical property of continuity, which in Cartesian terms is equivalent to the completeness property of the real numbers. Starting with Moritz Pasch in 1882, many improved axiomatic systems for geometry have been proposed, the best known being those of Hilbert, George Birkhoff, and Tarski.
20th century and relativity
Einstein's theory of special relativity involves a four-dimensional space-time, the Minkowski space, which is non-Euclidean. This shows that non-Euclidean geometries, which had been introduced a few years earlier for showing that the parallel postulate cannot be proved, are also useful for describing the physical world.
However, the three-dimensional "space part" of the Minkowski space remains the space of Euclidean geometry. This is not the case with general relativity, for which the geometry of the space part of space-time is not Euclidean geometry. For example, if a triangle is constructed out of three rays of light, then in general the interior angles do not add up to 180 degrees due to gravity. A relatively weak gravitational field, such as the Earth's or the Sun's, is represented by a metric that is approximately, but not exactly, Euclidean. Until the 20th century, there was no technology capable of detecting these deviations in rays of light from Euclidean geometry, but Einstein predicted that such deviations would exist. They were later verified by observations such as the slight bending of starlight by the Sun during a solar eclipse in 1919, and such considerations are now an integral part of the software that runs the GPS system.
As a description of the structure of space
Euclid believed that his axioms were self-evident statements about physical reality. Euclid's proofs depend upon assumptions perhaps not obvious in Euclid's fundamental axioms, in particular that certain movements of figures do not change their geometrical properties such as the lengths of sides and interior angles, the so-called Euclidean motions, which include translations, reflections and rotations of figures. Taken as a physical description of space, postulate 2 (extending a line) asserts that space does not have holes or boundaries; postulate 4 (equality of right angles) says that space is isotropic and figures may be moved to any location while maintaining congruence; and postulate 5 (the parallel postulate) that space is flat (has no intrinsic curvature).
As discussed above, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity significantly modifies this view.
The ambiguous character of the axioms as originally formulated by Euclid makes it possible for different commentators to disagree about some of their other implications for the structure of space, such as whether or not it is infinite (see below) and what its topology is. Modern, more rigorous reformulations of the system typically aim for a cleaner separation of these issues. Interpreting Euclid's axioms in the spirit of this more modern approach, axioms 1–4 are consistent with either infinite or finite space (as in elliptic geometry), and all five axioms are consistent with a variety of topologies (e.g., a plane, a cylinder, or a torus for two-dimensional Euclidean geometry).
Treatment of infinity
Infinite objects
Euclid sometimes distinguished explicitly between "finite lines" (e.g., Postulate 2) and "infinite lines" (book I, proposition 12). However, he typically did not make such distinctions unless they were necessary. The postulates do not explicitly refer to infinite lines, although for example some commentators interpret postulate 3, existence of a circle with any radius, as implying that space is infinite.
The notion of infinitesimal quantities had previously been discussed extensively by the Eleatic School, but nobody had been able to put them on a firm logical basis, with paradoxes such as Zeno's paradox occurring that had not been resolved to universal satisfaction. Euclid used the method of exhaustion rather than infinitesimals.
Later ancient commentators, such as Proclus (410–485 CE), treated many questions about infinity as issues demanding proof and, e.g., Proclus claimed to prove the infinite divisibility of a line, based on a proof by contradiction in which he considered the cases of even and odd numbers of points constituting it.
At the turn of the 20th century, Otto Stolz, Paul du Bois-Reymond, Giuseppe Veronese, and others produced controversial work on non-Archimedean models of Euclidean geometry, in which the distance between two points may be infinite or infinitesimal, in the Newton–Leibniz sense. Fifty years later, Abraham Robinson provided a rigorous logical foundation for Veronese's work.
Infinite processes
Ancient geometers may have considered the parallel postulate – that two parallel lines do not ever intersect – less certain than the others because it makes a statement about infinitely remote regions of space, and so cannot be physically verified.
The modern formulation of proof by induction was not developed until the 17th century, but some later commentators consider it implicit in some of Euclid's proofs, e.g., the proof of the infinitude of primes.
Supposed paradoxes involving infinite series, such as Zeno's paradox, predated Euclid. Euclid avoided such discussions, giving, for example, the expression for the partial sums of the geometric series in IX.35 without commenting on the possibility of letting the number of terms become infinite.
Logical basis
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2010) |
Classical logic
Euclid frequently used the method of proof by contradiction, and therefore the traditional presentation of Euclidean geometry assumes classical logic, in which every proposition is either true or false, i.e., for any proposition P, the proposition "P or not P" is automatically true.
Modern standards of rigor
Placing Euclidean geometry on a solid axiomatic basis was a preoccupation of mathematicians for centuries. The role of primitive notions, or undefined concepts, was clearly put forward by Alessandro Padoa of the Peano delegation at the 1900 Paris conference:
...when we begin to formulate the theory, we can imagine that the undefined symbols are completely devoid of meaning and that the unproved propositions are simply conditions imposed upon the undefined symbols.
Then, the system of ideas that we have initially chosen is simply one interpretation of the undefined symbols; but..this interpretation can be ignored by the reader, who is free to replace it in his mind by another interpretation.. that satisfies the conditions...
Logical questions thus become completely independent of empirical or psychological questions...
The system of undefined symbols can then be regarded as the abstraction obtained from the specialized theories that result when...the system of undefined symbols is successively replaced by each of the interpretations...
— Padoa, Essai d'une théorie algébrique des nombre entiers, avec une Introduction logique à une théorie déductive quelconque
That is, mathematics is context-independent knowledge within a hierarchical framework. As said by Bertrand Russell:
If our hypothesis is about anything, and not about some one or more particular things, then our deductions constitute mathematics. Thus, mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.
— Bertrand Russell, Mathematics and the metaphysicians
Such foundational approaches range between foundationalism and formalism.
Axiomatic formulations
Geometry is the science of correct reasoning on incorrect figures.
— George Pólya, How to Solve It, p. 208
- Euclid's axioms: In his dissertation to Trinity College, Cambridge, Bertrand Russell summarized the changing role of Euclid's geometry in the minds of philosophers up to that time. It was a conflict between certain knowledge, independent of experiment, and empiricism, requiring experimental input. This issue became clear as it was discovered that the parallel postulate was not necessarily valid and its applicability was an empirical matter, deciding whether the applicable geometry was Euclidean or non-Euclidean.
- Hilbert's axioms: Hilbert's axioms had the goal of identifying a simple and complete set of independent axioms from which the most important geometric theorems could be deduced. The outstanding objectives were to make Euclidean geometry rigorous (avoiding hidden assumptions) and to make clear the ramifications of the parallel postulate.
- Birkhoff's axioms: Birkhoff proposed four postulates for Euclidean geometry that can be confirmed experimentally with scale and protractor. This system relies heavily on the properties of the real numbers. The notions of angle and distance become primitive concepts.
- Tarski's axioms: Alfred Tarski (1902–1983) and his students defined elementary Euclidean geometry as the geometry that can be expressed in first-order logic and does not depend on set theory for its logical basis, in contrast to Hilbert's axioms, which involve point sets. Tarski proved that his axiomatic formulation of elementary Euclidean geometry is consistent and complete in a certain sense: there is an algorithm that, for every proposition, can be shown either true or false. (This does not violate Gödel's theorem, because Euclidean geometry cannot describe a sufficient amount of arithmetic for the theorem to apply.) This is equivalent to the decidability of real closed fields, of which elementary Euclidean geometry is a model.
See also
- Absolute geometry
- Analytic geometry
- Birkhoff's axioms
- Cartesian coordinate system
- Hilbert's axioms
- Incidence geometry
- List of interactive geometry software
- Metric space
- Non-Euclidean geometry
- Ordered geometry
- Parallel postulate
- Type theory
Classical theorems
- Angle bisector theorem
- Butterfly theorem
- Ceva's theorem
- Heron's formula
- Menelaus' theorem
- Nine-point circle
- Pythagorean theorem
Notes
- ^ Eves 1963, p. 19.
- Eves 1963, p. 10.
- Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973), p. 47.
- The assumptions of Euclid are discussed from a modern perspective in Harold E. Wolfe (2007). Introduction to Non-Euclidean Geometry. Mill Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-4067-1852-2.
- tr. Heath, pp. 195–202.
- Venema, Gerard A. (2006), Foundations of Geometry, Prentice-Hall, p. 8, ISBN 978-0-13-143700-5.
- Florence P. Lewis (Jan 1920), "History of the Parallel Postulate", The American Mathematical Monthly, 27 (1), The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 27, No. 1: 16–23, doi:10.2307/2973238, JSTOR 2973238.
- Ball, p. 56.
- Within Euclid's assumptions, it is quite easy to give a formula for area of triangles and squares. However, in a more general context like set theory, it is not as easy to prove that the area of a square is the sum of areas of its pieces, for example. See Lebesgue measure and Banach–Tarski paradox.
- Daniel Shanks (2002). Solved and Unsolved Problems in Number Theory. American Mathematical Society.
- Mancosu, Paolo (1991). "On the Status of Proofs by Contradiction in the Seventeenth Century". Synthese. 88 (1): 15–41. doi:10.1007/BF00540091. JSTOR 20116923.
- Euclid, book I, proposition 5, tr. Heath, p. 251.
- Ignoring the alleged difficulty of Book I, Proposition 5, Sir Thomas L. Heath mentions another interpretation. This rests on the resemblance of the figure's lower straight lines to a steeply inclined bridge that could be crossed by an ass but not by a horse: "But there is another view (as I have learnt lately) which is more complimentary to the ass. It is that, the figure of the proposition being like that of a trestle bridge, with a ramp at each end which is more practicable the flatter the figure is drawn, the bridge is such that, while a horse could not surmount the ramp, an ass could; in other words, the term is meant to refer to the sure-footedness of the ass rather than to any want of intelligence on his part." (in "Excursis II", volume 1 of Heath's translation of The Thirteen Books of the Elements).
- Euclid, book I, proposition 32.
- Heath, p. 135. Extract of page 135.
- Heath, p. 318.
- Euclid, book XII, proposition 2.
- Euclid, book XI, proposition 33.
- Ball, p. 66.
- Ball, p. 5.
- Eves, vol. 1, p. 5; Mlodinow, p. 7.
- Tom Hull. "Origami and Geometric Constructions". Archived from the original on 2019-06-18. Retrieved 2013-12-29.
- Eves, p. 27.
- Ball, pp. 268ff.
- Eves (1963).
- Hofstadter 1979, p. 91.
- Theorem 120, Elements of Abstract Algebra, Allan Clark, Dover, ISBN 0-486-64725-0.
- Eves (1963), p. 64.
- Stillwell 2001, p. 18–21; In four-dimensional Euclidean geometry, a quaternion is simply a (w, x, y, z) Cartesian coordinate. Hamilton did not see them as such when he discovered the quaternions. Schläfli would be the first to consider four-dimensional Euclidean space, publishing his discovery of the regular polyschemes in 1852, but Hamilton would never be influenced by that work, which remained obscure into the 20th century. Hamilton found the quaternions when he realized that a fourth dimension, in some sense, would be necessary in order to model rotations in three-dimensional space. Although he described a quaternion as an ordered four-element multiple of real numbers, the quaternions were for him an extension of the complex numbers, not a Euclidean space of four dimensions.
- Perez-Gracia & Thomas 2017; "It is actually Cayley whom we must thank for the correct development of quaternions as a representation of rotations."
- Ball, p. 485.
- * Howard Eves, 1997 (1958). Foundations and Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics. Dover.
- Birkhoff, G. D., 1932, "A Set of Postulates for Plane Geometry (Based on Scale and Protractors)", Annals of Mathematics 33.
- ^ Tarski (1951).
- Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973), p. 191.
- Rizos, Chris. University of New South Wales. GPS Satellite Signals Archived 2010-06-12 at the Wayback Machine. 1999.
- Richard J. Trudeau (2008). "Euclid's axioms". The Non-Euclidean Revolution. Birkhäuser. pp. 39 ff. ISBN 978-0-8176-4782-7.
- See, for example: Luciano da Fontoura Costa; Roberto Marcondes Cesar (2001). Shape analysis and classification: theory and practice. CRC Press. p. 314. ISBN 0-8493-3493-4. and Helmut Pottmann; Johannes Wallner (2010). Computational Line Geometry. Springer. p. 60. ISBN 978-3-642-04017-7. The group of motions underlie the metric notions of geometry. See Felix Klein (2004). Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint: Geometry (Reprint of 1939 Macmillan Company ed.). Courier Dover. p. 167. ISBN 0-486-43481-8.
- Roger Penrose (2007). The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. Vintage Books. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-679-77631-4.
- ^ Heath, p. 200.
- e.g., Tarski (1951).
- Ball, p. 31.
- Heath, p. 268.
- Giuseppe Veronese, On Non-Archimedean Geometry, 1908. English translation in Real Numbers, Generalizations of the Reals, and Theories of Continua, ed. Philip Ehrlich, Kluwer, 1994.
- Robinson, Abraham (1966). Non-standard analysis.
- Nagel and Newman, 1958, p. 9.
- Cajori (1918), p. 197.
- ^ A detailed discussion can be found in James T. Smith (2000). "Chapter 2: Foundations". Methods of geometry. Wiley. pp. 19 ff. ISBN 0-471-25183-6.
- Société française de philosophie (1900). Revue de métaphysique et de morale, Volume 8. Hachette. p. 592.
- Bertrand Russell (2000). "Mathematics and the metaphysicians". In James Roy Newman (ed.). The world of mathematics. Vol. 3 (Reprint of Simon and Schuster 1956 ed.). Courier Dover Publications. p. 1577. ISBN 0-486-41151-6.
- Bertrand Russell (1897). "Introduction". An essay on the foundations of geometry. Cambridge University Press.
- George David Birkhoff; Ralph Beatley (1999). "Chapter 2: The five fundamental principles". Basic Geometry (3rd ed.). AMS Bookstore. pp. 38 ff. ISBN 0-8218-2101-6.
- James T. Smith (10 January 2000). "Chapter 3: Elementary Euclidean Geometry". Cited work. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 84 ff. ISBN 9780471251835.
- Edwin E. Moise (1990). Elementary geometry from an advanced standpoint (3rd ed.). Addison–Wesley. ISBN 0-201-50867-2.
- John R. Silvester (2001). "§1.4 Hilbert and Birkhoff". Geometry: ancient and modern. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-850825-5.
- Alfred Tarski (2007). "What is elementary geometry". In Leon Henkin; Patrick Suppes; Alfred Tarski (eds.). Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics – The Axiomatic Method with Special Reference to Geometry and Physics (Proceedings of International Symposium at Berkeley 1957–8; Reprint ed.). Brouwer Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-4067-5355-4.
We regard as elementary that part of Euclidean geometry which can be formulated and established without the help of any set-theoretical devices
- Keith Simmons (2009). "Tarski's logic". In Dov M. Gabbay; John Woods (eds.). Logic from Russell to Church. Elsevier. p. 574. ISBN 978-0-444-51620-6.
- Franzén, Torkel (2005). Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its Use and Abuse. AK Peters. ISBN 1-56881-238-8. Pp. 25–26.
References
- Ball, W. W. Rouse (1960). A Short Account of the History of Mathematics (4th ed. ed.). New York: Dover Publications. pp. 50–62. ISBN 0-486-20630-0.
- Coxeter, H. S. M. (1961). Introduction to Geometry. New York: Wiley.
- Eves, Howard (1963). A Survey of Geometry (Volume One). Allyn and Bacon.
- Heath, Thomas L. (1956). The Thirteen Books of Euclid's Elements (2nd ed. ed.). New York: Dover Publications. In 3 vols.: vol. 1 ISBN 0-486-60088-2, vol. 2 ISBN 0-486-60089-0, vol. 3 ISBN 0-486-60090-4. Heath's authoritative translation of Euclid's Elements, plus his extensive historical research and detailed commentary throughout the text.
- Misner, Charles W.; Thorne, Kip S.; Wheeler, John Archibald (1973). Gravitation. W. H. Freeman.
- Mlodinow (2001). Euclid's Window. The Free Press. ISBN 9780684865232.
- Nagel, E.; Newman, J. R. (1958). Gödel's Proof. New York University Press.
- Tarski, Alfred (1951). A Decision Method for Elementary Algebra and Geometry. Univ. of California Press.
- Stillwell, John (January 2001). "The Story of the 120-Cell" (PDF). Notices of the AMS. 48 (1): 17–25.
- Perez-Gracia, Alba; Thomas, Federico (2017). "On Cayley's Factorization of 4D Rotations and Applications" (PDF). Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebras. 27: 523–538. doi:10.1007/s00006-016-0683-9. hdl:2117/113067. S2CID 12350382.
External links
- "Euclidean geometry", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, EMS Press, 2001
- "Plane trigonometry", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, EMS Press, 2001
- Kiran Kedlaya, Geometry Unbound Archived 2011-10-26 at the Wayback Machine (a treatment using analytic geometry; PDF format, GFDL licensed)
Major mathematics areas | |
---|---|
Foundations | |
Algebra | |
Analysis | |
Discrete | |
Geometry | |
Number theory | |
Topology | |
Applied | |
Computational | |
Related topics | |
Geometry | |
---|---|
Euclidean geometry | |
Non-Euclidean geometry | |
Other | |
Lists | |