Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
March 2010
195
Service to Mathematics
Marvin Jay Greenberg Old and New Results in the Foundations of 198
Elementary Plane Euclidean and Non-Euclidean
Geometries
David A. Levin Polyas Theorem on Random Walks 220
Yuval Peres via Polyas Urn
Alexander Borisov A Congruence Problem for Polyhedra 232
Mark Dickinson
Stuart Hastings
Jan Hilmar Euclid Meets Bezout: Intersecting Algebraic 250
Chris Smyth Plane Curves with the Euclidean Algorithm
NOTES
Jun Tanaka A Realization of Measurable Sets as Limit Points 261
Peter F. McLoughlin
Dan McQuillan A Parity Theorem for Drawings of Complete and 267
R. Bruce Richter Complete Bipartite Graphs
n+0.5
Sanjay K. Khattri Three Proofs of the Inequality e < 1 + n1 273
March 2010
EDITOR
Daniel J. Velleman
Amherst College
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
William Adkins Jeffrey Nunemacher
Louisiana State University Ohio Wesleyan University
David Aldous Bruce P. Palka
University of California, Berkeley National Science Foundation
Roger Alperin Joel W. Robbin
San Jose State University University of Wisconsin, Madison
Anne Brown Rachel Roberts
Indiana University South Bend Washington University, St. Louis
Edward B. Burger Judith Roitman
Williams College University of Kansas, Lawrence
Scott Chapman Edward Scheinerman
Sam Houston State University Johns Hopkins University
Ricardo Cortez Abe Shenitzer
Tulane University York University
Joseph W. Dauben Karen E. Smith
City University of New York University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Beverly Diamond Susan G. Staples
College of Charleston Texas Christian University
Gerald A. Edgar John Stillwell
The Ohio State University University of San Francisco
Gerald B. Folland Dennis Stowe
University of Washington, Seattle Idaho State University, Pocatello
Sidney Graham Francis Edward Su
Central Michigan University Harvey Mudd College
Doug Hensley Serge Tabachnikov
Texas A&M University Pennsylvania State University
Roger A. Horn Daniel Ullman
University of Utah George Washington University
Steven Krantz Gerard Venema
Washington University, St. Louis Calvin College
C. Dwight Lahr Douglas B. West
Dartmouth College University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Bo Li
Purdue University
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT
Nancy R. Board
NOTICE TO AUTHORS Proposed problems or solutions should be sent to:
The M ONTHLY publishes articles, as well as notes DOUG HENSLEY, M ONTHLY Problems
and other features, about mathematics and the pro- Department of Mathematics
fession. Its readers span a broad spectrum of math- Texas A&M University
ematical interests, and include professional mathe- 3368 TAMU
maticians as well as students of mathematics at all College Station, TX 77843-3368
collegiate levels. Authors are invited to submit articles
In lieu of duplicate hardcopy, authors may submit
and notes that bring interesting mathematical ideas
pdfs to monthlyproblems@math.tamu.edu.
to a wide audience of M ONTHLY readers.
The M ONTHLYs readers expect a high standard of
exposition; they expect articles to inform, stimulate,
challenge, enlighten, and even entertain. M ONTHLY
articles are meant to be read, enjoyed, and dis- Advertising Correspondence:
cussed, rather than just archived. Articles may be MAA Advertising
expositions of old or new results, historical or bi- 1529 Eighteenth St. NW
ographical essays, speculations or definitive treat- Washington DC 20036
ments, broad developments, or explorations of a sin-
gle application. Novelty and generality are far less im- Phone: (866) 821-1221
portant than clarity of exposition and broad appeal. Fax: (866) 387-1208
Appropriate figures, diagrams, and photographs are E-mail: advertising@maa.org
encouraged.
Further advertising information can be found online
Notes are short, sharply focused, and possibly infor- at www.maa.org
mal. They are often gems that provide a new proof
of an old theorem, a novel presentation of a familiar Change of address, missing issue inquiries, and
theme, or a lively discussion of a single issue. other subscription correspondence:
MAA Service Center, maahq@maa.org
Articles and notes should be sent to the Editor:
DANIEL J. VELLEMAN All at the address:
American Mathematical Monthly The Mathematical Association of America
Amherst College 1529 Eighteenth Street, N.W.
P. O. Box 5000 Washington, DC 20036
Amherst, MA 01002-5000
mathmonthly@amherst.edu
Recent copies of the M ONTHLY are available for pur-
For an initial submission, please send a pdf file as chase through the MAA Service Center.
an email attachment to: mathmonthly@amherst.edu. maahq@maa.org, 1-800-331-1622
(Pdf is the only electronic file format we accept.)
Please put Submission to the Monthly in the sub- Microfilm Editions: University Microfilms Interna-
ject line, and include the title of the paper and tional, Serial Bid coordinator, 300 North Zeeb Road,
the name and postal address of the corresponding Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
author in the body of your email. If submitting more
than one paper, send each in a separate email. In The AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL MONTHLY (ISSN
lieu of a pdf, an author may submit a single paper 0002-9890) is published monthly except bimonthly
copy of the manuscript, printed on only one side of June-July and August-September by the Mathemati-
the paper. Manuscript pages should be numbered, cal Association of America at 1529 Eighteenth Street,
and left and right margins should be at least one N.W., Washington, DC 20036 and Hanover, PA,
inch wide. Authors who use LATEX are urged to use and copyrighted by the Mathematical Association
article.sty, or a similar generic style, and its stan- of America (Incorporated), 2010, including rights to
dard environments with no custom formatting. See this journal issue as a whole and, except where
recent articles in the M ONTHLY for the style of ci- otherwise noted, rights to each individual contribu-
tations for journal articles and books. Follow the tion. Permission to make copies of individual ar-
link to Electronic Publication Information for authors ticles, in paper or electronic form, including post-
at http://www.maa.org/pubs/monthly.html for informa- ing on personal and class web pages, for educa-
tion about figures and files as well as general editorial tional and scientific use is granted without fee pro-
guidelines. vided that copies are not made or distributed for
profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear
Letters to the Editor on any topic are invited. Com- the following copyright notice: [Copyright the Math-
ments, criticisms, and suggestions for making the ematical Association of America 2010. All rights re-
M ONTHLY more lively, entertaining, and informative served.] Abstracting, with credit, is permitted. To copy
are welcome. otherwise, or to republish, requires specific permis-
The online M ONTHLY archive at www.jstor.org is a sion of the MAAs Director of Publications and pos-
valuable resource for both authors and readers; it sibly a fee. Periodicals postage paid at Washing-
may be searched online in a variety of ways for any ton, DC, and additional mailing offices. Postmaster :
specified keyword(s). MAA members whose institu- Send address changes to the American Mathemat-
tions do not provide JSTOR access may obtain indi- ical Monthly, Membership/Subscription Department,
vidual access for a modest annual fee; call 800-331- MAA, 1529 Eighteenth Street, N.W., Washington,
1622. DC, 20036-1385.
See the M ONTHLY section of MAA Online for current
information such as contents of issues and descrip-
tive summaries of forthcoming articles:
http://www.maa.org/
Yueh-Gin Gung and Dr. Charles Y. Hu
Award for 2010 to Kenneth A. Ross for
Distinguished Service to Mathematics
Barbara Faires
Ken Ross has made many contributions to mathematics over a long career. From 1971
to 1980 he served the American Mathematical Society (AMS) as Associate Secretary
for the Western Section, and in 1983 he was elected Secretary of the Mathematical
Association of America (MAA). When the responsibilities of the MAA Secretary were
split in 1989, he became the MAAs first Associate Secretary and continued to be
responsible for the MAA presence in the national joint AMS-MAA meetings. He had
long been involved with meetings; during his appointment at the AMS he was in charge
of AMS regional meetings as well as any national meetings held in a Western city. In
these assignments for the AMS and the MAA he traveled extensively to check out
possible meeting sites. At the time of the meetings Ken was everywhere at once to
ensure that everything was going smoothly. Of course, as MAA Secretary he was also
responsible for keeping track of all the committees, preparing materials for Executive
Committee and Board of Governors meetings, and generally keeping the business of
the Association on track. In these various roles he showed great talent for working well
with people, quietly making sure that everything got done. And, at least on the outside,
he always appeared calm and in control.
In 1993 Ken was elected MAA President and successfully led the MAA during a
particularly challenging time due to financial problems. Following his term as Presi-
dent, he went on to chair the Response Group on the NCTM Standards, a potentially
doi:10.4169/000298910X480054
196
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
This article was initially written by Jerry Alexanderson with editing contributed by
the Committee on the Gung and Hu Award: Dan Maki, Carl Pomerance, Jerry Porter,
Chris Stevens, and Ann Watkins.
About the Gung-Hu Award. The Yueh-Gin Gung and Dr. Charles Y. Hu Award for
Distinguished Service to Mathematics is intended to be the most prestigious award for
service made by the Association. This award (first given in 1990) is the successor to the
Award for Distinguished Service in Mathematics (first given in 1962). It has been made
possible by the late Dr. Hu and his wife, Yueh-Gin Gung. It is worth noting that Dr. Hu
and Yueh-Gin Gung were not mathematicians, but rather a professor of geography at
the University of Maryland and a librarian at the University of Chicago, respectively.
They contributed to the MAA because, as they wrote, We always have high regard
and great respect for the intellectual agility and high quality of mind of mathematicians
and consider mathematics as the most vital field of study in the technological age we
are living in.
1. AXIOMATIC DEVELOPMENT
1.0. Viewpoint. Euclids Elements was the first axiomatic presentation of mathemat-
ics, based on his five postulates plus his common notions. It wasnt until the end of
the nineteenth century that rigorous revisions of Euclids axiomatics were presented,
filling in the many gaps in his definitions and proofs. The revision with the great-
est influence was that by David Hilbert starting in 1899, which will be discussed
below. Hilbert not only made Euclids geometry rigorous, he investigated the min-
imal assumptions needed to prove Euclids results, he showed the independence of
some of his own axioms from the others, he presented unusual models to show certain
statements unprovable from others, and in subsequent editions he explored in his ap-
pendices many other interesting topics, including his foundation for plane hyperbolic
geometry without bringing in real numbers. Thus his work was mainly metamathemat-
ical, not geometry for its own sake.
The disengagement of elementary geometry from the system of real numbers was
an important accomplishment by Hilbert and the researchers who succeeded him [20,
Appendix B]. The view here is that elementary Euclidean geometry is a much more
ancient and simpler subject than the axiomatic theory of real numbers, that the discov-
ery of the independence of the continuum hypothesis and the different versions of real
numbers in the literature (e.g., Herman Weyls predicative version, Errett Bishops
constructive version) make real numbers somewhat controversial, so we should not
base foundations of elementary geometry on them. Also, it is unaesthetic in mathe-
matics to use tools in proofs that are not really needed. In his eloquent historical essay
[24], Robin Hartshorne explains how the true essence of geometry can develop most
naturally and economically without real numbers.1
Plane Euclidean geometry without bringing in real numbers is in the spirit of the
first four volumes of Euclid. Euclids Book V, attributed to Eudoxus, establishes a
doi:10.4169/000298910X480063
1 Hartshornes essay [24] elaborates on our viewpoint and is particularly recommended to those who were
taught that real numbers precede elementary geometry, as in the ruler and protractor postulates of [32].
198
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
theory of proportions that can handle any quantities, whether rational or irrational,
that may occur in Euclids geometry. Some authors assert that Eudoxus treatment
led to Dedekinds definition of real numbers via cuts (see Moise [32, 20.7], who
claimed they should be called Eudoxian cuts). Eudoxus theory is applied by Euclid
in Book VI to develop his theory of similar triangles. However, Hilbert showed that
the theory of similar triangles can actually be fully developed in the plane without
introducing real numbers and without even introducing Archimedes axiom [28, 14
16 and Supplement II]. His method was simplified by B. Levi and G. Vailati [10,
Artikel 7, 19, p. 240], cleverly using an elementary result about cyclic quadrilaterals
(quadrilaterals which have a circumscribed circle), thereby avoiding Hilberts long
excursion into the ramifications of the Pappus and Desargues theorems (of course that
excursion is of interest in its own right). See Hartshorne [23, Proposition 5.8 and 20]
for that elegant development.
Why did Hilbert bother to circumvent the use of real numbers? The answer can be
gleaned from the concluding sentences of his Grundlagen der Geometrie (Foundations
of Geometry, [28, p. 107]), where he emphasized the purity of methods of proof.2
He wrote that the present geometric investigation seeks to uncover which axioms,
hypotheses or aids are necessary for the proof of a fact in elementary geometry . . .
In this survey, we further pursue that investigation of what is necessary in elementary
geometry.
We next review Hilbert-type axioms for elementary plane Euclidean geometry
because they are of great interest in themselves, but also because we want to exhibit a
standard set of axioms for geometry that we can use as a reference point when inves-
tigating other axioms. Our succinct summaries of results are intended to whet readers
interest in exploring the references provided.
1.1. Hilbert-type Axioms for Elementary Plane Geometry Without Real Num-
bers. The first edition of David Hilberts Grundlagen der Geometrie, published in
1899, is referred to as his Festschrift because it was written for a celebration in mem-
ory of C. F. Gauss and W. Weber. It had six more German editions during his lifetime
and seven more after his death (the fourteenth being the centenary in 1999), with many
changes, appendices, supplements, and footnotes added by him, Paul Bernays, and oth-
ers (see the Unger translation [28] of the tenth German edition for the best rendition
in English, and see [22] for the genesis of Hilberts work in foundations of geome-
try). Hilbert provided axioms for three-dimensional Euclidean geometry, repairing the
many gaps in Euclid, particularly the missing axioms for betweenness, which were
first presented in 1882 by Moritz Pasch. Appendix III in later editions was Hilberts
1903 axiomatization of plane hyperbolic (Bolyai-Lobachevskian) geometry. Hilberts
plane hyperbolic geometry will be discussed in Section 1.6.
Hilbert divided his axioms into five groups entitled Incidence, Betweenness (or Or-
der), Congruence, Continuity, and a Parallelism axiom. In the current formulation, for
the first three groups and only for the plane, there are three incidence axioms, four be-
tweenness axioms, and six congruence axiomsthirteen in all (see [20, pp. 597601]
for the statements of all of them, slightly modified from Hilberts original).
The primitive (undefined) terms are point, line, incidence (point lying on a line),
betweenness (relation for three points), and congruence. From these, the other standard
geometric terms are then defined (such as circle, segment, triangle, angle, right angle,
2 For an extended discussion of purity of methods of proof in the Grundlagen der Geometrie, as well as
elsewhere in mathematics, see [21] and [7]. For the history of the Grundlagen and its influence on subsequent
mathematics up to 1987, see [2].
200
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
enough to also include elliptic geometry and moresee Ewald [12] for a presentation
in English.)
For the foundation of Euclidean plane geometry, Hilbert included the following
axiom of parallels (John Playfairs axiom from 1795, usually misstated to include ex-
istence of the parallel and stated many centuries earlier by Proclus [39, p. 291]):
Hilberts Euclidean Axiom of Parallels. For every line l and every point P not on l,
there does not exist more than one line through P parallel to l.
It is easily proved that for Hilbert planes, this axiom, the fourteenth on our list,
is equivalent to Euclids fifth postulate [20, Theorem 4.4]. I propose to call models
of those fourteen axioms Pythagorean planes, for the following reasons: it has been
proved that those models are isomorphic to Cartesian planes F 2coordinatized by ar-
bitrary ordered Pythagorean fieldsordered fields F such that a 2 + b2 F for all
a, b F [23, Theorem 21.1]. In particular, 2 F, and by induction, n F for
all positive integers n. The field F associated to a given model was constructed from
the geometry by Hilbert: it is the field of segment arithmetic ([23, 19] or [28, 15]).
Segment arithmetic was first discovered by Descartes, who used the theory of similar
triangles to define it; Hilbert worked in the opposite direction, first defining segment
arithmetic and then using it to develop the theory of similar triangles.
Another reason for the name Pythagorean is that the Pythagorean equation holds
for all right triangles in a Pythagorean plane; the proof of this equation is the usual
proof using similar triangles [23, Proposition 20.6], and the theory of similar triangles
does hold in such planes [23, 20]. The smallest ordered Pythagorean field is a count-
able field called the Hilbert field (he first introduced it in [28, 9]); it coordinatizes
a countable Pythagorean plane. The existence theorems in Pythagorean planes can
be considered constructions with a straightedge and a transporter of segments, called
Hilberts tools by Hartshorne [23, p. 102, Exercise 20.21 and p. 515].
These models are not called Euclidean planes because one more axiom is needed
in order to be able to prove all of Euclids plane geometry propositions.
1.2. Continuity Axioms. Most of the plane geometry in Euclids Elements can be
carried out rigorously for Pythagorean planes, but there remain several results in Euclid
which may fail in Pythagorean planes, such as Euclid I.22 (the Triangle Existence
theorem in [32, 16.5]), which asserts that given three segments such that the sum
of any two is greater than the third, a triangle can be constructed having its sides
congruent to those segments[23, Exercise 16.11] gives an example of I.22 failure.
Hilbert recognized that I.22 could not be proved from his Festschrift axiomssee [22,
p. 202].
Consider this fifteenth axiom, which was not one of Hilberts:
Line-Circle Axiom. If a line passes through a point inside a circle, then it intersects
the circle (in two distinct points).
Circle-Circle Axiom. If one circle passes through a point inside and a point outside
another circle, then the two circles intersect (in two distinct points).
Notes. Hartshorne studied constructions with marked ruler and compass, such as tri-
secting any angle and constructing a regular heptagon; Viete formulated a new axiom
to justify using a marked ruler [20, p. 33]. It is an open problem to determine the
models of the theory with Vietes axiom added. Hartshorne in [23, 3031] solved
this problem in the special case where the mark is only used between two lines (not
between a line and a circle). In an Archimedean Euclidean plane, the models are the
Cartesian planes coordinatized by those Euclidean subfields of R in which one can
find real roots of cubic and quartic equationsanother lovely application of algebra to
geometry.
In [36] Victor Pambuccian surveys the many works in which geometric construc-
tions became part of the axiomatizations of various geometries (starting only in 1968).
Michael Beeson [1] has written about geometric constructions using intuitionist logic.
202
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
1.2.1. Continuity Axioms in Hilberts Work and Elsewhere. The Line-Circle and
Circle-Circle axioms do not appear in Hilberts Grundlagen. The treatise [22] edited
by M. Hallett and U. Majer presents Hilberts notes in German for geometry courses
he taught from 1891 to 1902, as well as his 1899 Festschrift. They provide extensive
discussion and explication in English of those materials, in which Hilbert covers many
topics not included in his Grundlagen. One can see his ideas about the foundations
evolving over time and see him and others solving most problems that arose along the
way (such as problems related to the theorems of Desargues and Pappus).
In Hilberts lectures of 18981899 on Euclidean geometry, he discussed the Three
Chord theorem: if three circles whose centers are not collinear intersect each other
pairwise, then the three chord-lines determined by those pairs of intersection points
are concurrent. Hilbert gave a proof of this theorem which he noticed depends on the
Triangle Existence theorem mentioned above. He also noticed the related line-circle
and circle-circle properties and said that assuming those properties amounts to assum-
ing that a circle is a closed figure, which he did not define. Hilbert gave an example
of a Pythagorean plane in which those three properties do not holdhe constructed
a Pythagorean ordered field F which is not a Euclidean field and used the Cartesian
plane coordinatized by F. Hallett discusses this in detail on pp. 200206 of [22] and
wonders why Hilbert did not add the circle-circle property as an axiom.
In his ingenious article [25], Robin Hartshorne proved the Three Chord theorem for
any Hilbert plane in which the line-circle property holds. His proof uses the classifica-
tion of Hilbert planes by W. Pejas ([37] or [27]).
So what continuity axioms did Hilbert assume? In his Festschrift, he only assumed
Archimedes axiom, which will be discussed in the next section; it is unclear what
that axiom has to do with continuity, except that it allows measurement of segments
and angles by real numbers. The models of his planar Festschrift axioms are all the
Cartesian planes coordinatized by Pythagorean subfields of the field R of real numbers.
In the second edition of his Grundlagen, Hilbert added a completeness axiom, as
his second continuity axiom, stating that it is impossible to enlarge the sets of points
and lines, and extend the relations of incidence, betweenness, and congruence to these
larger sets, in such a way that the Pythagorean axioms and Archimedes axiom are still
satisfied. This is obviously not a geometric statement and not a statement formalizable
in the language used previously, so what does it accomplish? The addition of those
two continuity axioms to the fourteen axioms for a Pythagorean plane allowed him
to prove that all models of those sixteen axioms are isomorphic to the Cartesian plane
coordinatized by the entire field R [28, p. 31]. It is essential to notice that Hilbert did
not use his completeness axiom for any ordinary geometric results in his development.
Hallett gives a very thorough explication of the purpose of that axiom on pp. 426435
of [22].3
Alternatively, Szmielew and Borsuk in [3] assumed only one continuity axiom:
Dedekinds Axiom. Suppose the set of points on a line l is the disjoint union of two
nonempty subsets such that no point of either subset is between two points of the other
subset (such a pair of subsets is called a Dedekind cut of the line). Then there exists a
unique point O on l such that one of the subsets is a ray of l emanating from vertex O
and the other subset is its complement on l.
They too prove that all models of their planar axioms are isomorphic to the Carte-
sian plane coordinatized by R (so their theory is also categorical). Unlike Hilberts
3 Hilbert used the term complete here in a different sense than the usual meaning of a theory being
1.3. Archimedes Axiom. Hilbert called Archimedes axiom the the axiom of mea-
sure [28, p. 26], because it allows measurement of segments and angles by real num-
bers [20, pp. 169172]. It is not strictly speaking a geometric axiom, for it includes a
natural number variable nnot just geometric variablesin its statement.5
Archimedes Axiom. If CD is any segment, A any point, and r any ray with vertex
A, then for every point B = A on r , there exists a natural number n such that when
CD is laid off n times on r starting at A, a point E is reached such that n CD
= AE
and either B = E or B is between A and E.
1.4. Aristotles Axiom. Closely related to Archimedes axiom is the following axiom
due to Aristotle:
Aristotles Angle Unboundedness Axiom. Given any acute angle, any side of that
angle, and any challenge segment AB, there exists a point Y on the given side of the
angle such that if X is the foot of the perpendicular from Y to the other side of the
angle, then Y X > AB.
4 E.g., in [28, 32] Hilbert proved that if an ordered division ring is Archimedean, then it is commutative, and
hence a field; that commutativity in turn implies Pappus theorem in the Desarguesian geometry coordinatized
by such a ring.
5 It becomes a geometric statement if one enlarges the logic to infinitary logic, where the statement becomes
204
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
In other words, the perpendicular segments from one side of an acute angle to the
other are unboundedno segment AB can be a bound.
Aristotle made essentially this statement in Book I of his treatise De Caelo (On the
heavens). I will refer to it simply as Aristotles axiom. The mathematical importance
of his axiom was highlighted by Proclus in the fifth century C . E ., when Proclus used it
in his attempted proof of Euclids fifth postulate ([39, p. 291] and [20, p. 210]), which
we will refer to from now on as Euclid V. It is easy to prove that Euclid V implies
Aristotles axiom [20, Corollary 2, p. 180].
As examples of geometries where Aristotles axiom does not hold, consider spheri-
cal geometry, where lines are interpreted as great circles, and plane elliptic geometry,
obtained by identifying antipodal points on a sphere. On a sphere, as you move away
from the angle vertex, the rays of an acute angle grow farther apart until they reach a
maximum width, and then they converge and meet at the antipodal point of the vertex.
In Section 1.6 it will be shown that Aristotles axiom is a consequence of Archi-
medes axiom for Hilbert planes, but not converselyit is a weaker axiom. Moreover,
it is a purely geometric axiom, not referring to natural numbers. It is important as a
missing link when the Euclidean parallel postulate is replaced with the statement
that the angle sum of every triangle is 180 . It is also important as a missing link in
the foundations of hyperbolic geometry, as will be discussed as well in Section 1.6.
1.5. Angle Sums of Triangles. The second part of Euclids Proposition I.32 states
that the angle sum of any triangle equals two right angles (we will say is 180 though
no measurement is impliedthere is no measurement in Euclid). The standard proof
(not the one in Euclids Elements) in most texts [20, proof of Proposition 4.11] was
called by Proclus the Pythagorean proof [39, p. 298] because it was known earlier to
the Pythagorean school. It uses the converse to the Alternate Interior Angle theorem,
which states that if parallel lines are cut by a transversal, then alternate interior angles
with respect to that transversal are congruent to each other. That converse is equivalent,
for Hilbert planes, to Hilberts Euclidean Axiom of Parallels [20, Proposition 4.8].
Thus the Pythagorean proof is valid in Pythagorean planes.
How about going in the opposite direction: given a Hilbert plane in which the angle
sum of any triangle is 180 , can one prove Hilberts Euclidean Axiom of Parallels? Us-
ing only the Hilbert plane axioms, the answer is no. We know that from the following
counterexample displayed by Hilberts student Max Dehn in 1900:
Let F be a Pythagorean ordered field that is non-Archimedean in the sense that it
contains infinitesimal elements (nonzero elements x such that |x| < 1/n for all natural
numbers n). Such fields exist (see Exercise 18.9 or Proposition 18.2 of [23]). Within
the Cartesian plane F 2 , let be the full subplane whose points are those points in F 2
both of whose coordinates are infinitesimal, whose lines are the nonempty intersections
with that point-set of lines in F 2 , and whose betweenness and congruence relations are
induced from F 2 . Then is a Hilbert plane in which the angle sum of every triangle
is 180 . But given point P not on line l, there are infinitely many parallels to l through
Pthe standard parallel plus all the lines through P whose extension in F 2 meets the
extension of l in a point whose coordinates are not both infinitesimal, i.e., in a point
which is not part of our model .
Definition. A Hilbert plane in which the angle sum of every triangle is 180 is called
semi-Euclidean.6
6 Voltaires geometer said Je vous conseille de douter de tout, excepte que les trios angles dun triangle
sont egaux a deux droits. (I advise you to doubt everything, except that the three angles of a triangle are
equal to two right angles. In Section 1.6 we will doubt even that.)
Observe also that while the proposition states that Archimedes axiom is sufficient,
it is certainly not necessary (thus semi-correct): the plane F 2 , when F is a non-
Archimedean Pythagorean ordered field, is Pythagorean and non-Archimedean. So an
interesting problem is to find a purely geometric axiom A to replace the axiom of
Archimedes such that A is sufficient and necessary for a semi-Euclidean plane to be
Pythagorean. Such an axiom A is what I call a missing link.
Historically, many attempts to prove Euclid V from his other postulates focused
on proving that the angle sum of every triangle equals 180 assuming Archimedes
axiom in a proof was then considered acceptable. Saccheri, Legendre, and others took
that approach in some of their attempted proofs ([20, Chapter 5] or [40, Chapter 2]).
Proposition 1 can be proved by reductio ad absurdum. Assume on the contrary that
there is a line l and a point P not on l such that there is more than one parallel to l
through P. We always have one parallel m by the standard construction. Let n be a
second parallel to l through P, making an acute angle with m, let s be the ray of
n with vertex P on the same side of m as l, let Q be the foot of the perpendicular
from P to l, and let r be the ray of l with vertex Q on the same side of PQ as s.
Using Archimedes axiom, one can prove that there exists a point R on r such that
PRQ < as follows (see Figure 1):
Start with a random point R on r . If PRQ , lay off on r segment RR = PR,
with R between Q and R , so as to form isosceles triangle PRR . First, by hypothesis,
every triangle has angle sum 180 . So PR Q = 12 PRQ by the congruence of base
angles. Repeating this process of halving the angle at each step, one eventually obtains
an angle < (by the Archimedean property of angles).
Since ray s does not intersect ray r , ray PR is between ray PQ and ray sotherwise
the Crossbar theorem [20, p. 116] would be violated. Then
Hence right triangle PRQ has angle sum less than 180 , contradicting our hypothesis
that the plane is semi-Euclidean.
n
P
m
l r
Q R R
206
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
The crucial geometric statement C used in this argument is the following:
C . Given any segment PQ, line l through Q perpendicular to PQ, and ray r of l with
vertex Q, if is any acute angle, then there exists a point R on r such that PRQ < .
Note that if S is any point further out on li.e., such that R lies between Q and S
then we also have PSQ < PRQ < , by the Exterior Angle theorem [20, Theorem
4.2]. So statement C says that as R recedes from Q along a ray of l with vertex Q,
PRQ goes to zero. Note also that we have proved that if C holds in a Hilbert plane
which is non-Euclidean in the sense that the negation of Hilberts Euclidean axiom of
parallels holds, then that plane has a triangle whose angle sum is < 180 .
Is statement C a missing link? Yes!
Proof. It only remains to show that the Euclidean parallel postulate implies C . Assume
the negation of C . Then there exist P, Q, and l as above and an acute angle such that
PRQ > for all R = Q on a ray r of l emanating from Q. (We can write > and
not just because if we had equality for some R, then any point R with R between
Q and R would satisfy PR Q < by the Exterior Angle theorem.) Emanating from
vertex P there is a unique ray s making an angle with the standard line m through P
perpendicular to PQ and such that s is on the same side of m as l and of PQ as r . If s
does not meet r , then the line containing s is a second parallel to l through P. If s does
meet r in a point R, then the angle sum of right triangle PQR is greater than 180 . In
either case we have a contradiction of the Euclidean parallel postulate.
For the easy proof that Euclid V implies A, see [20, Corollary 2, p. 180].
I have named this theorem after Proclus because he was the first to recognize the
importance of Aristotles axiom in the foundations of geometry when he used it in his
failed attempt to prove Euclid V ([39, p. 291] or [20, p. 210]). His method provides the
proof of sufficiency I found [20, p. 220], in which Aristotles axiom is used directly,
without the intervention of C . Also, the proof above that A implies C used the fact that
any two right angles are congruent, which was Euclids fourth postulate; that postulate
became a theorem in Hilberts axiom system, and Hilberts proof of it is based on the
idea Proclus proposed ([39, p. 147] and [20, Proposition 3.23]).
For a proof of uniformity, see [20, Major Exercises 58, pp. 202205]. The footnote
on p. 43 of [28] credits Max Dehn with having proved it, and states that later proofs
were produced by F. Schur and J. Hjelmslev. Actually, Saccheri had this result back
in 1733except that his proof used continuity; Hartshorne [23, p. 491] states that
Lambert proved it without using continuity. In planes of types (ii) and (iii), similar
triangles must be congruent [20, proof of Proposition 6.2], so there is no similarity
theory. W. Pejas ([37] or [27]) showed that in a plane of obtuse type (iii), the excess by
which the angle sum of a triangle is > 180 is infinitesimal.
208
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
Saccheri and Lambert did not know of the existence of planes of obtuse angle type
(iii). Again, it was Dehn who gave an example of a non-Archimedean Hilbert plane sat-
isfying obtuse angle hypothesis (iii) [20, p.189, footnote 8]. Another example is the in-
finitesimal neighborhood of a point on a sphere in F 3 , where F is a non-Archimedean
ordered Pythagorean field [23, Exercise 34.14]. These examples contradict the asser-
tion made in some books and articles that the hypothesis of the obtuse angle is incon-
sistent with the first four postulates of Euclid. In fact, it is consistent with the thirteen
axioms for Hilbert planes (which imply those four postulates).
These examples again suggest that Archimedes axiom would eliminate the obtuse
angle type (iii), and indeed that was proved by Saccheri and Legendre ([28, Theo-
rem 35] or [23, Theorem 35.2]). However, the weaker axiom of Aristotle suffices to
eliminate the obtuse angle type (iii). Namely, Aristotles axiom implies C , and we
showed in the proof of Theorem 1, Section 1.5, that in a non-Euclidean Hilbert plane,
C implies that there exists a triangle whose angle sum is < 180 . For a direct proof not
using C but using the idea of Proclus, see [20, p. 185], the Non-Obtuse Angle theorem.
Turning now to elementary plane hyperbolic geometry, Hilbert axiomatized it with-
out bringing in real numbers by adding just his hyperbolic parallel axiom to the thirteen
axioms for a Hilbert plane. His axiom states that given any line l and any point P not
on l, there exists a limiting parallel ray s to l emanating from P making an acute angle
with the perpendicular ray PQ dropped from P to l, where Q again is the foot of the
perpendicular from P to l ([20, p. 259], [23, axiom L, p. 374], or [28, Appendix III]).
Ray s is by definition limiting in that s does not intersect l and every ray emanating
from P between s and perpendicular ray PQ does intersect l. The Crossbar theorem
[20, p. 116] tells us that for any ray s emanating from P such that ray s lies between
s and perpendicular ray PQ, s does not intersect l. The acute angle between s and ray
PQ is called the angle of parallelism for segment PQ; its congruence class depends
only on the congruence class of segment PQ. Reflecting across line PQ, the other lim-
iting parallel ray from P to l is obtained. A hyperbolic plane is, by definition, a Hilbert
plane satisfying Hilberts hyperbolic parallel axiom just stated. Hilberts axiom made
explicit the limiting existence assumption tacitly made by Saccheri, Gauss, Bolyai, and
Lobachevsky.
Hilbert pointed out that his approach was a breakthrough over the earlier ones by
Felix Klein and Bolyai-Lobachevsky in that it did not resort to three dimensions to
prove its theorems for the plane; he also did not use Archimedes axiom.
Hilberts hyperbolic parallel axiom follows, in non-Euclidean planes, from Dede-
kinds axiom [20, Theorem 6.2], but without Dedekinds axiom, there exist many
non-Euclidean Hilbert planes which are not hyperbolic (e.g., Dehns semi-Euclidean
non-Euclidean one or the ones of types (ii) and (iii) described in [20, Appendix B,
Part II], including Pejas example of a type (ii) plane which is Archimedean and not
hyperbolic).
All hyperbolic planes are known (up to isomorphism): they are the isomorphic
Klein and Poincare models [20, Chapter 7] coordinatized by arbitrary Euclidean fields.
Again, Hilbert cleverly showed how the field is extracted from the geometry: he con-
structed the coordinate field F as his field of ends ([20, Appendix B], [23, 41], or
[28, Appendix III]). The ends or ideal points are defined essentially as equiva-
lence classes of rays under the relationship of limiting parallelism [20, pp. 276279];
they form a conic at infinity in the projective completion of the hyperbolic plane [20,
p. 286], and F excludes one end denoted . From the way multiplication of ends is
defined, the reason every positive has a square root in F is that every segment has a
midpoint [20, p. 576]. That in turn guarantees that the Circle-Circle axiom holds [23,
Corollary 43.4], unlike the case of Pythagorean planes.
Advanced Theorem. A Hilbert plane satisfying the acute angle hypothesis (ii) and
the Line-Circle axiom is hyperbolic if and only if it satisfies Aristotles axiom; in that
case, Bolyais construction provides the limiting parallel rays.
That Aristotles axiom holds in hyperbolic planes follows from the fact previously
mentioned that a side adjacent to the acute angle in a Lambert quadrilateral is greater
than the opposite sidesee [20, Exercise 13, p. 275] or [23, Proposition 40.8]. That
Bolyais construction provides the limiting parallel ray in a hyperbolic plane is part of
Engels theorem [20, Theorem 10.9], which provides other important constructions as
well.
The sufficiency part of this theorem is much deeper than its Euclidean analogue
Proclus theorembecause its only proof known so far depends on W. Pejas classi-
fication ([37] or [27]) of Hilbert planes (hence it is advanced). Pejas work implies
that the plane can be embedded as a full submodel of a Klein model; then Aristotles
axiom, via its corollary C , implies maximality of the submodel, so that it equals the
Klein model. See [19] for details of my proof and see [20, Appendix B, Part II] for a
description of Pejas great work (built upon earlier work by F. Bachmann, G. Hessen-
berg, and J. Hjelmslev).
A slightly stronger version of the Advanced theorem is that a non-Euclidean Hilbert
plane is hyperbolic if and only if it satisfies the Line-Circle axiom and Aristotles
axiom (that the type of the plane is (ii) is provable). Thus we now have an elegant
axiomatization of what Bolyai intended by his study of the common part of plane
210
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
Euclidean and hyperbolic geometries (at least the elementary part): the 13 axioms for
a Hilbert plane plus the Line-Circle axiom plus Aristotles axiom.
Bolyais construction gives the angle of parallelism corresponding to a given seg-
ment PQ, which Lobachevsky denoted (PQ). Conversely, given an acute angle ,
there is a very simple straightedge and compass construction of a segment PQ such
that = (PQ)see [20, George Martins theorem, p. 523].
Note. Hilbert gets the credit for the main ideas in the foundations of plane hyperbolic
geometry without real numbers, but he only sketched much of what needed to be done.
The details were worked out by others as described in the introduction to Pambuccian
[35]; the best exposition of those details is Hartshorne [23, Chapter 7], where a re-
markable new hyperbolic trigonometry without real numbers is presented. Using it, all
arguments in other treatises using classical hyperbolic trigonometry can be rephrased
so as to avoid their apparent dependence on real numbers [23, Exercise 42.15].
tan2 = 2 4. ()
Bolyais Construction Theorem (Jagys Theorem A). Suppose that a regular 4-gon
with acute angle and a circle in the hyperbolic plane have the same area < 2.
Then both are constructible if and only if is an integer multiple of 2/n, where n is
a Gauss number > 2. In that case, if R = tan is the Euclidean radius of the circle,
then R 2 is a rational number, which, when expressed in lowest terms, has denominator
a divisor of n.
tan2 = (m 2) m.
When the circle of Euclidean radius R and the regular m-gon with corner angle
are both constructible, Jagys argument on p. 35 of [30] using the Gelfond-Schneider
theorem shows that R = tan is the square root of a rational number k/n in lowest
terms and n is a Gauss number or n = 1. Solving for gives
(m 2) k
=
m mn
k
so that when both are constructible, mn must be constructible. For such n, mn is only
a Gauss number when gcd(m, n) is a power of 2 (including the 0th power). Thus when
7 An angle is constructible in the Euclidean plane coordinatized by the field K of constructible numbers if
and only if it is constructible in the hyperbolic plane coordinatized by K [20, p. 587]. If a marked ruler instead
of a straightedge is used in constructions, then the prime 3 can occur to any power in the factorization of n,
and the other odd primes that may occur to the first power must be Pierpont primessee [23, Corollary 31.9]
and [4].
212
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
m is a power of 2, the result is the same as before. Jagy expresses the general result as
follows:
Jagys Theorem. Let a circle and a regular m-gon in the real hyperbolic plane with
equal normalized area be given. Then both are constructible if and only if the fol-
lowing four conditions hold:
1. < (m 2),
2. is a rational multiple of , and if that rational multiple is k/n in lowest terms,
n is a Gauss number or n = 1,
3. m is a Gauss number, and
4. m and n have no odd prime factors in common.
For example, if m is any Gauss number 5 and we again consider the constructible
circle of area , the regular m-gon with angle (m 3)/m is constructible and
also has area . Thus can not only be squared in the real hyperbolic plane, it
can also be regular pentagoned, regular hexagoned, regular octagoned, etc. The
trebly asymptotic triangle also has area , and, since it can be constructed via Hilberts
construction of lines of enclosure, can also be considered to be regular triangled.
In fact, Jagy prefers to write (m 2) in condition 1 so as to allow asymptotic
m-gons.
After presenting his result for m = 4 at the end of his immortal Appendix, Bolyai
referred admiringly to the theory of polygons of the illustrious Gauss (remarkable
invention of our, nay of every age). Tragically, Gauss did not return the compliment
by assisting the mathematical career of Bolyai in any way. Gauss feared the howl
of the Boeotians should he publicly endorse non-Euclidean geometry [20, p. 244].
Bolyai years later sharply criticized Gauss for his timidity [20, p. 242].
In addition to the results above due to Bolyai and Jagy, constructible numbers are
again key to solving problems about constructions with straightedge and compass in a
hyperbolic plane. Given two perpendicular axes and a choice of ends on them labeled
0 and on one axis and 1 and 1 on the other, I conjectured and Hartshorne proved
[20, p. 587] that a segment in a hyperbolic plane is constructible from that initial data
if and only if Hartshornes multiplicative length of that segment [23, Proposition 41.7]
is a constructible number in the field of ends based on that data. That multiplicative
length is a key discovery which Hartshorne and Van Luijk have applied to algebraic
geometry and number theory [26].
3.1. Relative Consistency. It has been known since the Euclidean plane models of
Beltrami-Klein and Poincare were exhibited in the late nineteenth century that if plane
Euclidean geometry is a consistent theory, then so is plane hyperbolic geometry [20,
Chapter 7]. Those isomorphic models ended the doubts about the validity of this alter-
No one doubts that ordinary [Euclidean] geometry is exempt from contradiction. Whence is
the certainty derived, and how far is it justified? That is a question upon which I cannot enter
here, because it requires further work, but it is a very important question.
The fact that Poincare considered this question very important and said that it
requires further work indicates to me that he was asking a mathematical question (as
well as a philosophical question). Logicians have solved this consistency problem for
elementary Euclidean geometry. Section 3.5 has a brief discussion of their work.
214
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
It is necessary to provide an equivalent8 first-order axiomatization E of our theory
of elementary Euclidean plane geometry in order to be able to apply Zieglers theo-
rem. First-order systems, first emphasized by Thoralf Skolem, are explained on the
first pages of Pambuccian [35]. In first-order logic, quantification (for all or there
exists) is only allowed over individuals, not over sets of or relations among individu-
als.
3.3. Tarski-elementary Euclidean Geometry. Alfred Tarskis idea of what was el-
ementary in geometry differed from what weve been discussing in previous sections.
He regarded as elementary that part of Euclidean geometry which can be formulated
and established without the help of any set-theoretic devices, hence within first-order
logic.
Tarskis various first-order axiom systems for plane Euclidean geometry were based
on the single primitive notion of point and on two undefined relations among points
first introduced by O. Veblen: betweenness for three points and equidistance (or con-
gruence) for two pairs of points (think of each pair as the endpoints of a segment). The
relation of collinearity of three points is defined in terms of betweenness (A, B, and C
are collinear if and only if one of them is between the other two), so he did not need
line or incidence as primitive notions.
But Euclid V or Hilberts Euclidean parallel postulate or the converse to the Alter-
nate Interior Angle theorem or other familiar equivalent statements all refer to lines,
so how did Tarski express an equivalent to a Euclidean parallel postulate in his sys-
tem? In one version he used the less-familiar equivalent statement that for any three
noncollinear points, there exists a fourth point equidistant from all three of them (that
point is the circumcenter of the triangle formed by the three pointssee [20, Chapter
5, Exercise 5 and Chapter 6, Exercise 10]).
Tarski worked to develop a first-order replacement for real Euclidean geometry.
The axiom that makes Euclidean geometry real is Dedekinds cut axiom; cuts are
infinite sets of points (so Dedekinds axiom is second-order). In order to formulate
a first-order replacement for those sets, Tarski had to introduce a countably infinite
set of axioms, all of the same form, referred to as the continuity axiom schema. It is
explained in [15], along with his original twenty ordinary axioms (later reduced to
fewer than twenty). (See also [35] in which Pambuccian reviews some of the history
and presents first-order axiomatizations of absolute and hyperbolic geometries.)
Geometrically, Tarski-elementary plane geometry certainly seems mysterious, but
the representation theorem illuminates the analytic geometry underlying it: its models
are all Cartesian planes coordinatized by real-closed fields. A real-closed field can be
characterized in at least seven different ways; for our purpose, the simplest definition
is a Euclidean field F in which every polynomial of odd degree in one indeterminate,
with coefficients in F, has a root. Six other characterizations as well as much more
information can be found on wikipedia.org. Of course R is a real-closed field, but so is
its countable subfield of real algebraic numbers. Every Euclidean field has an algebraic
extension which is real-closed and is unique up to isomorphism. So we can insert a
different link into our strictly decreasing chain of collections of models concluding
Section 1.5. It now terminates with
Euclidean planes Tarski-elementary Euclidean planes {real Euclidean plane}.
8 A first-order theory E is equivalent to ours if its models are the same as the models we earlier called
Euclidean planesmodels of the 14 Pythagorean plane axioms plus the Circle-Circle axiom. To say the
models are the same requires providing translation instructions to correctly interpret each theorys language
in the language of the other.
where is the ordinal of the natural numbers. Lest the reader get the impression that
Gentzens proof is heavily set-theoretic, according to Martin Davis (personal commu-
nication) it is just a matter of allowing induction with respect to a particular com-
putable well ordering of the natural numbers. Gentzens new ideas led to a flourishing
of proof theory.
For an excellent discussion of these matters, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi-
losophy article [42].
The next section reports on recent successes in providing finitary proofs for the
consistency of elementary Euclidean geometry, in stark contrast to the impossibility
of such proofs for Peano Arithmetic. In that sense Euclids geometry is simpler than
number theory.
where denotes the congruence relation and B(axb) means x is between a and b.
9 Comparing this decidability result with Zieglers theorem, we see that RCF cannot be finitely axiomatized.
216
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
So E is consistent if Tarskis theory is. The consistency of the latter follows from
the consistency of the theory RCF of real-closed fields. There are finitary proofs of the
consistency of RCF, such as the one Harvey Friedman posted on his website [14], using
only exponential function arithmetic, a sub-theory of PRA. Fernando Ferreira, using
work he coauthored with Antonio Fernandes [13], has another proof of the consistency
of RCF using the stronger Gentzen arithmetic, also a sub-theory of PRA.
Much earlier, Hilbert and Bernays [29, pp. 3848] gave a proof that their geometric
systemessentially what I called Pythagorean geometry (no continuity axiom)is
consistent, based on the model E coordinatized by the field K of constructible numbers.
In [45], F. Tomas gave a different proof for a slightly different theory.
Tarski himself proved the consistency of his theory, and his proof may be finitary
according to a private communication I received from Steven Givant, who refers to
footnote 15 in [44].
We remain with the psychological/philosophical puzzle of whether those finitary
proofs of consistency provide the certainty Poincare questioned. Most of us take for
granted the consistency of elementary Euclidean geometry because of 2,400 years of
experience of not finding any contradictions plus all the successful practical applica-
tions of that theory. Some people add that their geometric visualizing ability gives them
certainty. It is nevertheless a remarkable technical accomplishment to have developed
finitary proofs of its consistency in mathematical logic.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I am very grateful to geometers Robin Hartshorne and William C. Jagy,10 to math-
ematical logicians Michael Beeson, Andreas Blass, Solomon Feferman, and Fernando Ferreira, and especially
to Victor Pambuccian, who is both a geometer and a logician, for their valuable communications regarding this
survey. I also thank the referees for their helpful suggestions.
REFERENCES
1. M. Beeson, Constructive geometry, to appear in Proceedings of the Tenth Asian Logic Colloquium, Kobe,
Japan, 2008, T. Arai, ed., World Scientific, Singapore, 2009.
2. G. Birkhoff and M. K. Bennett, Hilberts Grundlagen der Geometrie, Rendiconti del Circolo Matem-
atico di Palermo, Serie II, XXXVI (1987) 343389. doi:10.1007/BF02844894
3. K. Borsuk and W. Szmielew, Foundations of Geometry: Euclidian and Bolyai-Lobachevskian Geometry
(trans. from Polish by E. Marquit), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1960.
4. C. Caldwell, The Prime Glossary: Pierpont prime (2009), available at http://primes.utm.edu/
glossary/xpage/PierpontPrime.html.
5. P. J. Cohen, Decision procedures for real and p-adic fields, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 22 (1969) 131151.
doi:10.1002/cpa.3160220202
6. B. Dragovich, Non-Archimedean geometry and physics on adelic spaces, in Contemporary Geometry
and Related Topics, eds. N. Bokan et al., World Scientific, Singapore, 2004, 140158.
7. M. Detlefsen, Purity as an ideal of proof, in The Philosophy of Mathematical Practice, P. Mancosu, ed.,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008, 179197.
8. P. Ehrlich, From completeness to Archimedean completeness. An essay in the foundations of Euclidean
geometry, Synthese 110 (1997) 5776. doi:10.1023/A:1004971123925
9. , The rise of non-Archimedean mathematics and the roots of a misconception. I. The emergence
of non-Archimedean systems of magnitudes, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 60 (2006) 1121. doi:10.1007/
s00407-005-0102-4
10. F. Enriques, Fragen der Elementargeometrie, I Teil: Die Geometrischen Aufgaben, ihre Losung und
Losbarkeit, Teubner, Leipzig, 1911.
11. Euclid, The Thirteen Books of The Elements, 3 vols., (tr. and annotated by T. L. Heath), Dover, New York,
1956.
12. G. Ewald, Geometry: An Introduction, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 1971.
218
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
MARVIN JAY GREENBERG is Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, University of California. In addition
to [20], he is also the author of Lectures on Forms in Many Variables (Benjamin, 1969, to be updated and
reprinted), and coauthor with John Harper of Algebraic Topology: A First Course (Perseus, 1981). His Prince-
ton Ph.D. thesis, directed by Serge Lang, and his early journal publications are in the subject of algebraic
geometry, where he discovered a functor J.-P. Serre named after him (see p. 450 of [38] or Section 2.3 of
[31]) and an approximation theorem J. Nicaise and J. Sebag named after him (see [33]). He is the translator of
Serres Corps Locaux.
66 Poppy Lane, Berkeley, CA 94708
mjg0@pacbell.net
Theorem 1 (Polya [17]). Consider the simple random walk on Zd . If d 2, then with
probability 1, the walk returns to its starting position. If d 3, then with positive
probability, the walk never returns to its starting position.
This is Polyas theorem referred to in the title. Theorem 1 motivates the definition
of a transient graph. Let G be a graph with vertex set V and edge set E. We will often
write x y to mean that {x, y} E. The degree of a vertex v, denoted deg(v), is the
number of edges containing v. A graph is locally finite if all vertices have finite degree.
We assume throughout this paper that all graphs are connected and locally finite. The
simple random walk on G moves at each unit of time by selecting a vertex uniformly at
random among those adjacent to the walks current location. The graph G is transient
if there is a positive probability that the simple random walk on G never returns to its
starting position. The graph G is recurrent if it is not transient. (Since G is assumed
to be connected, transience and recurrence do not depend on the starting vertex.) For
more on transience and recurrence, see, for example, [14, 20, 9].
We will prove Theorem 1 by the method of flows, which we now describe. Let G
be a connected graph with vertex set V and edge set E. An oriented edge is an or-
dered pair (x, y) such that {x, y} E. We will sometimes write xy to denote the ori-
ented edge (x, y). A function defined on oriented edges is antisymmetric if (xy) =
( yx)
for all oriented edges xy. For a function defined on oriented edges, the
divergence of at v is defined as
(div )(v) := (vw).
w : wv
220
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
Theorem 2 (T. Lyons [11]). A graph G is transient if and only if there exists a flow
on G (from some vertex a) with > 0 and E () < .
While Theorem 2 is very well known, the published proofs we are aware of require
either a rather lengthy introduction to electrical networks, as in [4], or familiarity with
infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, as in [11]; while these are valuable tools, we have
tried here to give a short and elementary route to Theorem 2 by presenting only the
relevant part of the electrical network theory.
One nice immediate consequence of Theorem 2 is Rayleighs principle: If G is
recurrent, the same is true for any subgraph of G (since any flow on the subgraph is
also a flow on G ). In particular, to prove Theorem 1, it is enough to prove that Z2 is
recurrent and Z3 is transient.
Another contribution of Polya to probability is the celebrated Polyas urn [5, 18].
An urn initially contains one black and one white ball. At each unit of time, a ball is
drawn at random, and replaced along with an additional ball of the same color. This is
a key example of a reinforced process; see the survey by Pemantle [15] for more on
such processes.
Polyas urn can be generalized to three colors, say red, white, and blue. Let Rt , Wt ,
and Bt be the number of red, white, and blue balls, respectively, in the urn at time
t. A key property of this process is that at time t, the random vector (Rt , Wt , Bt ) is
uniformly distributed over the set
{(x, y, z) : x 1, y 1, z 1, x + y + z = t + 3}.
Our proof of Theorem 1 shows that (i) holds for the lattice walks in dimension 2 and
fails in dimension 3. The classical proof for random walks on Zd establishes the esti-
mate cd n d/2 P0 {X 2n = 0} Cd n d/2 , which implies that the sum in (iii) converges
if and only if d 3. The advantage of the proof given here is that it is robust against
small perturbation of the graph: if a few edges are removed or added to Zd , then the
recurrence or transience property will not be altered.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: we prove transience of Z3 (Theorem
2.2), assuming Theorem 2, in Section 2. In Section 3, we prove recurrence of Z2 (The-
orem 3.2), again assuming Theorem 2. These two results together yield Theorem 1.
Lemma 2.1. Let (Rt , Wt , Bt ) be the number of red, white, and blue balls, respectively,
in the urn after t draws. The vector (Rt , Wt , Bt ) is uniformly distributed over
X t := |{ j : 1 j t and 0 U j V1 }| + 1
Yt := |{ j : 1 j t and V1 < U j V2 }| + 1
Z t := |{ j : 1 j t and V2 < U j 1}| + 1.
That is, the first two variables U1 and U0 divide the interval [0, 1] into three subinter-
vals. The variable X t equals one more than the number of the variables {U1 , . . . , Ut }
falling in the left-most subinterval, Yt is one more than the number falling in the middle
interval, and Z t is one more than the number falling in the right-most interval.
Set (X 0 , Y0 , Z 0 ) = (1, 1, 1). Observe that given the ordering of the variables
U1 , U0 , . . . , Ut , the value of the triple (X t , Yt , Z t ) is determined.
We claim that (X t , Yt , Z t ) has the same distribution as (Rt , Wt , Bt ). Given the order
of (U1 , U0 , . . . , Ut ), the rank of Ut+1 among these values is uniformly distributed
over all t + 3 possible positions. Thus the conditional probabilities that Ut+1 falls in the
intervals [0, V1 ], (V1 , V2 ], and (V2 , 1] are proportional to X t , Yt , and Z t , respectively.
We conclude that the transition probabilities for the triple (X t , Yt , Z t ) are the same as
those for (Rt , Wt , Bt ).
Using this equivalence, since the relative positions of (U1 , U0 , . . . , Ut ) form a ran-
dom permutation
of {1, . . . , t + 2}, it follows that (Rt , Wt , Z t ) is uniformly distributed
over all t+22
ordered triples of positive integers summing to t + 3.
Much more on urn processes can be found in [7], [16], and [12].
Proof. Define a flow on Z3 from (1, 1, 1) by orienting each edge in the octant
[1, )3 in a north-east-up direction, and letting
222
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
1
urn process visiting any one of them is t+2 2
. For v Vt , t 1, the urn process
visits v if and only if it traverses one of the oriented edges pointing to v, so we have
2
(uv) 2
(uv)
u : uv u : uv
t + 2 2
= P{the urn process visits v} = 2
.
2
(We have written u v to indicate that there is an oriented edge pointing from u to
v.) Therefore,
t + 2 t + 2 2
(e)2 = (uv)
2 . (2.2)
e t=1 vVt u : uv t=1
2 2
The left-most sum in (2.2) is the energy of , so we have proven that E () 1. Theo-
rem 2 completes the proof.
The flow described in the proof of Theorem 2.2 can be found in [4], although those
authors were not aware of the connection to Polyas urn (Peter Doyle, personal com-
munication).
Proposition 3.1 (Nash-Williams [13]). For a graph G , let {k } be disjoint finite
edge-cutsets which separate the vertex a from infinity. If
|k |1 = , (3.1)
k
Let be an edge-cutset. For any flow from a, we have (div )(a) = and
(div )(v) = 0 for v = a, whence
= (div )(v) = (vw).
vVa, vVa, w : wv
Since is an edge-cutset, the sum above is finite. Since any edge with both endpoints
in Va, contributes two terms to the right-most sum which cancel each other, we have
= (vw).
(3.2)
(v,w)
vVa, , w Va,
Proof of Proposition 3.1. Let be a unit flow from a. For any k, by the Cauchy-
Schwarz inequality
2
|k | (e)
2
|(e)| .
ek ek
Proof. Let k consist of those edges in Z2 between vertices at graph distance k and
those at graph distance k + 1 from 0. There are 8k + 4 edges in k , whence
1
|k |1 = .
k=1 k=1
8k + 4
Flows on Finite Graphs and the Current Flow. Let G = (V, E) be a finite graph.
For vertices a and z, a flow from a to z is an antisymmetric function , defined
on oriented edges, satisfying Kirchoffs node law at all v {a, z}, and satisfying
(div )(a) 0.
We note that for any antisymmetric we have
(div )(x) = (xy) = (xy) + ( yx)
= 0. (4.1)
xV xV yV {x,y}E
yx
The above implies that (div )(a) = (div )(z) for any flow .
The strength and energy of a flow from a to z are defined just as for flows on
infinite graphs, namely, as := (div )(a) and E () := eE (e)2 , respectively. A
unit flow from a to z is a flow with strength equal to 1.
An oriented cycle is a sequence of oriented edges (e1 , . . . , er ) such that ei =
(xi1 , x
i ) for vertices (x 0 , . . . , xr ) with xr = x 0 . A flow from a to z satisfies the cycle
law if ri=1 (ei ) = 0 for any oriented cycle (e1 , . . . , er ).
224
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
The unit flow from a to z satisfying the cycle law is unique:
Lemma 4.1. There is at most one unit flow from a to z satisfying the cycle law.
Proof. Suppose that and are two such flows. The function f := satisfies the
node law at all nodes and the cycle law. Suppose f (e1 ) > 0 for some oriented edge
e1 . By the node law, e1 must lead to some oriented edge e2 with f (e2 ) > 0. Iterate this
process to obtain a sequence of oriented edges on which f is strictly positive. Since
the graph is finite, this sequence must eventually revisit a node. The resulting cycle
violates the cycle law.
B := inf{t 0 : X t B},
B+ := inf{t > 0 : X t B}.
+
For a single site a, we write simply a and a+ for {a} and {a} , respectively.
The Greens function G z (x, y) is the expected number of visits of the random walk
to y, when started at x, before hitting z:
1
z
G z (x, y) = Ex 1{X n =y} = Px {X n = y, z > n}.
n=0 n=0
Since on a finite connected graph, Ex z < for all x, z (see, e.g., [14]), we have
G z (x, y) Ex z < for finite connected graphs. Note that G z (x, z) = 0 for z = x.
For any sequence of vertices x0 , x1 , . . . , xn1 , xn such that {xi , xi1 } E and x0 =
a, xn = x, it is easy to see that
1
Pa {X 1 = x1 , . . . , X n1 = xn1 , X n = x}
deg(x)
1
= Px {X 1 = xn1 , X 2 = xn1 , . . . , X n = a}.
deg(a)
Summing the above identity over all such sequences with xi = z for i = 1, . . . , n
shows that
G z (a, x) G z (x, a)
= . (4.2)
deg(x) deg(a)
We are now able to give an explicit construction of the unique unit flow satisfying
the cycle law, which we call the unit current flow from a to z and denote by I . Let
I (x, y) be the expected number of net traversals of the oriented edge (x, y) by the
= Pa {X n = x, X n+1 = y, z > n} (4.3)
n=0
Pa {X n = y, X n+1 = y, z > n}.
n=0
Note that
and therefore
G z (a, x) G z (a, y) G z (x, a) G z (y, a)
I (x, y) = = , (4.4)
deg(x) deg(y) deg(a)
1
f (x) = f (x) f (y).
deg(x) y : yx
Lemma 4.2. The function ga,z defined by ga,z (x) = G z (x, a) is harmonic at all x
{a, z} and has ga,z (a) = 1.
1
Ex Na = Ex (Na | X 1 = y)
deg(x) y : yx
1
= E y Na + 1{x=a} .
deg(x) y : yx
226
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
Lemma 4.3. For any two functions and defined on V ,
1
[(y) (x)][(y) (x)] = (x) deg(x)(x).
2 x,y x
xy
Proof. We have
1 1
[(y) (x)][(y) (x)] = (y)[(y) (x)]
2 x,y 2 x,y
xy xy
1
+ (x)[(x) (y)].
2 x,y
xy
By symmetry, the two terms on the right-hand side are the same, so their sum equals
(x) [(x) (y)] = (x) deg(x)(x).
x y : yx x
Proof. Step 1: We show that the flow I defined in (4.3) is the unique flow minimizing
E.
Since the set of unit-strength flows with energy less than or equal to the energy
of I is a closed and bounded subset of R|E| , by compactness there exists a flow
minimizing E () subject to = 1. By Lemma 4.1, to prove that the flow I is the
unique minimizer, it is enough to verify that any flow of minimal energy satisfies the
cycle law.
Let the edges e1 , . . . , en form a cycle. Set (ei ) = 1 for all 1 i n and set
to zero on all other edges. Note that satisfies the node law, so it is a flow, but
equal
(ei ) = n = 0. For any R, we have by energy minimality that
n
0 E ( + ) E () = ((ei ) + )2 (ei )2
i=1
n
= 2 (ei ) + n 2 .
i=1
1
= G z (x, a) deg(x)ga,z (x).
deg(a)2 x
From Lemma 4.2 and the fact that G z (z, a) = 0, the right-hand side equals deg(a)1
G z (a, a). Note the G z (a, a) equals the expected number of visits to a, started from
a, before hitting z. This is a geometric random variable with success probability
Pa {z < a+ }, whence G z (a, a) = 1/Pa {z < a+ } and (4.5) is proven.
228
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
For the converse, suppose that there exists a finite-energy unit flow from a in
G . Let n be the restriction of to Gn . (Note that Gn may contain multiple edges, as
any edge (x, z) in G with x / Z n and z Z n yields an edge e from x to z n with
n (e) = (x, z).) Since E (n ) E () < , we have
1
Pa {a+ = } = lim Pa {zn < a+ } lim > 0, (4.6)
n n deg(a)E (n )
so G is transient.
5. EXTENSIONS AND FURTHER READING. The connection between flows
and escape probabilities forms a small part of the theory relating electrical networks
to reversible Markov chains. See [4], [9], or [10] for much more on using electrical
networks for calculating probabilities.
Dimension 2 is truly the critical dimension for recurrence. One way to show this is
to consider a random walk in Z3 that usually makes a two-dimensional step to one of
the four horizontal neighbors, but occasionally makes a three-dimensional step. If the
number of three-dimensional steps among the first n steps grows like (log log n)2+
then the resulting process is transient; see [2]. More approachable by the methods
discussed in this note are subgraphs of Z3 called wedges. Let
W f := {(x, y, z) (Z+ )3 : y x, z f (x)},
where f is an increasing function with f (1) 1. We have
T. Lyons [11]. The wedge W f is transient if and only if
[n f (n)]1 < .
n
Proof. Let n be the cutset {{(n, y, z), (n + 1, y, z)} : (n, y, z) W f }. We have
|n | = n f (n) and Proposition 3.1 implies that if n 1/[n f (n)] = , then W f is
recurrent.
Now for the other implication. Consider the random spatial curve (t) := (t, U1 t,
U2 f (t)), were U1 , U2 are independent uniform [0, 1] random variables, and let be
the closest lattice path in W f to . Define the flow by (e) := P{e }. It can be
of converges or diverges the same as the sum n 1/[n f (n)],
shown that the energy
which proves that n 1/[n f (n)] < implies transience.
The method of random paths has been used extensively to prove transience of super-
critical percolation clusters in Zd and in wedges; see [3], [6], and [1]. T. Lyons [11]
used another flow to show transience of Z3 .
Polya described how he came to consider the problem of random walks:
At the hotel there lived also some students with whom I usually took my meals
and had friendly relations. On a certain day one of them expected the visit of his
fiancee, what I knew [sic], but I did not foresee that he and his fiancee would also
set out for a stroll in the woods, and then suddenly I met them there. And then I
met them the same morning repeatedly. I dont remember how many times, but
certainly much too often and I felt embarrassed: It looked as if I was snooping
around which was, I assure you, not the case. [19]
REFERENCES
1. O. Angel, I. Benjamini, N. Berger, and Y. Peres, Transience of percolation clusters on wedges, Electron.
J. Probab. 11 (2006) 655669.
2. I. Benjamini, R. Pemantle, and Y. Peres, Random walks in varying dimensions, J. Theoret. Probab. 9
(1996) 231244. doi:10.1007/BF02213742
3. , Unpredictable paths and percolation, Ann. Probab. 26 (1998) 11981211. doi:10.1214/aop/
1022855749
4. P. G. Doyle and J. L. Snell, Random Walks and Electric Networks, Carus Mathematical Monographs,
vol. 22, Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1984.
5. F. Eggenberger and G. Polya, Uber die statistik vorketter vorgange, Zeit. Angew. Math. Mech. 3 (1923)
279289. doi:10.1002/zamm.19230030407
6. O. Haggstrom and E. Mossel, Nearest-neighbor walks with low predictability profile and percolation in
2 + dimensions, Ann. Probab. 26 (1998) 12121231. doi:10.1214/aop/1022855750
7. N. L. Johnson and S. Kotz, Urn Models and Their Application. An Approach to Modern Discrete Proba-
bility Theory, John Wiley, New York, 1977.
8. M. Krishnapur and Y. Peres, Recurrent graphs where two independent random walks collide finitely
often, Electron. Comm. Probab. 9 (2004) 7281.
9. D. A. Levin, Y. Peres, and E. Wilmer, Markov Chains and Mixing Times, American Mathematical Society,
Providence, RI, 2008.
10. R. Lyons and Y. Peres, Probability on Trees and Networks (in progress); available at http://php.
indiana.edu/~rdlyons/prbtree/prbtree.html.
11. T. Lyons, A simple criterion for transience of a reversible Markov chain, Ann. Probab. 11 (1983) 393
402. doi:10.1214/aop/1176993604
12. H. M. Mahmoud, Polya Urn Models, Texts in Statistical Science Series, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
2009.
13. C. St. J. A. Nash-Williams, Random walk and electric currents in networks, Proc. Cambridge Philos.
Soc. 55 (1959) 181194. doi:10.1017/S0305004100033879
14. J. R. Norris, Markov Chains, Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics, vol. 2, Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998; reprint of 1997 original.
15. R. Pemantle, A survey of random processes with reinforcement, Probab. Surv. 4 (2007) 179. doi:
10.1214/07-PS094
16. J. Pitman, Combinatorial Stochastic Processes, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1875, Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, 2006.
17. G. Polya, Uber eine aufgabe der wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung betreffend die irrfahrt im straennetz,
Math. Ann. 84 (1921) 149160. doi:10.1007/BF01458701
18. , Sur quelques points de la theorie des probabilites, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare 1 (1931) 117161.
19. , Two incidents, in Scientists at Work: Festschrift in Honour of Herman Wold, T. Dalenius,
G. Karlsson, and S. Malmquist, eds., Almquist & Wiksells, Uppsala, Sweden, 1970.
20. W. Woess, Random Walks on Infinite Graphs and Groups, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 138,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.
DAVID A. LEVIN (Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley, 1999) is an assistant professor of mathematics
at the University of Oregon. His research interests are in probability theory, and he is a co-author of the book
Markov Chains and Mixing Times (AMS, 2008).
Department of Mathematics, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97402-1222
dlevin@uoregon.edu
http://www.uoregon.edu/dlevin
230
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
YUVAL PERES (Ph.D. Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1990) is a principal researcher and manager of the
Theory Group at Microsoft Research in Redmond. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley and at the University of Washington, Seattle. He is the author of more than 150 research papers
and co-author of the book Markov Chains and Mixing Times (AMS, 2008). His research interests include most
areas of probability theory, as well as parts of ergodic theory, game theory, and information theory. He re-
ceived the Rollo Davidson and Loeve prizes, and was an invited speaker at the 2002 International Congress of
Mathematics (Beijing) and the 2008 European Congress of Mathematics (Amsterdam).
peres@microsoft.com
1
Diverges
p
Everyone knows Euclids proof that there are infinitely many primes. Here we
give a variationof Euclids argument to prove the stronger result (due originally
to Euler) that 1/ p diverges, where the sum is over allprimes p. To see this,
suppose that 1/ p converges. Then for some prime q, pq 1/ p = S < 1. Let
t = p<q p. Then for all n 1, if p is a prime and p < q then p (1 + nt). So
for n 1, 1 + nt is a product of primes q. Therefore
1 1 1 1
+ + +
n1
1 + nt pq
p p1 , p2 q p1 p2 p1 , p2 , p3 q p1 p2 p3
= S + S 2 + S 3 + < .
However,
1 1 1 1
= = ,
n1
1 + nt n1
n + nt 1 + t n1 n
Problem 1.1. Given two polyhedra in R3 which have the same combinatorial struc-
ture (e.g., both are hexahedra with four-sided faces), determine whether a given set of
measurements is sufficient to ensure that the polyhedra are congruent or similar.
We will make this more specific by specifying what sorts of measurements will
be allowed. For example, in much of the paper, allowed measurements will include
distances between pairs of vertices, angles between edges, angles between two inter-
secting face diagonals (possibly on different faces with a common vertex) or between
a face diagonal and an edge, and dihedral angles (that is, angles between two adjoin-
ing faces). One motivation for these choices is given below. Sometimes we are more
restrictive, for example, allowing only distance measurements.
In two dimensions this was a fundamental question answered by Euclidean ge-
ometers, as (we hope) every student who takes geometry in high school learns. If the
lengths of the corresponding sides of two triangles are equal, then the triangles are
congruent. The SAS, ASA, and AAS theorems are equally well known. The extension
to other shapes is not often discussed, but we will have some remarks about the pla-
nar problem as well. It is surprising to us that beyond the famous theorem of Cauchy
discussed below, we have been unable to find much discussion of the problems we con-
sider in the literature, though we think it is almost certain that they have been studied
in the past. We would be appreciative if any reader can point us to relevant results.
Our approach will usually be to look at the problem locally. If the two polyhedra
are almost congruent, and agree in a certain set of measurements, are they congruent?
At first glance this looks like a basic question in what is known as rigidity theory, but
a little thought shows that it is different. In rigidity theory, attention is paid to relative
positions of vertices, viewing these as connected by inextensible rods which are hinged
at their ends and so can rotate relative to each other, subject to constraints imposed by
the overall structure of rods. In our problem there is the additional constraint that in
any movement of the vertices, the combinatorial structure of the polyhedron cannot
change. In particular, any vertices that were coplanar before the movement must be
coplanar after the movement. This feature seems to us to produce an interesting area
of study.
Our original motivation for considering this problem came from a very practical
question encountered by one of us (SPH). If one attempts to make solid wooden models
of interesting polyhedra, using standard woodworking equipment, it is natural to want
to check how accurate these models are.1 As a mathematician one may be attracted
first to the Platonic solids, and of these, the simplest to make appears to be the cube.
(The regular tetrahedron looks harder, because non-right angles seem harder to cut
accurately.)
doi:10.4169/000298910X480081
1 The usual method of constructing a polyhedron is by folding a paper shell.
232
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
It is possible to purchase lengths of wood with a square cross section, called turn-
ing squares because they are mostly used in lathes. To make a cube, all one has to do
is use a saw to cut off the correct length piece from a turning square. Of course, one
has to do so in a plane perpendicular to the planes of sides of the turning square. It is
obvious that there are several degrees of freedom, meaning several ways to go wrong.
The piece cut off could be the wrong length, or you could cut at the wrong angle, or
perhaps the cross section wasnt square to begin with. So, you start measuring to see
how well you have done.
In this measurement, though, it seems reasonable to make some assumptions. The
basic one of interest here is that the saw cuts off a planar slice. You also assume that
this was true at the sawmill where the turning square was made. So you assume that
you have a hexahedrona polyhedron with six faces, all of which are quadrilaterals.
Do you have a cube? At this point you are not asking a question addressed by standard
rigidity theory.
Ones first impulse may be to measure all of the edges of the hexahedron, with the
thought that if these are equal, then it is indeed a cube. This is quickly seen to be false,
because the faces could be rhombi. Another intriguing possibility that we considered
early on is that measuring the twelve face diagonals might suffice. However, we found
some examples showing that this was not the case, and David Allwright [2] gave a
short and elegant quaternion-based classification of all hexahedra with equal face di-
agonals. See also an earlier discussion of this problem in [13].2 Clearly some other
configuration of measurements, perhaps including angles, is necessary. It did not take
long to come up with several sets of 12 measurements which did the job, but a proof
that this number was necessary eluded us.
In our experience most people, even most mathematicians, who are presented with
this problem do not see an answer immediately. Apparently the cube is harder than
it looks, and so one would like a simpler problem to get some clues. The tetrahedron
comes to mind, and so one asks how many measurements are required to establish that
a polyhedron with four triangular faces is a regular tetrahedron.
Now we turn to Cauchys theorem.
Theorem 1.2 (Cauchy, 1839). Two convex polyhedra with corresponding congruent
and similarly situated faces have equal corresponding dihedral angles.
If we measure the six edges of our triangular-faced object, and find them equal, then
we have established congruence of the faces of our object to those of a tetrahedron.
Cauchys theorem tells us that the dihedral angles are the same and this implies the
desired congruence.
For a tetrahedron this result is fairly obvious, but for the two other Platonic solids
with triangular faces, namely the octahedron and the icosahedron, it is less so. Hence
Cauchys theorem is of practical value to the (extremely finicky) woodworker, and
shows that for these objects, the number of edges is at least an upper bound on the
number of measurements necessary to prove congruence. From now on we will denote
the number of edges of our polyhedron by E, the number of vertices by V , and the
number of faces by F. We will only consider simply connected polyhedra, so that
Eulers formula, V + F = E + 2, holds.
It is not hard to give an example showing the necessity of convexity in Cauchys
result, but it is one where the two polyhedra being compared are, in some sense, far
2 The face diagonals of a hexahedron are equal when these diagonals form two congruent regular tetrahedra
whose edges intersect in pairs. As it turns out, this arrangement is not unique. We have included Allwrights
analysis of the possibilities as Appendix A in the posting of this paper to www.arXiv.org.
234
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
of R3 which is bounded, does not lie in any plane, and can be expressed as an intersec-
tion of finitely many closed half-spaces.
The vertices, edges, and faces of a convex polyhedron P can be defined in terms
of intersections of P with suitable closed half-spaces. For example, a face of P is a
subset of P of the form P H , for some closed half-space H , such that P H lies
entirely within some plane but is not contained in any line. Edges and vertices can be
defined similarly.
The original problem refers to two polyhedra with the same combinatorial struc-
ture, so we give a notion of abstract polyhedron which isolates the combinatorial
information embodied in a convex polyhedron.
Thus to say that two polyhedra P and Q have the same combinatorial structure is
to say that their underlying abstract polyhedra are isomorphic; that is, there are bi-
jections V : V P V Q and F : F P F Q that respect the incidence relation: (v, f )
is in I P if and only if (V (v), F ( f )) is in I Q . Note that there is no need to record
information about the edges; we leave it to the reader to verify that the edge data and
incidence relations involving the edges can be recovered from the incidence struc-
ture (V P , F P , I P ). The cardinality of the set I P is twice the number of edges of P,
since
|I P | = (number of vertices on f ) = (number of edges on f )
f F P f F P
Rephrasing:
Corollary 2.5. Let P be a convex polyhedron with E edges. Then there is a set of E
measurements that is sufficient to determine P up to congruence amongst all nearby
convex polyhedra with the same combinatorial structure as P.
Well prove this theorem as a corollary of Theorem 2.10 below, which gives con-
ditions for a set of measurements to be sufficient. We first fix some notation. Choose
numberings v1 , . . . , vV and f 1 , . . . , f F of the vertices and faces of , and write
(xi (P), yi (P), z i (P)) for the coordinates of vertex vi of P. We translate P if nec-
essary to ensure that no plane that contains a face of P passes through the origin.
This allows us to give an equation for the plane containing f j in the form a j (P)x +
236
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
b j (P)y + c j (P)z = 1 for some nonzero triple of real numbers (a j (P), b j (P), c j (P));
similarly, for any realization Q of thats close enough to P the ith vertex of Q is
a triple (xi (Q), yi (Q), z i (Q)) and the jth plane of Q can be described by an equa-
tion a j (Q)x + b j (Q)y + c j (Q)z = 1. Hence the coordinate functions (x1 , y1 , z 1 ,
x2 , y2 , z 2 , . . . , a1 , b1 , c1 , . . . ) give an embedding into R3V +3F of some neighborhood
of P in the space of realizations of .
For every pair (vi , f j ) in I a realization Q should satisfy the vertex-on-face con-
dition
a j (Q)xi (Q) + b j (Q)yi (Q) + c j (Q)z i (Q) = 1.
Let i, j be the function from R3V +3F to R defined by
i, j (x1 , y1 , z 1 , . . . , a1 , b1 , c1 , . . . ) = a j xi + b j yi + c j z i 1,
and let : R3V +3F R2E be the vector-valued function whose components are the
i, j as (vi , f j ) runs over all elements of I (in some fixed order). Then a vector in
R3V +3F gives a realization of if and only if it maps to the zero vector under .
We next present a combinatorial lemma, Lemma 2.7, that appears as an essential
component of many proofs of Steinitzs theorem characterizing edge graphs of poly-
hedra. (See Lemma 2.3 of [9], for example.) We give what we believe to be a new proof
of this lemma. First, we make an observation that is an easy consequence of Eulers
theorem.
Lemma 2.6. Suppose that is a planar bipartite graph of order r . Then there is an
ordering n 1 , n 2 , . . . , n r of the nodes of such that each node n i is adjacent to at most
three preceding nodes.
Proof. We give a proof by induction on r . If r 3 then any ordering will do. If r >
3 then we can apply a standard consequence of Eulers formula (see, for example,
Theorem 16 of [3]), which states that the number of edges in a bipartite planar graph
of order r 3 is at most 2r 4. If every node of had degree at least 4 then the
total number of edges would be at least 2r , contradicting this result. Hence every
nonempty planar bipartite graph has a node of degree at most 3; call this node n r .
Now remove this node (and all incident edges), leaving again a bipartite planar graph.
By the induction hypothesis, there is an ordering n 1 , . . . , n r 1 satisfying the conditions
of the theorem, and then n 1 , . . . , n r gives the required ordering.
Lemma 2.7. Let P be a convex polyhedron. Consider the set V F consisting of all
vertices and all faces of P. It is possible to order the elements of this set such that
every vertex or face in this set is incident with at most three earlier elements of V F .
Proof. We construct a graph of order V + F as follows. has one node for each
vertex of P and one node for each face of P. Whenever a vertex v of P lies on a face f
of P we introduce an edge of connecting the nodes corresponding to v and f . Since
P is convex, the graph is planar; indeed, by choosing a point on each face of P, one
can draw the graph directly on the surface of P and then project onto the plane. (The
graph is known as the Levi graph of the incidence structure = (V , F , I ).) Now
apply the preceding lemma to this graph.
In more abstract terms, this lemma implies that the space of all realizations of is,
in a neighborhood of P, a smooth manifold of dimension 3V + 3F 2E = E + 6.
Proof. We prove that there are no nontrivial linear relations on the 2E rows of D(P).
To illustrate the argument, suppose that the vertex v1 lies on the first three faces and no
others. Placing the rows corresponding to 1,1 , 1,2 , and 1,3 first, and writing simply x1
for x1 (P) and similarly for the other coordinates, the matrix D(P) has the following
structure:
a1 b1 c1 0 . . . 0 x1 y1 z 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . 0
a2 b2 c2 0 . . . 0 0 0 0 x2 y2 z 2 0 0 0 0 . . . 0
a3 b3 c3 0 . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x3 y3 z 3 0 . . . 0
D(P) =
0 0 0
.. .. ..
. . .
0 0 0
Here the vertical double bar separates the derivatives for the vertex coordinates from
those for the face coordinates. Since the faces f 1 , f 2 , and f 3 cannot contain a common
line, the 3-by-3 submatrix in the top left corner is nonsingular. Since v1 lies on no other
faces, all other entries in the first three columns are zero. Thus any nontrivial linear
relation of the rows cannot involve the first three rows. So D(P) has full rank (that
is, rank equal to the number of rows) if and only if the matrix obtained from D(P) by
deleting the first three rows has full rankthat is, rank 2E 3. Extrapolating from the
above, given any vertex that lies on exactly three faces, the three rows corresponding to
that vertex may be removed from the matrix D(P), and the new matrix has full rank if
and only if D(P) does. The dual statement is also true: exchanging the roles of vertex
and face and using the fact that no three vertices of P are collinear we see that for any
triangular face f we may remove the three rows corresponding to f from D(P),
and again the resulting matrix has full rank if and only if D(P) does. Applying this
idea inductively, if every vertex of P lies on exactly three faces (as in for example the
regular tetrahedron, cube, or dodecahedron), or dually if every face of P is triangular
(as in for example the tetrahedron, octahedron, or icosahedron) then the lemma is
proved. For the general case, we choose an ordering of the faces and vertices as in
Lemma 2.7. Then, starting from the end of this ordering, we remove faces and vertices
from the list one-by-one, removing corresponding rows of D(P) at the same time.
At each removal, the new matrix has full rank if and only if the old one does. But after
removing all faces and vertices were left with a 0-by-2E matrix, which certainly has
rank 0. So D(P) has rank 2E.
Given any such measurement m, it follows from Lemma 2.8 that we can extend m
to a smooth function on a neighborhood of P in R3V +3F . Then the derivative Dm(P)
238
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
is a row vector of length 3V + 3F, well-defined up to a linear combination of the rows
in D(P).
Theorem 2.10. Let S be a finite set of measurements for near P. Let : R3V +3F
R|S| be the vector-valued function obtained by combining the measurements in S, and
write D(P) for its derivative at P, an |S|-by-(3V + 3F) matrix whose rows are the
derivatives Dm(P) for m in S. Then the matrix
D(P)
D(, )(P) =
D(P)
has rank at most 3E, and if it has rank exactly 3E then the measurements in S are
sufficient to determine congruence: that is, for any realization Q of , sufficiently
close to P, if m(Q) = m(P) for all m in S then Q is congruent to P.
D(P)
G = 0.
D(P)
Its straightforward to compute G directly; we leave it to the reader to check that the
transpose of G is
1 0 0 1 0 0 ... a12 a1 b1 a1 c1 a22 a2 b2 a2 c2 ...
0 1 0 0 1 0 ... a1 b1 b12 b1 c1 a2 b2 b22 b2 c2 ...
0 0 1 0 0 1 ... a1 c1 b1 c1 c12 a2 c2 b2 c2 c22 ...
0 z 1 y1 0 z y ... 0 c1 b1 0 c2 b2 ...
2 2
z1 0 x 1 z 2 0 x 2 ... c1 0 a1 c2 0 a2 ...
y1 x 1 0 y2 x 2 0 ... b1 a1 0 b2 a2 0 ...
For the final part of this argument, we introduce a notion of normalization on the
space of realizations of . Well say that a realization Q of is normalized if
v1 (Q) = v1 (P), the vector from v1 (Q) to v2 (Q) is in the direction of the positive x-
axis, and v1 (Q), v2 (Q), and v3 (Q) all lie in a plane parallel to the x y-plane, with
v3 (Q) lying in the positive y-direction from v1 (P) and v2 (P). In terms of coordi-
nates we require that x1 (P) = x1 (Q) < x2 (Q), y1 (P) = y1 (Q) = y2 (Q) < y3 (Q),
and z 1 (P) = z 1 (Q) = z 2 (Q) = z 3 (Q). Clearly every realization Q of is congru-
ent to a unique normalized realization, which well refer to as the normalization
of Q. Note that the normalization operation is a continuous map on a neighborhood
of P. Without loss of generality, rotating P around the origin if necessary, we may
assume that P itself is normalized. The condition that a realization Q be normal-
ized gives six more conditions on the coordinates of Q, corresponding to six extra
Proof. The matrix for G was given earlier; the product D(P)G is easily verified to
be
1 0 0 0 z 1 y1
0 1 0 z 1 0 x1
0 0 1 y1 x 1 0
0 1 0 z 2 0 x2
0 0 1 y x2 0
2
0 0 1 y3 x3 0
As a corollary, the columns of G are linearly independent, which proves that the
matrix in the statement of the theorem has rank at most 3E. Similarly, the rows of
D(P) must be linearly independent, and moreover no nontrivial linear combination
of those rows is a linear combination of the rows of D(, )(P). Hence if D(, )(P)
has rank exactly 3E then the augmented matrix
D(P)
D(P)
D(P)
has rank 3E + 6. Hence the map (, , ) has injective derivative at P, and so by the
inverse function theorem the map (, , ) itself is injective on a neighborhood of P
in R3V +3F . Now suppose that Q is a polyhedron as in the statement of the theorem.
Let R be the normalization of Q. Then (R) = (Q) = (P) = 0, (R) = (Q) =
(P), and (R) = (P). So if Q is sufficiently close to P, then by continuity of the
normalization map R is close to P and hence R = P by the inverse function theorem.
So Q is congruent to R = P as required.
Definition 2.12. Call a set S of measurements sufficient for P if the conditions of the
above theorem apply: that is, the matrix D(, )(P) has rank 3E.
Proof. Since the matrix D(, )(P) has rank 3E by assumption, and the 2E rows
coming from D(P) are linearly independent by Lemma 2.8, we can find E rows
corresponding to measurements in S such that D(P) together with those E rows has
rank 3E.
The final ingredient that we need for the proof of Theorem 2.4 is the infinitesimal
version of Cauchys rigidity theorem, originally due to Dehn, and later given a simpler
proof by Alexandrov. We phrase it in terms of the notation and definitions above.
240
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
Theorem 2.14. Let P be a convex polyhedron, and suppose that Q(t) is a continuous
family of polyhedra specializing to P at t = 0. Suppose that the real-valued function
m Q is stationary (that is, its derivative vanishes) at t = 0 for each face distance m.
Then Q
(0) is in the span of the columns of G above.
Proof. See Chapter 10, Section 1 of [1]. See also Section 5 of [7] for a short self-
contained version of Alexandrovs proof.
Proof. Let S be the collection of all face distances. Then Theorem 2.14 implies that
for any column vector v such that D(, )(P)v = 0, v is in the span of the columns
of G. Hence the kernel of the map D(, )(P) has dimension exactly 6 and so by the
rank-nullity theorem together with Eulers formula the rank of D(, )(P) is 3V +
3F 6 = 3E.
Now Theorem 2.4 follows from Corollary 2.15 together with Corollary 2.13.
Finding an explicit sufficient set of E face distances is now a simple matter of turn-
ing the proof of 2.13 into a constructive algorithm. First compute the matrices D(P)
and D(P) (the latter corresponding to the set S of all face distances). Initialize a
variable T to the empty set. Now iterate through the rows of D(P): for each row, if
that row is a linear combination of the rows of D(P) and the rows of D(P) corre-
sponding to measurements already in T , discard it. Otherwise, add the corresponding
measurement to T . Eventually, T will be a sufficient set of E face distances.
We have written a program in the Python programming language to implement
this algorithm. This program is attached as Appendix B of the online version of this
paper, available at www.arXiv.org. We hope that the comments within the program are
sufficient explanation for those who wish to try it, and we thank Eric Korman for a
number of these comments.
The algorithm works more generally. Given any sufficient set of measurements (in
the sense of Definition 2.12), which may include angles, it will extract a subset of
E measurements which is sufficient. It will also find a set of angle measurements
which determines a polyhedron up to similarity. As an example we consider a similar-
ity calculation for a dodecahedron. Our allowed measurements will be the set of angles
formed by pairs of lines from a vertex to two other vertices on a face containing that
vertex. In Figure 1 we show a set of 29 such angles which the program determined to
characterize a dodecahedron up to similarity.
There is no restriction of the method to Platonic solids. Data for a number of other
examples can be found in the program listing. Among these examples are several
2.1. Related Work. The results and ideas of Section 2 are, for the most part, not new.
The idea of an abstract polyhedron represented by an incidence structure, and its re-
alizations in R3 , appears in Section 2 of [14]. In Corollary 15 of that paper, Whiteley
proves that the space of realizations of a spherical incidence structure (equivalent to
an incidence structure arising from a convex polyhedron) has dimension E. The essen-
tial combinatorial content of the proof of Lemma 2.8 is often referred to as Steinitzs
lemma, and a variety of proofs appear in the literature ([10], [8]); we believe that the
proof above is new.
Other quantities might also be considered, like the distance from Ai to A j Ak , but in
practice these would require several measurements.
It is natural to ask how many simple measurements are needed to determine a poly-
gon up to isometry. In the case of a triangle the answer is 3. As mentioned earlier, there
are a few ways to do it. We note that two sides of a triangle and an angle adjacent to
one of the sides do not always determine the triangle uniquely, but they do determine
it locally (as in part (ii) of Theorem 2.4).
It is easy to see that for any n-gon P = A1 An the following (2n 3) mea-
surements suffice: the n 1 distances |A1 A2 |, |A2 A3 |, . . . , |An1 An |, together with
the n 2 angles A1 A2 A3 , . . . , An2 An1 An . Observe also that instead of us-
ing distances and angles, one can use only distances, by substituting |Ai1 Ai+1 | for
A
i1 Ai Ai+1 .
The following theorem implies that for most polygons one cannot get away with
fewer measurements. To make this rigorous, we will assume that A1 = (0, 0) , and
that A2 = (x2 , 0) for some x2 > 0. It then becomes obvious that to each polygon
242
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
we can associate a point in R2n3 , corresponding
to the undetermined coordinates
x2 , x3 , y3 , . . . , xn , yn with (xi , yi ) = x j , y j for i = j.
Theorem 3.2. Denote by S the set of all points in R2n3 obtained by the procedure
above from those polygons that can be determined up to isometry by fewer than 2n 3
measurements. Then S has measure zero.
Proof. Observe that any set of 2n 3 specific measurements is a smooth map from
R2n3 to itself. There are only a finite number of such maps, with measurements chosen
from the types 1, 2, and 3. At a noncritical point, the map has an inverse. The result is
then a consequence of Sards theorem (Chapter 2, Theorem 8 of [12]).
The above theorem is clearly not new, and we claim no originality for its statement
or proof. For n = 3 it implies that for a generic triangle one needs at least three simple
measurements. This is true for any triangle, because two measurements are clearly not
enough. For n = 4 the theorem implies that a generic convex quadriateral requires five
measurements. One can be tempted to believe that no quadrilateral can be described by
fewer than five measurements. In fact, the first reaction of most mathematicians seems
to be that if a general case requires five measurements, all special cases do so as well.
The following example seems to confirm this intuition.
The above example suggests that the special polygons require at least as many mea-
surements as the generic ones. So (2n 3) should be the smallest number of simple
measurements required for any n-gon. This reasoning is reinforced by the argument in
Section 1 that a square is determined by five unknowns, and so we need five measure-
ments.
The simplest way to raise doubt about this is to observe that the single equation
x 2 + y 2 = 0 determines both x and y. (Algebraic geometers should note that we are
dealing here with real, not complex, varieties.) In fact, the intuition that 2n 3 is the
minimum number of required measurements in all cases is very far from the truth:
many interesting n-gons can be determined by fewer than (2n 3) simple measure-
ments.
The simplest example in this direction is not usually considered a polygon. Suppose
A1 A2 A3 A4 is a set of four points in the plane that lie on the same line, in the natural
order. Then the four distances |A1 A4 |, |A1 A2 |, |A2 A3 |, and |A3 A4 | determine the con-
figuration up to isometry. This means that any subset of four points in the plane with
the same corresponding measurements is congruent to A1 A2 A3 A4 . The proof of this
is, of course, a direct application of the triangle inequality:
Obviously, no triangles are exceptional, in the above sense. But already for quadri-
laterals, there exist some exceptional ones that could be defined by four rather than
five measurements. The biggest surprise for us was the following observation.
Proposition 3.5. All squares are exceptional! Specifically, for a square ABCD the fol-
lowing four measurements distinguish it among all quadrilaterals:
The idea of showing that a particular polygon occurs when some angle or length is
maximized within given constraints, and that there is only one such maximum, is at the
heart of all of the examples in this section. It is related to the notion of second-order
rigidity of tensegrity networks; see [6] and [11].
One immediate generalization of this construction is the following 3-parameter fam-
ily of exceptional quadrilaterals.
Proposition 3.6. Suppose that ABCD is a convex quadrilateral with ABC = CDA
= 2 . Then ABCD is exceptional. It is determined up to congruence by the following
four measurements: |AB|, |AD|, |AC|, and BCD.
Proof. Consider an arbitrary quadrilateral ABCD with the same four measurements as
the quadrilateral that we are aiming for (note that we are not assuming that ABC =
CDA = ). We can consider the points A and C fixed in the plane. Then the points B
2
and D lie on two fixed circles around A, with radius |AB| and radius |AD|. Among all
such pairs of points on these circles, on opposite sides of AC, the maximum possible
value of BCD is obtained for only one choice of B and D. This is the choice which
makes CB and CD tangent to the circles at B and D, and so ABC and ADC are right
angles, and the quadrilateral ABCD is congruent to the one we are aiming for.
Proposition 3.7. For given points B and D, and given acute angles 1 and 2 , choose
A and C so that DAB = 1 , DCB = 2 , and |AC| is as large as possible. Then this
determines a unique quadrilateral ABCD, up to congruence, and this quadrilateral
has the property that |AB| = |AD| and |CB| = |CD|.
244
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
We leave the proof to the reader. It implies that for the set of quadrilaterals ABCD
such that AC is a perpendicular bisector of B D, and the angles DAB and DCB
are acute, the measurements |BD| , |AC|, DAB, and DCB are sufficient to determine
ABCD.
As David Allwright pointed out to the authors, one can further extend this example
to the situation when DAB + DCB < .
The existence of so many exceptional quadrilaterals suggests that for bigger n it
may be possible to go well below the (2n 3) measurements. This is indeed correct:
for every n there are polygons that can be defined by just n measurements.
Equality is achieved if and only if all angles A1 Ak Ak+1 are right angles, which implies
the result.
One can ask whether an even smaller number of measurements might work for
some very special polygons. The following theorem shows that in a very strong sense
the answer is negative.
Theorem 3.9. For any sequence of distinct points A1 , A2 , . . . , An in the plane, with
n 3, one needs at least n simple measurements to determine it up to plane isometry.
Proof. The result is obvious if n = 3, so assume that n > 3. At least one distance
measurement is needed, and we can assume that it is |A1 A2 |. We assume that A1 A2 is
fixed, so the positions of the other n 2 points determine the set up to isometry. We
identify the ordered set of coordinates of these points with a point in R2(n2) = R2n4 .
The set of all sequences of distinct points then corresponds to an open set U R2n4 .
Each measurement of type 1, 2, or 3 determines a smooth submanifold V U . The
following observation is the main idea of the proof.
Lemma 3.10. Suppose that x V . Then there exists an affine subspace W of R2n4 ,
of dimension at least 2n 6, which contains x and is such that for some open ball B
containing x we have W B V .
Proof. The proof of this lemma involves several different cases, depending on the
kind of measurement used and whether A1 and/or A2 are involved. We give some ex-
amples, the other cases being similar. First suppose that the polygon is the unit square,
with vertices at A1 = (0, 0), A2 = (1, 0), A3 = (1, 1), and A4 = (0, 1). Suppose that
the measurement is the angle A2 A1 A3 . With A1 and A2 fixed, we are free to move
W = {(1 + c, 1 + d, c, 1 + d)}
is the desired two-dimensional affine space. Finally, suppose that n 5 and that the
measurement is the angle between A1 Ak and Al Am where 1, 2, k, l, m are distinct. In
this case we can move Al arbitrarily, giving two free parameters, and we can move
Am so that Al Am remains parallel to the original line containing these points. Since
the length |Al Am | can be changed, this gives a third parameter. Then the length A1 Ak
can be changed, giving a fourth, and the remaining n 5 points can be moved, giving
2n 10 more dimensions. In this case, W is 2n 6 dimensional. We leave other cases
to the reader.
Continuing the proof of Theorem 3.9, we first show that k n 3 additional mea-
surements are insufficient to determine the points A1 , . . . , An . Recall that one mea-
surement, |A1 A2 |, was already used. Suppose that a configuration x R2n4 lies in
V = i=1
k
Vi , where Vi is the submanifold defined by the ith measurement. We will
prove that x is not an isolated point in V .
Denote the affine subspaces obtained from Lemma 3.10 corresponding to Vi and
x by Wi . Let W = W1 Wk . Since each Wi has dimension at least 2n 6, its
codimension in R2n4 is less than or equal to 2.3 Hence
246
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
1. There exist tetrahedra determined by just five measurements, instead of the
generic six. In particular, if measurement of dihedral angles is permitted, the
regular tetrahedron can be determined using five measurements. It seems un-
likely that four would ever work.
2. There exist 5-vertex convex polyhedra that are characterized by just five mea-
surements. Moreover, four of the vertices are on the same plane, but, unlike in
the beginning of the paper, we do not have to assume this a priori! To construct
such an example, we start with an exceptional quadrilateral ABCD as in Propo-
sition 3.6, with |AD| < |AB|. We then add a vertex E outside of the plane of
ABCD so that ADE = AEB = 2 . There are obviously many such polyhedra.
Now notice that the distances |AD|, |AC| and angles AED, ABE, BCD com-
pletely determine the configuration.
3. As pointed out earlier, using four measurements for a square, one can deter-
mine the cube with just nine distance or angle measurements. Interestingly, one
can also use 10 distance measurements for a cube. If A1 B1 C1 D1 is its base and
A2 B2 C2 D2 is a parallel face, then the six distances between A1 , B1 , D1 , and
A2 completely fix the relative position of these vertices. Then |A1 C2 |, |B2 C2 |,
|D2 C2 |, and |C1 C2 | determine the cube, because
For n 7 the above bound coincides with the upper bound (2n 3) for the minimal
number of measurements (see note after Theorem 1). One can show that for n 8,
3n2 is the optimal bound, with the regular octagon being the simplest distance-
exceptional polygon. In fact there are at least two different ways to define the regular
octagon with 12 distance measurements.
Example 3.13. Suppose A1 A2 A3 A8 is a regular octagon. Its 8 sides and the four
long diagonals determine it among all octagons. This follows from [5], Corollary 1
to Theorem 5. In fact, this example can be generalized to any regular (2n)-gon: a
tensegrity structure with cables for the edges and struts for the long diagonals has a
proper stress due to its symmetry and thus is rigid. This provides an optimal bound for
the case of an even number of points, and one can get the result for an odd number
of points just by adding one point at a fixed distance to two vertices of the regular
(2n)-gon. We should note that tensegrity networks and their generalizations have been
extensively studied; see for example [6].
There are many open questions in this area, some of which could be relatively easy
to answer. For example, we do not know whether either of the results for the cube (9
measurements, or 10 distance measurements) is best possible. Also, it is relatively easy
to determine a regular hexagon by 7 measurements, but it is not known if 6 suffice.
One can also try to extend the general results of this section to the three-dimensional
case. The methods of Theorem 3.11 produce, for any sufficiently large n, a lower es-
timate of 2n for the number of distance measurements needed to determine a set of
n points, no four of which lie on the same plane. One should also note that many of
the exceptional polygons that we have constructed, for instance the square, are unique
even when considered in three-dimensional space: the measurements guarantee their
planarity. The question of determining the smallest number of measurements for a
polyhedron, using distances and angles, with planarity conditions for the faces, seems
to be both the hardest and the most interesting. But even without the planarity condi-
tions or without the angles the answer is not known.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The authors wish to thank David Allwright for many valuable comments on a
previous version of the manuscript. We also thank Joseph ORourke and the anonymous referee for their ex-
ceptionally thorough and detailed reviews and for pointing out a number of relevant references to the literature.
REFERENCES
1. A. D. Alexandrov, Convex Polyhedra (trans. from 1950 Russian edition by N. S. Dairbekov, S. S. Kutate-
ladze, and A. B. Sossinsky), Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005.
2. D. Allwright, Quadrilateral-faced hexahedrons with all face-diagonals equal (preprint).
3. B. Bollobas, Modern Graph Theory, vol. 184, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New
York, 1998.
4. R. Connelly, A counterexample to the rigidity conjecture for polyhedra, Inst. Hautes Etudes Sci. Publ.
Math. 47 (1977) 333338. doi:10.1007/BF02684342
5. , Rigidity and energy, Invent. Math. 66 (1982) 11332. doi:10.1007/BF01404753
6. R. Connelly and W. Whiteley, Second-order rigidity and prestress stability for tensegrity frameworks,
SIAM J. Discrete Math. 9 (1996) 453491. doi:10.1137/S0895480192229236
7. H. Gluck, Almost all simply connected closed surfaces are rigid, in Geometric TopologyPark City 1974,
Lecture Notes Math., vol. 438, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1975, 225239.
8. B. Grunbaum, Convex Polytopes, vol. 221, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York,
2003.
9. , Graphs of polyhedra; polyhedra as graphs, Discrete Math. 307 (2007) 445463. doi:10.1016/
j.disc.2005.09.037
248
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
10. L. A. Lyusternik, Convex Figures and Polyhedra, Dover, Mineola, NY, 1963.
11. B. Roth and W. Whiteley, Tensegrity frameworks, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 265 (1981) 419446. doi:
10.2307/1999743
12. M. Spivak, A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry, Vol. I, 3rd ed., Publish or Perish,
Houston, TX, 1999.
13. T. Tarnai and E. Makai, A movable pair of tetrahedra, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.
423 (1989) 419442. doi:10.1098/rspa.1989.0063
14. W. Whiteley, How to describe or design a polyhedron, Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems 11
(1994) 135160. doi:10.1007/BF01258299
ALEXANDER BORISOV received an M.S. in mathematics from Moscow State University and a Ph.D. from
Penn State University. He is currently an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh. He has authored
and co-authored papers on a wide range of topics in algebraic geometry, number theory, and related areas of
pure mathematics.
Department of Mathematics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260
borisov@pitt.edu
MARK DICKINSON received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2000. He has held positions at the Uni-
versity of Michigan and the University of Pittsburgh, and is currently a researcher in computational homo-
logical algebra at the National University of Ireland, Galway. His research interests include algebraic number
theory, representation theory, and formal mathematical proofs using a proof assistant. He is also a keen pro-
grammer, and is one of the core developers of the popular Python programming language.
Mathematics Department, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
dickinsm@gmail.com
STUART HASTINGS has worked almost entirely in the area of ordinary differential equations (which these
days one has to mislabel as dynamical systems to sound respectable). A student of Norman Levinson at
M.I.T., he had positions at Case Western Reserve and SUNY, Buffalo, before coming to Pittsburgh over twenty
years ago. He is very happy to have his first publication in geometry, which he credits to (a) his grandchildren,
whose existence prompted a foray into mathematical woodworking, and (b) departmental teas, without which
he might never have discussed the problem of measuring polyhedra with two talented young researchers whose
knowledge and ability in geometry greatly exceeded his own.
Department of Mathematics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260
sph@pitt.edu
Mathematics Is . . .
Mathematics is that form of intelligence in which we bring the objects of the
phenomenal world under the control of the conception of quantity.
G. H. Howison, The departments of mathematics, and their mutual
relations, Journal of Speculative Philosophy 5 (1871) 164.
1. INTRODUCTION. We can be quite sure that Euclid (ca. 325 to ca. 265 BC) and
Etienne Bezout (17301783) never met. But we show here how Euclids algorithm for
polynomials can be used to find, with their multiplicities, the points of intersection of
two algebraic plane curves. As a consequence, we obtain a simple proof of Bezouts
Theorem, giving the total number of such intersections.
We would perhaps expect two such plane curves to be given by equations like
a
i, j i j x i j
y = 0 and i, j bi j x y = 0, with coefficients in some field K , and ask
i j
for the points (x, y) in K lying on both curves. However, this question has a nicer
2
answer if it is tweaked a bit, so we modify the question in several ways. First of all,
we seek points with coordinates in K , the algebraic closure of K , instead of just in K .
Secondly, we work with homogeneous polynomials A(x, y, z) = i, j ai j x i y j z mi j ,
where every term ai j x i y j z mi j has the same degree i + j + (m i j) = m, the
degree of A. Note that the point (0, 0, 0) always lies on A = 0, and that for every point
(x, y, z) on A = 0 and every the point (x, y, z) also lies on A = 0. Thus we
would like to ignore (0, 0, 0) and also regard (x, y, z) and (x, y, z) when = 0 as
essentially the same point. This brings us to our third tweak: we say that two nonzero
3
points in K are equivalent if each is a scalar multiple of the other. The equivalence
classes of the resulting equivalence relation give us the projective plane K P2 . Then,
choosing equivalence class representatives, we can for our purposes regard K P2 as
3
consisting of the points in K of the form (x, y, 1), (x, 1, 0) and (1, 0, 0).
Finally, we count our intersection points with multiplicity: just as the parabola
y = x 2 intersects the y-axis with multiplicity 1 but the (tangential) x-axis with mul-
tiplicity 2, we attach a suitable positive integer as the multiplicity of every intersec-
tion
point.i Then take A(x, y, z) and another homogeneous polynomial B(x, y, z) =
j ni j
i, j bi j x y z , and ask our modified question:
How many intersection points are there of A(x, y, z) = 0 and B(x, y, z) = 0 in
K P2 , counted with multiplicity, and how do we find them?
The number of points is given by Bezouts Theorem:
We give a simple proof of this result in Section 4. The algorithm given in Section 3
calculates these points, and their multiplicities.
Bezouts Theorem also gives us an answer to our original (untweaked) question:
we
get rid of z by setting
it to 1, and then the number of intersection points of
i, j ai j x i j
y = 0 and i, j bi j x y = 0 is the number of points of the form (x, y, 1)
i j
with x, y in K lying on both homogeneous curves. Thus there are at most mn of them.
doi:10.4169/000298910X480090
250
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
Bezouts Theorem is a generalization of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra,
telling us that a polynomial f (x) of degree n with complex coefficients has n com-
plex roots. (The curves y = f (x) and y = 0 are replaced by arbitrary ones, and in
projective space.)
The special case m = n = 1 of Bezouts Theorem tells us that two (distinct) lines
in the projective plane always intersect at a point (no parallel lines in K P2 !). But in
general finding the intersection points, and especially their multiplicities, is a nontrivial
business. It is this process which we aim to demystify here, by reducing the general
case to the case m = n = 1.
The intersection of two curves A = 0 and B = 0 can be expressed as a formal sum
A B of their intersection points, called the intersection cycle, defined below. The idea
of the algorithm is to use the steps of the Euclidean algorithm to express A B in terms
of intersection cycles of curves defined by polynomials of lower and lower x-degree. In
the end, we can write A B in terms of intersection cycles of 2-variable homogeneous
polynomials. But these are simply products of lines, whose intersection points can be
written down immediately (see Proposition 2(d) below).
These properties are quite natural: part (a) just says that the intersection points dont
depend on the order of the curves, while part (b) tells us that the points on A and BC
are the points on A and B plus the points on A and C, and that the multiplicities
add. For part (c), we clearly need the condition B = (AC) to make B + AC ho-
mogeneous. Then any point on A and B will also lie on B + AC. The fact that the
3. THE ALGORITHM.
3.1. The Euclidean Part. Let A, B K [x, y, z] be algebraic curves with gcd(A, B)
= 1 and, say, x A x B 1. By polynomial division we can find q, r K (y, z)[x]
with
A = qB + r
and 0 x r < x B and q, r = 0. Since the coefficients of q and r are rational func-
tions of y and z, we can multiply through by the least common multiple H K [y, z]
of their denominators to get
H A = Q B + R,
H A = Q B + R , (2)
A B = A (B G)
= A B + A G (by Proposition 2(b))
= (H A) B H B + A G (by Proposition 2(b) again)
= (Q B + R ) B H B + A G (using (2))
= R B H B + AG (by Proposition 2(c)). (3)
x R = x r < x B x A,
we see that the first intersection cycle R B on the right-hand side of (3) has the
property that the minimum of the x-degrees of its curves is less than the minimum of
the x-degrees of the curves of A B, while the second and third intersection cycles both
have one curve with x-degree 0. Thus by next applying (3) to R B , and proceeding
recursively, we can express A B as a sum of terms (C D), where C K [x, y, z]
and D K [y, z]. We have thus reduced the problem of computing A B to computing
such simpler intersection cycles.
252
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
z. Otherwise, over K it will factor as, say,
D(y, z) = (y z), (4)
where the are the roots in K of D(y, 1). Thus D is a product of lines. Then since
and also
C z = C(x, y, 0) z
and
or that, over K , we have C2 (x, z) = (x z), where the are the roots in K of
C2 (x, 1), and
C2 D = (x z) (y z) = ( , , 1).
3.3. The Result. From our algorithm we see that the intersection cycle A B is a sum
or difference of simpler sums of the following types:
254
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
2
y 0
2
0.5 0.0 0.5 1 1.5
x
Figure 1. The slice z = 1 of the cubic curves y 2 z x 3 (solid line) and y 2 z x 2 (x + z) (dotted line) near
(0, 0, 1), an intersection point of multiplicity 4. (These are the curves y 2 = x 3 and y 2 = x 2 (x + 1).)
(0, 0, 1), but it is not immediately clear what the multiplicity of intersection there is.
And are there other intersection points?
Applying our (i.e., Euclids!) algorithm to A and B as polynomials in x, we first
have
A(x, y, z) = B(x, y, z) + x 2 z,
so that A B = A (x 2 z) = 2(A x) + A z, using Proposition 2(c) and then (b). Then
A x = (y 2 z) x = 2(y x) + z x = 2(0, 0, 1) + (0, 1, 0), using 2(d), while A z =
(x 3 ) z = 3(0, 1, 0). Collecting the results together, we have A B = 4(0, 0, 1) +
5(0, 1, 0). Thus A and B intersect at (0, 0, 1) with multiplicity 4 (see Figure 1) and at
(0, 1, 0) with multiplicity 5 (Figure 2). Since both curves have degree 3, and 4 + 5 =
3 3, we have checked out Bezouts Theorem for this example. Note too that in our
standard notation for Galois cycles we have (0, 0, 1) = C1 (x, y) and (0, 1, 0) = C0 (x).
Example 2. Our second example has been cooked up to give an answer requiring
larger Galois cycles, as well as (1, 0, 0): take
A(x, y, z) = (y z)x 5 + (y 2 yz)x 4 + (y 3 y 2 z)x 3
+ (y 2 z 2 + yz 3 )x 2 + (y 3 z 2 + y 2 z 3 )x y 4 z 2 + y 3 z 3
B(x, y, z) = (y 2 2z 2 )x 2 + (y 3 2yz 2 )x + y 4 y 2 z 2 2z 4 .
Applying one step of Euclids algorithm to A and B as polynomials in x, we get
(y z)x(x 2 z 2 )
A= B + z 2 (y z)(z 2 x y 3 );
y 2 2z 2
thus clearing the denominator y 2 2z 2 gives
(y 2 2z 2 )A = (y z)x(x 2 z 2 )B + (y 2 2z 2 )z 2 (y z)(z 2 x y 3 ).
z 0
2
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
x
Figure 2. The slice y = 1 of the same curves y 2 z x 3 (solid line) and y 2 z x 2 (x + z) (dotted line) near
(0, 1, 0), an intersection point of multiplicity 5. (These are the curves z = x 3 and z = x 3 /(1 x 2 ).)
A B = R B + A G, (7)
where
R (x, y, z) = z 2 (y z)(z 2 x y 3 )
B (x, y, z) = x 2 + x y + y 2 + z 2
G(y, z) = y 2 2z 2 ,
256
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
=2 (, 1, 0) + ( , 1, 1)
: 2 ++1=0 : 2 + +2=0
+ ((z)3 + x z 2 ) (y z)
: 2 +1=0
+ ((z)3 + x z 2 ) (y z) 12(1, 0, 0).
: 4 +1=0
Now
2 (, 1, 0) + ( , 1, 1)
: 2 ++1=0 : 2 + +2=0
= 2C0 (x 2 + x + 1) + C1 (x 2 + x + 2, y 1),
and
((z)3 + x z 2 ) (y z) = 8(1, 0, 0) + C1 (x y 3 , y 4 + 1).
: 4 +1=0
Thus
R B = 2C0 (x 2 + x + 1) + C1 (x 2 + x + 2, y 1)
+ C1 (x + y, y 2 + 1) + C1 (x y 3 , y 4 + 1).
A(x, y, z) G = A(x, y, z) (y 2 2z 2 )
= A(x, z, z) (y z),
: 2 2=0
C1 (x 3 y, y 2 2) + C1 (x 2 + yx + 2, y 2 2) + 2(1, 0, 0).
Hence we obtain from (7) that A B can be written as a sum of Galois cycles as
A B = 2(1, 0, 0) + 2C0 (x 2 + x + 1) + C1 (x 2 + x + 2, y 1) + C1 (x + y, y 2 + 1)
+ C1 (x y 3 , y 4 + 1) + C1 (x 3 y, y 2 2) + C1 (x 2 + yx + 2, y 2 2).
Once this final form has been obtained, the Galois cycles can be unpacked to
write them explicitly as sums
of points. For instance, C0 (x 2 + x + 1) = (, 1, 0) +
1+ 3
( , 1, 0) where =
2
2
, and C1 (x 3 y, y 2 2) = ( , 3 , 1) + ( , 3 , 1) +
( , , 1) + ( , , 1) + ( , 3 , 1) + (2 , 3 , 1), where = 21/6 .
2 3 3
258
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
(a) i P (A, B) > 0 if and only if P lies on both A and B;
(b) i P (A, B) = i P (B, A);
(c) i P (A, BC) = i P (A, B) + i P (A, C);
(d) i P (A, B + AC) = i P (A, B) if (AC) = B;
(e) For distinct lines L , L , the only point on both lines is P given by (1), and
i P (L , L ) = 1.
Proof. To prove (a), take S/T RP . If P is not on both A and B, then S/T =
AS/AT = B S/BT (A, B)P , since at least one of AT and BT is nonzero at P.
Hence RP = (A, B)P , so that i P (A, B) = 0. On the other hand, if P is on both A and
B, then all elements of (A, B)P are 0 at P, while the constant 1 = 1/1 clearly is not!
Hence RP /(A, B)P is at least one-dimensional.
Properties (b) and (d) are immediately obvious, since (A, B)P = (B, A)P and
(A, B + AC)P = (A, B)P .
For (c), we base our argument on that in [2, p. 77]. Define two maps
RP RP
: , w
bw
(A, C)P (A, BC)P
RP RP
: , w
w,
(A, BC)P (A, B)P
where w denotes the residue of w RP in the corresponding quotient ring, and b =
B/V n , where n = B and V is one of x, y, or z, chosen so that it is nonzero at P.
It is easy to check that both maps and are K -linear maps. We claim that the
sequence
RP RP RP
0 0
(A, C)P (A, BC)P (A, B)P
is exact.
Supposing that w ker , we get bw (A, BC)P which, on multiplying by V n U ,
say, to clear denominators, gives S A = B(D T C) for some D, S, T K [x, y, z],
with w = D/U . As A and B have no common factor, A must divide D T C, so that,
on dividing by U , we have w = D/U (A, C)P , Hence w = 0, and is injective.
It is easy to show that im = ker , by checking inclusion in both directions. Also,
it is clear that is surjective, completing the verification of exactness. By the rank-
nullity theorem from linear algebra, this then implies (c).
To prove (e), take A and B to be the lines of Proposition 2(d). We first note that,
by Cramers rule, the point P is the (only) point common to both lines, so that, by
Lemma 3(a), A B is a positive integer multiple of P . We need to show that this
multiple is indeed 1.
Take a third line C = c1 x + c2 y + c3 z so that the matrix
a1 a2 a3
J = b1 b2 b3
c1 c2 c3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We are pleased to thank the referees, and Liam OCarroll, for their constructive
comments and suggestions.
REFERENCES
1. D. S. Dummit and R. M. Foote, Abstract Algebra, 2nd ed., John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 1999.
2. W. Fulton, Algebraic Curves, W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1969.
3. A. W. Knapp, Advanced Algebra, Birkhauser, Boston, 2007.
JAN HILMAR received his B.A. from St. Marys College of Maryland in 2004, and his Ph.D. at the Univer-
sity of Edinburgh in 2008. When he is not on his bike, he is doing his National Service in a refugee home in
his hometown of Vienna, and working as a freelance web developer.
trafficjan82@gmail.com
CHRIS SMYTH received his B.A. from the Australian National University in 1968, and his Ph.D. in number
theory from the University of Cambridge in 1972. After spells in Finland, England, Australia and Canada,
he was, when the music stopped, happy to find himself in Edinburgh, Scotland. He likes walking, sometimes
accompanied by Mirabelle, his cat.
School of Mathematics and Maxwell Institute for Mathematical Sciences, University of Edinburgh,
Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK
c.smyth@ed.ac.uk
260
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
NOTES
Edited by Ed Scheinerman
P
Definition 1.1. Let : (X ) R+ be defined by (E) = inf{ (Ai ) | E
Ai and Ai for all i}. Then is called the outer measure induced by .
P
Definition 1.2. A set E (X ) is said to be measurable with respect to if for
P
every set A (X ), we have (A) = (A E) + (A E C ).
P
the finite case as in the traditional proof of the Caratheodory extension theorem.
Let be a finite measure on an algebra (X ), and assume that if E i
are pairwise disjoint and i=1 E i , then ( i=1 E i ) = i=1 (E i ). Let be
the outer measure induced by . Here are some well-known properties of the outer
measure that can be found in real analysis books (for example, [3]):
P
is monotone: for any A, B (X ), if A B then (A) (B).
P
is countably subadditive: for any Ai (X ), ( Ai ) (Ai ).
| = (see [6, p. 292]).
P P
Let d : (X ) (X ) R+ be defined by the equation d(A, B) = (A B),
where A B denotes the symmetric difference of A and B. Then d is a pseudo-
P
metric; that is, d satisfies the definition of a metric, except that there may be sets
A, B (X ) such that A = B and d(A, B) = 0. If we define A B to mean that
P
d(A, B) = 0, then is an equivalence relation on (X ), and d induces a metric on
P (X )/ .
3. PROOF OF THE MAIN THEOREMS. The following lemma will be used sev-
eral times throughout the remainder of this paper.
262
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
Lemma 3.1. d(A B, C D) d(A, C) + d(B, D) for any A, B, C, D P (X ) .
Proof. Since (A B) (C D) (A C) (B D), the claim follows from the
monotonicity and subadditivity of .
Lemma 3.3. If {An } and {Bn } are -Cauchy sequences that converge to S
S, then
lim (An ) and lim (Bn ) exist and lim (An ) = lim (Bn ).
Proof. The limits exist by Lemma 3.2. For the remainder of the proof, use the fact that
|(An ) (Bn )| d(An , Bn ) d(An , S) + d(S, Bn ) 0.
Lemma 3.4. Let {An }, {Bn }, and {Cn } be -Cauchy sequences. Then {An Bn } and
{(Cn )C } are -Cauchy sequences.
Proof. The first claim is clear by Lemma 3.1. The second follows from the fact that
(Cn )C (Cm )C = Cn Cm .
Lemma 3.5.
S is an algebra.
Proof. Let S, H S. There exist -Cauchy sequences {An } and {Bn } that correspond
to S and H respectively.
Now d(S H, An Bn ) d(S, An ) + d(H, Bn ) by Lemma 3.1. Thus, since {An
Bn } is a -Cauchy sequence by Lemma 3.4, by taking the limit on both sides we
conclude that S H S. Note that we have shown that {An Bn } is a -Cauchy
sequence that corresponds to S H .
Similarly, S C
S, and thus
S is an algebra.
Let S
S. As in Section 2, we define (S) to be lim (Bn ), where {Bn } is a -
Cauchy sequence that converges to S. The following lemma is in preparation for defin-
ing a measure on
S.
Proof. Let S S. Lemma 3.3 shows that (S) is well defined. If {Bn } is a -
Cauchy sequence converging to S, then | (S) (Bn )| = |d(S, ) d(Bn , )|
(S) = lim (Bn ) = (S), and hence |S =
d(S, Bn ) 0. Thus .
Lemma 3.7. If S, H
S are disjoint, then
(S H ) =
(S) +
(H ).
Proof. Let S, H S be disjoint. Then there exist -Cauchy sequences {An } and {Bn }
that correspond to S and H respectively. As we saw in the proof of Lemma 3.5,
{An Bn } is a -Cauchy sequence that corresponds to S H .
Since is finitely additive, (An Bn ) = (An ) + (Bn ) (An Bn ). Now,
An Bn (An S) (Bn H ) since S and H are disjoint, and therefore
It follows that
(S H ) = lim (An Bn )
= lim (An ) + lim (Bn ) lim (An Bn ) =
(S) +
(H ),
as required.
Lemma 3.8.
S is a -algebra.
Proof. Let Si
S be pairwise disjoint. By Lemmas 3.6 and 3.7, for every positive
integer n we have
n
n n
n
(Si ) =
(Si ) =
Si = Si (X ) < ,
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
and therefore i=1 (Si ) converges. Thus by subadditivity of ,
n
d Si , Si = Si (Si ) 0 (1)
i=1 i=1 i=n+1 i=n+1
as n .
Now we are going to construct a -Cauchy sequence that converges to i=1 Si
with respect to the pseudometric d. For each positive integer i, let {Bni } be a -Cauchy
sequence converging to Si . Then by the proof of Lemma 3.5, we have the following
convergent sequences:
B11 B21 S1
B11 B12 B21 B22 S1 S2
.. .. .. ..
m . i m . i . m.
i=1 B1 i=1 2 B i=1 Si
.. .. .. ..
. . . .
For each positive integer L, (1) implies that there exists some N L such that
NL
i=1 Si , i=1 Si ) < 2L . Moreover, for each N L there exists some K L such that
1
d(
264
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
NL NL
d( i=1 B Ki L , i=1 Si ) < 1
2L
. Therefore
N N N
L
L
NL L
1 1 1
d B Ki L , Si d B Ki L , Si +d Si , Si + = .
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
2L 2L L
NL i
Let Y L = i=1 B K L . Then {Y L } is a -Cauchy sequence that converges to i=1 Si ,
so i=1 Si S and therefore S is a -algebra.
Proof. We use the same notation as in the proof of Lemma 3.8. For any > 0 there
exists an M such that
Si = Si (Si ) <
i=n+1 i=n+1 i=n+1
for n M. Moreover,
n
n
Si = Si +
Si =
(Si ) +
Si
i=1 i=1 i=n+1 i=1 i=n+1
for all n by Lemmas 3.7 and 3.8. Thus,
( i=1 Si ) = i=1
(Si ), and therefore
is
a countably additive measure on
S.
Main Theorem 3.10 summarizes our conclusion that S is an extension of the algebra
to a -algebra, and
is an extension of the finitely additive measure on to a
measure on S. Furthermore, this extension is identical to the traditional Caratheodory
extension according to Main Theorem 3.11.
,
Main Theorem 3.10. ( S) is a measure space.
P
Proof. () This is a common exercise found in real analysis textbooks.
() Suppose E S, and let A (X ) be arbitrary. By the subadditivity of we
have (A) (A E) + (A E C ), so to prove that E is measurable we need
(A E) + (A E C ) = (A E Bn ) + (A E (Bn )C )
+ (A E C Bn ) + (A E C (Bn )C )
(A Bn ) + (E (Bn )C )
+ (E C Bn ) + (A (Bn )C )
= (A) + (E (Bn )C ) + (E C Bn ).
4. SUMMARY. Theorems 3.10 and 3.11 show that the measure space ( ,
S) agrees
with the Caratheodory extension when is a finite measure. Moreover, Theorem 3.11
shows that the measurable sets are exactly the limit points of -Cauchy sequences,
and the measure extended as in the traditional proof of the Caratheodory extension
theorem is the limit of the measure on -Cauchy sequences. The -finite case follows
from the finite case.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT. The first author would like to thank his grandfather Waichi Tanaka for his inspira-
tion and financial assistance and Andrew Aames for encouraging him to progress through the graduate pro-
gram. With the kind support of both, the first author has progressed further than he ever thought possible.
In addition, both authors would like to thank Professor Michel L. Lapidus, Professor James D. Stafney, and
anonymous referees for their professional advice on this paper, and Anne Hansen and Elijah Depalma for their
editing assistance.
REFERENCES
1. R. N. Bhattacharya and E. C. Waymire, Stochastic Processes With Applications, Wiley InterScience, New
York, 1990.
2. T. Coquand and E. Palmgren, Metric boolean algebras and constructive measure theory, Arch. Math. Logic
41 (2002) 687704. doi:10.1007/s001530100123
3. N. Dunford and J. T. Schwartz, Linear Operators, General Theory (Part 1), Wiley InterScience, New York,
1988.
4. T. R. Fleming and D. P. Harrington, Counting Processes and Survival Analysis, Wiley InterScience, New
York, 1991.
5. A. N. Kolmogorov, Complete metric boolean algebras, Philos. Stud. 77 (1995) 5766. doi:10.1007/
BF00996311
6. H. L. Royden, Real Analysis, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988.
7. M. Sahin, On Caratheodory extension theorem on fuzzy measure spaces, Far East J. Math. Sci. 26 (2007)
311317.
8. J. Tanaka and P. F. McLoughlin, Construction of a lattice on the completion of an algebra and an isomor-
phism to its Caratheodory extension (to appear).
266
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
A Parity Theorem for Drawings of Complete
and Complete Bipartite Graphs
Dan McQuillan and R. Bruce Richter
and
m m1 n n1
cr(K m,n ) = .
2 2 2 2
268
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
Since we are interested in counting pairwise intersections of edges, it is normally
required thatthis
number be finite (any rectilinear drawing of a graph with n vertices
has at most n4 crossings). Once the number of intersections is finite, we note that
tangential intersections of edge-arcs can be perturbed to produce a new drawing of the
graph with fewer crossings.
Finally, small perturbations can also eliminate crossings if either two crossing edges
are incident with the same vertex or if two edges have two or more crossings.
Theorem2.1.
Let m and n be odd positive integers. If D is a good drawing
of K n , then
cr(D) n5 (mod 2). If D is a good drawing of K m,n , then cr(D) m3 n3 (mod 2).
We remark that n4 is achieved as the number of crossings in a rectilinear
drawing
of K n . Therefore, one consequence of Theorem 2.1 is that, for odd n, n5 and n4 have
the same parity. (Of course, this may also be proved by other means!)
In the next section we will argue that Theorem 2.1 is true for K 5 and K 3,3 : every
good drawing of either K 5 or K 3,3 has an odd number of crossings. Here we use this
fact to prove it for all larger odd n.
First we consider K n . There are n5 ways of selecting 5 vertices from the n vertices
of K n . Each of these induces a subdrawing of D that is a drawing of K 5 . This
subdraw-
ing therefore has an odd number of crossings. Let N be the sum of these n5 numbers
3. K5 AND K3,3 . It remains to show that every good drawing of either K 5 or K 3,3 has
an odd number of crossings. One could (as Harborth did for K 3,3 in [4]) enumerate all
the good drawings of K 5 and K 3,3 and simply verify that they all have an odd number
of crossings. We prefer something a little less time consuming.
The analyses are similar in the two cases, so we shall do each of the steps twice,
once for K 5 and once for K 3,3 . Let D be a good drawing of either K 5 or K 3,3 . We
suppose cr(D) is even and derive a contradiction. In the case of K 3,3 , let A be one part
of the bipartition of the vertices and let B be the other. A face of a drawing D of a
graph G is a (topological) component of R2 \ D. The two drawings in Figure 1 have,
respectively, 14 and 25 faces.
The first step is to let v be a vertex and let cv be the number of crossings of the
edges incident with v. In the case of K 5 , note that vV (K 5 ) cv = 4 cr(D). Thus, there
is some cv that is even. Delete v and its incident edges to obtain a drawing D of K 4
having an even number (namely cr(D) cv ) of crossings. Since K 4 has only two good
drawings, this implies that D is actually the planar drawing of K 4 .
For K 3,3 , consider the sum
vA cv . In this case, every crossing of D contributes to
precisely two of the cv , so vA cv = 2 cr(D). Thus, some cv is even and, therefore,
there is a subdrawing D of a K 2,3 having an even number of crossings. There are three
K 2,2 subgraphs in K 2,3 , any two having precisely two edges in common and these are
incident with the same vertex. Each crossing of the K 2,3 is contained in exactly one
such K 2,2 and this can have at most one crossing. Thus, D has 0 or 2 crossings and,
therefore, some K 2,2 has no crossing in D . The remaining vertex of the K 2,3 is in one
of the two faces of this 4-cycle. This vertex is joined by arcs to diagonally opposite
corners and there are only three ways to complete the good drawing, one resulting in
a planar drawing and the other two resulting in drawings having 2 crossings.
The second step provides the conceptual key for the role of parity for the number
of crossings in a good drawing of K 5 or K 3,3 . We proceed first with K 5 . In D, v is in
some face F of D . We show that, for any other vertex w, the parity of the number of
crossings of vw is independent of the routing from F to w. The edge vw is not allowed
to cross any edge incident with w and the remaining edges form a 3-cycle. If v and
w are on the same side of this 3-cycle, then the number of crossings of vw is even;
in the other case it is odd. No matter which face F is, three of the edges vw from v
270
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
to a vertex w of the K 4 have an even number of crossings (these w are incident with
F) and one has an odd number of crossings. Since no two edges incident with v cross
each other, and D has an even number of crossings, the total number of crossings is
odd, a contradiction. Thus, we are done with K 5 .
For K 3,3 , we likewise have a constant parity for the edges vw, with w B. This
can be seen as follows. The edges of K 2,3 not incident with w make a 4-cycle, which
may have a self-crossing. Inserting a vertex of degree 4 at the crossing, we get a planar
graph in which every vertex has even degree. Therefore it is the union of edge-disjoint
cycles; let Cw be the corresponding set of simple closed curves in the plane. Each
curve in Cw has a number of crossings with vw whose parity is independent of the
actual routing of vw, but dependent on the face of D in which v is situated.
For K 3,3 , there is one further step to take. We claim that the parity of the number
of crossings of D is also independent of the face of D containing v. Consider the
possibility of extending D by placing v in one of two adjacent faces F and F
adjacent means they share a common boundary segment .
The arc is in precisely two of the three subgraphs K 2,3 w, w B. For each
of these two w, exactly one curve in Cw separates F and F . Thus, the parity of the
number of crossings of the arc vw is different in the cases v is drawn in F and v is
drawn in F . The third w is incident with the edge containing . Therefore, no curve
in Cw separates F and F , and so the parity of the arc vw is the same whether v is in
the face F or in the face F . Therefore, the total parity of the number of crossings for
these three arcs is the same, whether v is in F or in F . Because we can move from
one face to any other by a sequence of adjacent faces, the total parity is independent
of the location of v.
It remains to consider each of the three drawings of K 2,3 and verify (with only one
trial each) that the number of crossings of K 3,3 is odd in all cases.
Lemma 4.1. Let G be a connected graph for which all good drawings have the same
parity.
1. Suppose that the vertices u, v, w of G are pairwise adjacent. Then val(u) is even.
2. If v is adjacent to both u and w, but u and w are not adjacent, then val(u) is
odd.
Proof. For both (1) and (2) we exhibit two good drawings of G. For the first drawing,
we place the vertices of G at the corners of a convex |V (G)|-gon with v, u, w on
consecutive corners and we use only line segments for the edges. In this drawing, the
edges that cross vw are precisely those edges incident with u and not incident with
either v or w. The second will be obtained by drawing the arc vw outside the polygon.
Now vw has no crossings. All other crossings are exactly the same in both drawings.
For (1), in the first drawing, the edges incident with u other than uv and uw all
cross vw. The second drawing therefore has val(u) 2 fewer crossings than the first;
constant parity implies val(u) is even.
We claim that if there is a triangle, then G is complete. For otherwise, there are
vertices u, v, w, x so that u, v, w make a triangle and x is adjacent to v but not to
u. Lemma 4.1 implies (using u, v, w) that val(u) is even. Using u, v, x, we conclude
val(u) is odd, a contradiction. Thus, G is the complete graph K n . Since G has a tri-
angle, we see that n 3 and, since every vertex has even valence, n is odd.
Thus, we can suppose G has no triangle.
Lemma 4.2. Let G be a connected graph for which all good drawings have the same
parity. If G has no triangle, then G is complete bipartite.
Proof. If G is not bipartite, then G has a shortest odd cycle (v1 , v2 , . . . , vk , v1 ) (so k
is odd and at least 5). There are no other adjacencies between the vertices of the cycle.
By Lemma 4.1, all of v1 , . . . , vk have odd valence.
Place the vertices of G at the corners of a convex |V (G)|-gon so that v1 , v2 , . . . , vk
are in this order on consecutive corners. In the drawing with all edges as line segments,
v1 vk crosses all the edges of G incident with v2 , v3 , . . . , vk1 , except those edges of
C. Thus, v1 vk has an odd number of crossings. Now drawing v1 vk as a curve outside
the polygon yields a different parity drawing of G, a contradiction showing that G is
bipartite.
Thus, there is a partition of the vertex set of G into U and W so that every edge of
G has one end in U and one end in W . Suppose some vertex u U is not adjacent to
some vertex w W . Place the vertices in U on the line x = 0, so that u has the largest
y-coordinate, and likewise place the vertices in W on the line x = 1, so that w has the
largest y-coordinate. Let the next highest vertex of W be a vertex w adjacent to u.
Since G is connected, there is a shortest path from w to u, say beginning w, x, y.
Lemma 4.1 implies val(w) is odd.
First, use line segments for all the edges. Then uw crosses precisely the edges
incident with w, an odd number. But the edge uw can be drawn over and around w so
as to have no crossings at all.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. DM thanks RBR and the University of Waterloo for their hospitality while this
research took place. RBR acknowledges the financial support of NSERC.
REFERENCES
272
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
4. H. Harborth, Parity of number of crossings for complete n-partite graphs, Math. Slovaka 26 (1976) 77
95.
5. D. Kleitman, The crossing number of K 5,n , J. Combin. Theory 9 (1970) 315322. doi:10.1016/
S0021-9800(70)80087-4
6. , A note on the parity of the number of crossings of a graph, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 21 (1976)
8889. doi:10.1016/0095-8956(76)90032-0
7. S. Pan and R. B. Richter, The crossing number of K 11 is 100, J. Graph Theory 56 (2007) 128134. doi:
10.1002/jgt.20249
8. M. J. Pelsmajer, M. Schaefer, and D. Stefankovic, Odd crossing number and crossing number are not the
same, Discrete Comput. Geom. 39 (2008) 442454. doi:10.1007/s00454-008-9058-x
9. R. B. Richter and C. Thomassen, Relations between crossing numbers of complete and complete bipartite
graphs, Amer. Math. Monthly 104 (1997) 133137.
10. D. Woodall, Cyclic-order graphs and Zarankiewiczs crossing-number conjecture, J. Graph Theory 17
(1993) 657671. doi:10.1002/jgt.3190170602
Department of Combinatorics & Optimization, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
brichter@uwaterloo.ca
Sanjay K. Khattri
Note that we could also define the number e through the limit
n+0.5
1
e = lim 1+ . (2)
n n
Let us see the motivation behind the above result. The reader can observe that the limit
(2) is modestly different than the classical limit (1). Let us approximate e from these
two limits using n = 1000. From the classical limit, we get e 2.71692393, which
is accurate to only 3 decimal places. From the new limit (2), we get e 2.71828205,
which is e accurate to 6 decimal places. Thus, the new limit appears to be a big im-
provement over the classical result.
doi:10.4169/000298910X480126
Department of Combinatorics & Optimization, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
brichter@uwaterloo.ca
Sanjay K. Khattri
Note that we could also define the number e through the limit
n+0.5
1
e = lim 1+ . (2)
n n
Let us see the motivation behind the above result. The reader can observe that the limit
(2) is modestly different than the classical limit (1). Let us approximate e from these
two limits using n = 1000. From the classical limit, we get e 2.71692393, which
is accurate to only 3 decimal places. From the new limit (2), we get e 2.71828205,
which is e accurate to 6 decimal places. Thus, the new limit appears to be a big im-
provement over the classical result.
doi:10.4169/000298910X480126
For deriving this inequality, we use the Taylor series expansion and the Hermite-
Hadamard inequality. Let us now present our first proof through the Taylor series
expansion.
Proof. The Taylor series expansion of the function ln (1 + x) around the point x = 0
is given by the following alternating series (see [4, 6] or any calculus book):
x2 x3 x4 x5
ln (1 + x) = x + + , 1 < x 1.
2 3 4 5
Let us replace x by 1/n in the above series, and multiply both sides by n:
1 1 1 1 1
n ln 1 + =1 + 2 3 + 4 .
n 2n 3n 4n 5n
Replacing n by 2n and 2n in the above series gives the following two series:
1 1 1 1 1
2n ln 1 + =1 + 2
3
+ ,
2n 4n 12n 32n 80n 4
1 1 1 1 1
2n ln 1 =1+ + 2
+ 3
+ + .
2n 4n 12n 32n 80n 4
274
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
Therefore
1 n+0.5
ln 1 + > 1,
n
so
1 n+0.5
e < 1+ .
n
Now let us prove the above inequality through the Hermite-Hadamard inequality [2].
f (x)
n, n1
n + 1, n+1
1
n+1
1 1
dx f (x) =
n x x
x
n 1+n
Figure 1. Graph of f (x) = 1/x. The shaded area is equal to ln (1 + 1/n).
Proof. Let us consider the function f (x) = 1/x on the interval [n, n + 1]. Figure 1
shows the graph. It may be seen that the derivative f (x) = 1/x 2 is an increasing
function in the interval (n, n + 1). Thus, the Hermite-Hadamard inequality holds. Ap-
plying the Hermite-Hadamard inequality to the function for x1 = n and x2 = n + 1 we
get:
4. THE THIRD PROOF. For n > 0, we define the function F (n) by the equation
(1 + 1/n)n+F (n) = e. Solving this equation for F (n), we find that
1
F (n) = n. (3)
ln 1 + n1
Now let us first show that F (n) is a monotonically increasing function. That is, for
all n 1, F (n) > 0. The derivative of this function is
1
F (n) = 1. (4)
1 2 2
ln 1 + n n 1 + n1
f (x) = ln (1 + x),
x
g(x) = .
1+x
The difference between the first derivatives of the above two functions is
1 x +22 1+x
g (x) f (x) = .
2 (1 + x)3/2
Since (x + 2) > 2 1 + x for all x > 0,
and therefore
x
ln (1 + x) < .
1+x
Now substituting x = 1/n in the above inequality and squaring both sides will show
that
1
2 > 1.
n2 1+ ln 1 + n1
1
n
From equation (4) and the above inequality, we see that F (n) > 0.
276
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
Therefore the function (3) is strictly increasing. To show that the function is
bounded from above, let us find the limit
1 1 n ln 1 + n1
lim n = lim .
n ln 1 + 1 n ln 1 + n1
n
1 n ln 1 + n1 1 n n1 2n12 + 3n13
lim = lim 1
n ln 1 + n1 n
n
2n12 + 3n13
= 0.5.
Since the function F (n) is a strictly increasing function, and limn F (n) = 0.5, we
can conclude that F (n) < 0.5, and therefore
1 n+F (n) 1 n+0.5
e = 1+ < 1+ .
n n
REFERENCES
1. C. W. Barnes, Eulers constant and e, Amer. Math. Monthly 91 (1984) 428430. doi:10.2307/2322999
2. E. F. Beckenbach and R. H. Bing, On generalized convex functions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 58 (1945)
220230. doi:10.2307/1990283
3. M. Bessenyei, The Hermite-Hadamard inequality on simplices, Amer. Math. Monthly 115 (2008) 339345.
4. H. J. Brothers and J. A. Knox, New closed-form approximations to the logarithmic constant e, Math.
Intelligencer 20(4) (1998) 2529. doi:10.1007/BF03025225
n
5. T. N. T. Goodman, Maximum products and lim 1 + n1 = e, Amer. Math. Monthly 93 (1986) 638640.
doi:10.2307/2322326
6. J. A. Knox and H. J. Brothers, Novel series-based approximations to e, College Math. J. 30 (1999) 269
275. doi:10.2307/2687664
7. E. Maor, e: The Story of a Number, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994.
8. C.-L. Wang, Simple inequalities and old limits, Amer. Math. Monthly 96 (1989) 354355. doi:10.2307/
2324094
9. H. Yang and H. Yang, The arithmetic-geometric mean inequality and the constant e, Math. Mag. 74 (2001)
321323.
PROBLEMS
11488. Proposed by Dennis I. Merino, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond,
LA, and Fuzhen Zhang, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
(a) Show that if k is a positive odd integer, and A and B are Hermitian matrices of the
same size such that Ak + B k = 2I , then 2I A B is positive semidefinite.
(b) Find the largest positive integer p such that for all Hermitian matrices A and B of
the same size, 2 p1 (A p + B p ) (A + B) p is positive semidefinite.
11489. Proposed by Panagiote Ligouras, Leonardo da Vinci High School, Noei,
Italy. Let a0 , a1 , and a2 be the side lengths, and r the inradius, of a triangle. Show that
ai2 ai+1 ai+2
18r 2 .
i mod 3
(ai+1 + ai+2 )(a i+1 + ai+2 ai )
11492. Proposed by Tuan Le, student, Freemont High School, Anaheim, CA. Show that
for positive a, b, and c,
a 3 + b3 b3 + c3 c3 + a 3 6(ab + bc + ca)
+ + .
a +b
2 2 b +c
2 2 c +a
2 2
(a + b + c) (a + b)(b + c)(c + a)
doi:10.4169/000298910X480135
278
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
11493. Proposed by Johann Cigler, Universitat Wien, Vienna, Austria. Consider the
Hermite polynomials Hn , defined by
n
Hn (x, s) = (2k 1)!!(s)k x n2k ,
0kn/2
2k
where m!! = i<m/2 (m 2i) for positive m, with (1)!! = 1. Let L be the lin-
ear transformation from Q[x, s] to Q[x] determined by L1 = 1, L x k s j = x k Ls j
for j, k 0, and L H2n (x, s) = 0 for n > 0. (Thus, for example, 0 = L H2 (x, s) =
L(x 2 s) = x 2 Ls, so Ls = x 2 .) Define the tangent numbersT
2n+1 by tan z =
T
n0 2n+1 z 2n+1
/(2n + 1)!, and the Euler numbers E 2n by sec(z) = E 2n 2n
n0 (2n)! z .
(a) Show that
L H2n+1 (x, s) = (1)n T2n+1 x 2n+1 .
(b) Show that
E 2n
Ls n = x 2n .
(2n 1)!!
11494. Proposed by Ovidiu Furdui, Campia Turzii, Cluj, Romania. Let A be the
Glaisher-Kinkelin constant, given by
2 /2n/21/12 n 2 /4
n
A = lim n n e k k = 1.2824 . . . .
n
k=1
Show that
(1)n1
n! A3
= .
n=1 2n(n/e)n 27/12 1/4
SOLUTIONS
Integral Inequalities
11360 [2008, 365]. Proposed by Cezar Lupu, student, University of Bucharest, Bucha-
rest, and Tudorel Lupu, Decebal High School, Constanta, Romania. 1Let f and g be
continuous real-valued functions on [0, 1] satisfying the condition 0 f (x)g(x) d x =
1 1 1
2 1 1
2 1 1
2
1
0. Show that 0 f 2 0 g 2 4 0 f 0 g and 0 f 2 0 g + 0 g 2 0 f
1 2
1
4 0 f 0 g .
Solution by 1 Nate Eldredge, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA. Let
f, 1 and b =
g, 1. The desired inequalities then read 1 4a 2 b2 and b2 + a 2
4a 2 b2 . Bessels inequality yields 1 a 2 + b2 , and a 2 + b2 2ab is trivial. Hence
1 a 2 + b2 (a 2 + b2 )2 4a 2 b2 , which proves both inequalities.
Editorialcomment. Charles Kicey noted
that the inequalities are best possible: let
f (x) = 2/2 + cos x and g(x) = 2/2 cos x.
Also solved by U. Abel (Germany), K. F. Andersen (Canada), R. Bagby, A. Bahrami (Iran), M. W. Botsko,
S. Casey (Ireland), R. Chapman (U. K.), H. Chen, J. Freeman, J. Grivaux (France), J. Guerreiro & J. Ma-
tias (Portugal), E. A. Herman, G. Keselman, C. Kicey, O. Kouba (Syria), J. H. Lindsey II, O. P. Lossers
(Netherlands), J. H. Nieto (Venezuela), M. Omarjee (France), J. Rooin & M. Bayat (Iran), X. Ros (Spain), K.
Schilling, B. Schmuland (Canada), A. Shafie & M. F. Roshan (Iran), A. Stadler (Switzerland), R. Stong, R.
Tauraso (Italy), J. V. Tejedor (Spain), P. Xi and Y. Yi (China), Y. Yu, L. Zhou, GCHQ Problem Solving Group
(U. K.), Microsoft Research Problems Group, NSA Problems Group, and the proposers.
280
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
This function is continuous at every positive point x, since is continuous and strictly
increasing. Also, because 0 < cx < x for x > 0, this function is also continuous at 0.
Thus, f 0 Ca . For all f Ca , we have
a a
I( f ) = gx f (x) d x gx f 0 (x) d x = I ( f 0 ).
0 0
Editorial comment. The claim follows from combining several well-known results.
(a) cot = cot A + cot B + cot C = (a 2 + b2 + c2 )/4S 3, where S is the area
of the triangle. The first equality is shown in [1]; see also [5] and [7]. The second
is an easy consequence of the law of sines and the law of cosines. The inequality
is due to Weitzenbock [2], also proved in [8].
(b) Because the cotangent is decreasing on (0, /2), we conclude that /6.
This is also deduced in [1] and [7].
(c) The squares of the sides (by the distance formula), the area S (by Picks The-
orem), and all six trigonometric functions of the angles (by various elementary
trigonometric relationships) are rational because the vertices belong to Z Z.
(d) Every angle in (0, /2) that is a rational multiple of and has rational trigono-
metric functions is larger than /6 (using Lamberts theorem; see also [6]); so
cannot be a rational multiple of .
REFERENCES
1. F. F. Abi-Khuzam and A. Boghossian, Some recent geometric inequalities, Amer. Math. Monthly 96 (1989)
576589.
2. R. Weitzenbock, Uber eine Ungleichung in der Dreiecksgeometrie, Math. Z. 5 (1919) 137146.
3. H.-J. Lee, Problem 10824, Amer. Math. Monthly 107 (2000) 752.
4. E. W. Weisstein, CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, CRC Press, 1999.
5. R. A. Johnson, Advanced Euclidean Geometry, Dover Publications, 1960/2001.
6. G. H. Hardy and E. M. Wright, An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers, Oxford, 1960.
7. R. Honsberger, Episodes in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Euclidean Geometry, New Mathematical
Library, Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1995.
8. Brocard points, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brocard_points.
9. O. Bottema et al., Geometric Inequalities, Nordhoff, Groningen, 1969.
Jerry Minkus showed that a similar result can be obtained for triangles whose ver-
tices lie in the set of vertices of the unit triangular tiling of the plane, except that
of course equilateral triangles (for which = /6) must be excluded. He also con-
jectured a generalization. Given a square-free positive integer
d other than 3, let the
lattice L d be defined by {h + k: h, k Z}, where = i d when d is congruent to
1 or 2 mod 4, and = (1 + i d)/2 when d 3 (mod 4). The conjecture is that if
the vertices of triangle ABC lie on L d , then the Brocard angle of triangle ABC is
an irrational multiple of .
Solved by R. Chapman (U. K.), P. P. Dalyay (Hungary), V. V. Garca (Spain), J.-P. Grivaux (France), O. Kouba
(Syria), J. Minkus, A. Stadler (Switzerland), R. Stong, M. Tetiva (Romania), GCHQ Problem Solving Group,
and the proposer.
282
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
Riemann Sums Dont Converge?
11376 [2008, 664]. Proposed by Proposed by Bogdan M. Baishanski, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH. Given a real number a and a positive integer n, let
1
Sn (a) = .
an<k(a+1)n kn an 2
For which a does the sequence
Sn (a) converge?
Solution by Vitali Stakhovsky, Rockville, MD. The sequence
Sn (a) converges if and
Letting j = k an, an < k (a + 1) n becomes 1 j n,
only if a is rational.
so Sn (a) = n 1/2 nj =1 ( j {an})1/2 = (n n {an})1/2 + Tn (a), where Tn (a) =
n 1/2 nj =2 ( j {an})1/2 . For j 2,
2 j 1 j 2 < ( j 1)1/2 ,
whence
2n 1/2 n + 1 2 Tn (a) 2n 1/2 n 2
and limn Tn (a) = 2. Thus, Sn (a) converges if and only if (n n {an})1/2 does;
that is, it converges when Rn (a) = n n {an} has a positive limit, finite or infinite. If a
is rational, then writing a = p/q with p and q relatively prime yields 1 {an} 1/q,
so Rn (a) n/q and Sn (a) converges.
If a is irrational, then its continued fraction convergents pk /qk satisfy 0 < a
pk /qk < 1/qk2 for even k, and 0 < pk /qk a < 1/qk2 for odd k. Thus for even k,
{qk a} < 1/qk so that Rqk (a) qk 1; on even k, this subsequence tends to infinity.
For odd k, on the other hand, {qk a} > 1 1/qk so that Rqk (a) 1; this subsequence
remains bounded. Thus
Rn (a) has neither a positive nor infinite limit, and therefore
Sn (a) diverges.
Editorial comment. Several solvers noted that Sn (a) is a Riemann sum for the expres-
a+1
sion a d x/ x a, which evaluates to 2. Since the integral is improper, it need not
equal the limit of its Riemann sums.
Also solved by R. Chapman (U. K.), P. P. Dalyay (Hungary), J.-P. Grivaux (France), S. James (Canada), G.
Kouba (Syria), J. H Lindsey II, O. P. Lossers (Netherlands), R. Martin (Germany), P. Perfetti (Italy), E. Pite
(France), M. A. Prassad (India), N. Singer, A. Stadler (Switzerland), R. Stong, M. Tetiva (Romania), M. Wildon
(U. K.), BSI Problems Group (Germany), GCHQ Problem Solving Group (U. K.), NSA Problems Group,
Northwestern University Math Problem Solving Group, and the proposer.
Solution by BSI Problems Group, Bonn, Germany. Let f n be the nth factor. Using
x x
k dy (1+ky)t 1 ekxt t
log(1 + kx) = = ke dt dy = e dt,
0 1 + ky 0 0 0 t
For t 0 we have
N
(1 ext )n
0 log 1 (1 ext ) = xt
n=1
n
Also solved by R. Bagby, D. Beckwith, R. Chapman (U. K.), H. Chen, Y. Dumont (France), M. L. Glasser,
R. Govindaraj& R. Ramanujan & R. Venkatraj (India), J. Grivaux (France), O. Kouba (Syria), O. P. Lossers
(Netherlands), A. Plaza & S. Falcon (Spain), R. Pratt, N. C. Singer, A. Stadler (Switzerland), V. Stakhovsky,
R. Stong, M. Tetiva (Romania), M. Vowe (Switzerland), L. Zhou, GCHQ Problem Solving Group (U. K.), and
the proposers.
so that
N
1+ n 2 + 2n n 2 + 4n + 3
cos1
n=1
(n + 1)(n + 2)
N
= cos1 cos n cos n+1 + sin n sin n+1
n=1
N
= cos1 cos(n+1 n ) = N +1 1 ,
n=1
which converges to /2 /3 = /6 as N .
Also solved by Z. Ahmed (India), B. T. Bae (Spain), R. Bagby, M. Bataille (France), D. Beckwith, M. Bello-
Hernandez & M. Benito (Spain), P. Bracken, B. Bradie, R. Brase, N. Caro (Brazil), R. Chapman (U. K.), H.
Chen, C. Curtis, P. P. Dalyay (Hungary), Y. Dumont (France), J. Freeman, A. Gewirtz (France), M. L. Glasser,
M. Goldenberg & M. Kaplan, J.-P. Grivaux (France), E. A. Herman, C. Hill, W. P. Johnson, D. Jurca, O.
Kouba (Syria), V. Krasniqi (Kosova), G. Lamb, W. C. Lang, K.-W. Lau (China), O. P. Lossers (Netherlands),
284
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
G. Martin (Canada), K. McInturff, M. McMullen, R. Nandan, A. Nijenhuis, M. Omarjee (France), E. Pite
(France), A. Plaza (Spain), C. R. Pranesachar (India), M. T. Rassias (Greece), A. H. Sabuwala, V. Schindler
(Germany), A. S. Shabani (Kosova), N. C. Singer, A. Stadler (Switzerland), R. Stong, J. Swenson, M. Tetiva
(Romania), J. V. Tejedor (Spain), D. B. Tyler, Z. Voros (Hungary), M. Vowe, J. B. Zacharias, BSI Problems
Group (Germany), FAU Problem Solving Group, Szeged Problem Solving Group Fejentalaltuka (Hungary),
GCHQ Problem Solving Group (U. K.), Hofstra University Problem Solvers, Microsoft Research Problems
Group, Missouri State University Problem Solving Group, NSA Problems Group, Northwestern University
Math Problem Solving Group.
Angles of a Triangle
11385 [2008, 757]. Proposed by Jose Luis Daz-Barrero, Universidad Politecnica de
Cataluna, Barcelona, Spain. Let 0 , 1 , and 2 be the radian measures of the angles of
an acute triangle, and for i 3 let i = i3 . Show that
2
i2
1/4
3 + 2 tan2 i 3 3.
i=0
i+1 i+2
1/4
= 3 3 + 2 tan2 = 3 3.
3
Note: equality holds only if 0 = 1 = 2 = /3.
Also solved by B. T. Bae (Spain), D. Baralic (Serbia), M. Bataille (France), D. Beckwith, M. Can, C. Curtis,
P. P. Dalyay (Hungary), P. De (India), Y. Dumont (France), O. Faynshteyn (Germany), V. V. Garca (Spain), M.
Goldenberg & M. Kaplan, J.-P. Grivaux (France), H. S. Hwang (Korea), B.-T. Iordache (Romania), O. Kouba
(Syria), J. H. Lindsey II, O. P. Lossers (Netherlands), P. Perfetti (Italy), E. Pite (France), M. A. Prasad (India),
S. G. Saenz (Chile), V. Schindler (Germany), A. S. Shabani (Kosova), A. Stadler (Switzerland), R. Stong, V.
Verdiyan (Armenia), Z. Voros (Hungary), M. Vowe (Switzerland), L. Zhou, Fejentalaltuka Szeged Problem
Group (Hungary), GCHQ Problem Solving Group (U. K.), Hofstra University Problem Solvers, Microsoft
Research Problems Group, and the proposer.
Alfred Tarski: Life and Logic. By Anita Burdman Feferman and Solomon Feferman. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, vi + 425, (hardback) 2004, ISBN 978-0521802406,
$45, (paperback) 2008, ISBN 978-0521714013, $24.99.
doi:10.4169/000298910X480144
286
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
personal biography. No one could be better qualified than Sol to write his scientific
biography. This splendid book chronicles his scientific and personal life.
Tarski was born on January 14, 1902 as Alfred Teitelbaum in Warsaw, then part
of Russia. He died on 0ctober 27, 1983 as Alfred Tarski in Berkeley, California. Like
other Polish Jews of his generation trying to minimize discrimination, he converted
to Roman Catholicism and changed his name. He was an atheist at heart. A brilliant
student, he received his Ph.D. in 1924 under the distinguished philosophical logician
Stanisaw Lesniewski. Mathematics in Poland rose from the ashes of World War I to
become an international center of functional analysis and of logic. Think of Banach
and Schauder. Think of Sierpinski and Tarski. Fellow students of Tarski I knew long
ago said that Tarski from Warsaw and Schauder from Lwow were regarded as the
future of Polish mathematics. Even so, neither was offered a satisfactory university
position, so both had to teach school. Schauder was a victim of the Nazis. And now
Tarskis statue adorns Warsaw University.
I heard about his preWorld War II work first as a student when Paul Halmos gave
the first course from his then-new Measure Theory in 1950. In his first lecture Halmos
pointed out that naive intuition about volume does not carry you very far by stating
the Banach-Tarski paradox. Tarskis name and theorem caught everyones attention,
as indeed it should have. At about the same time I attended seminars of the logical
positivist Rudolph Carnap. He explained Tarskis definition of satisfaction and truth
of sentences in a model of first-order logic and stated Tarskis famous undefinability
theorem. This theorem says that there is no formula in one free variable of first-order
Peano arithmetic which is true of exactly the Godel numbers of the true statements of
Peano arithmetic.
Tarski investigated many other logical questions before World War II. One I like,
which Sierpinski finally published after the war but Tarski and Lindenbaum announced
very much earlier, was that the generalized continuum hypothesis implies the axiom
of choice. Lindenbaum was another Nazi victim. Another famous theorem published
only after World War II was Tarskis generalized Sturms theorem and the decision
method for the first-order theory of the real numbers, the theory of real closed fields.
Refinements have played a large role in several scientific applications. A third was the
topological interpretations of modal logics. For a fourth, he had examined the hun-
dreds of theorems on the algebra of binary relations in Schroders algebra of logic and
derived them all from a few axioms which he took to define relation algebras. This
development later led to the development of Tarskis set theory without variables. This
realized a dream of C. S. Peirce and Ernst Schroder to use the binary relation calcu-
lus to represent all of mathematics. It also led to relational programming languages.
According to Mostowski, before World War II Tarski had envisaged model theory as
a generalization of algebra, and wrote an account which got to the stage of a page
proof for a never-published encyclopedia. One might date the published introduction
of model theory to his International Congress of Mathematicians lecture of 1950 in
which he introduced the fundamental definition for building model theory, the notion
of elementary extension. When these works finally appeared after the war, they had an
immense influence. His book on undecidable theories was the first systematic survey
of how to show that first-order theories were undecidable. This has advanced a long
way since, but the work was seminal. There was also his theory of cardinal and ordinal
algebras.
Tarski was perhaps saved from the Holocaust by his philosophical interests and
an accident of timing over which he had no control. He was on a visit to a Unity of
Science meeting in Cambridge in 1939. Two days before the meeting commenced,
Warsaw was bombed and World War II began. He could not return, and his wife and
288
c THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [Monthly 117
THE MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
1529 Eighteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036