Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

Geometry without axioms Demonstration

The theorem is deduced from the definition of

Notes geometrical space.
I used the notation AB or (AB) for a straight Theorem 2
line, ‚ABƒ for a segment of straight line and (ABƒ for In a plane, a straight line intersects at least one
a half of line. The notation A-B-C means that B is of two concurrent straight lines.
between A and C. The notation ‚ACƒB indicates the Demonstration
shortest way from A to C through point B. If in a plane a straight line did not intersect both
Introduction of two concurrent straight lines, then, even if it
intersected a third straight line which intersects the
(I skip it.)
two concurrent straight lines, it would intersect one
Definitions1 line at the most out of the three intersecting lines,
The definition of a straight line: a straight line which contradicts the definition of plane.
is the group of (successive) points in which, Theorem 3
whatever two points we would take, the shortest way In a plane, the perpendicular line to a straight
between them is made up of points that belong to the line is a straight line.
group.2 Demonstration
The definition of a perpendicular line: a First, we will show that two points (A and B) of
perpendicular line to a given straight line is the the perpendicular line which are on two different
group of successive (or coplanar) points for which sides of the straight line (a) and the point (C) on the
the shortest way to the straight line ends on the same straight line in which the shortest way from any of
point on the straight line. the points of the perpendicular line to the straight
The definition of parallel straight lines: two line end are collinear.
straight lines are parallel if they are coplanar and Let us suppose A, B and C, are not collinear.
they don’t intersect. Then, since A and B are on two different sides of the
The definition of plane: a plane is the group of straight line a, the shortest way from A to B
the points of the straight lines which intersect at least intersects line a. Point C cannot be the point of
two out of three given straight lines which intersect intersection because in this case A, B and C would
each other.3 be collinear. Therefore, there is (at least6) a point D
The definition of geometrical space4: the on line a, different from C, so that A, B and D are
geometrical space is the group of all the points collinear and A, B and C are not collinear.
whose existence is possible, non-contradictory. Therefore, we have ‚ABƒD 6 ‚ABƒC (1). We also
have: ‚ABƒC ˆ ‚ABƒ ‡ ‚BCƒ and ‚ABƒD ˆ ‚ADƒ ‡
‚DCƒ. But since ‚ACƒ is the shortest way from A to
Theorem 1 (the theorem or the principle of the line a ‚ACƒ ≤ ‚ADƒ.7 The same way, ‚BCƒ ≤ ‚BDƒ.
existence of geometrical entities) We will have: ‚ACƒ ‡ ‚BCƒ ≤ ‚ADƒ ‡ ‚BDƒ.
If it’s possible for a point to exist (its existence Therefore, ‚ABƒC ≤ ‚ABƒD (2). Relations (1) and (2)
is not contradictory) then it exists in the geometrical are contradictory. Therefore, the premise is wrong
space.5 and A, B and C are collinear (3).
Now we will show that A, B and C are collinear
The concept of point is taken as prime, undifined concept. when A and B are on the same side of line a. Let us
It reduces to the classical definition of a straight line: “two consider the same construction as above with the
points determine a straight line”.
3 exception that A and B are on the same side. We will
If a straight line intersects two out of three straight lines in
the same point it is included in plane if by one of its points
take a point D on the other side of line a. According
we can draw a straight line which satislets the conditions to
be included in plane (in this case the straight line has at The construction of line, plane, tridimensional space,
least two points in common with the three intersectin perpendicular and parallel lines and geometrical figures is
straight lines, that is, at least two points in plane, which is based on this principle (see Appendix B). It eliminates the
required to be included in that plane). need for axioms to postulate the existence of line or plane,
I used the expresion «geometrical space» to make it for example.
distincti from a real physical space which could have in Since we have not proved yet that two points determine
principle less than all possible points, less than all possible only one straight line, it would be possible that there would
dimentions. be more D’s.
5 7
The extended principle is this: it the existence of a The equality is ‚ACƒ ≤ ‚ADƒ and not ‚ACƒ 6 ‚ADƒ because
geometrical entity (made up of more points) is we have not proved yet that the shortest way from a point
noncontradictory then it exists in the geometrical space. to a straight line is unique.
to conclusion (3) A, C and D are collinear – A is on other because that would contradict theorem 5.
line CD (4) and also B, C and D are collinear – B is Therefore, they need to be parallel. Therefore,
on line CD (5). From conclusions (4) and (5) we through a point (C) exterior to a given line (b) we
draw the conclusion that A, B, C and D are collinear can draw at least one parallel line (c) to that line (b ⊥
– A and B are on the same line CD (6). c).
In conclusion, all the points of a perpendicular
line, either that they are on different sides (1) or on The existence of parallel lines can also be
the same side (6), are collinear. Therefore, a deduced from the principle of existence of
perpendicular line is a straight line. geometrical entities (theorem 1) because their
Theorem 4 existence is not contradictory.
There is only one straight line which passes The demonstration of the uniqueness of a
through two points. parallel line from an exterior point of a given line
Demonstration can be directly deduced from theorem 2.
Since there are two distinct points there is one Theorem 7
or more ways to get from one to another. At least The intersection of two planes is a unique line.
one of them is the shortest. Let us take two points, A Demonstration
and B, and let us suppose that there are two distinct Let us suppose that two planes intersect each
straight lines which pass through them: (AB)1 and other in a point. Let us consider a plane α and a
(AB)2. We will have: ‚ABƒ1 ˆ ‚ABƒ2 (1). Let us point A in which it intersects with a second plane β.
construct through B a straight line a so that (AB)1 ⊥ Through A we draw two lines (a and b) which
a (2). From (1) and (2) we draw the conclusion that intersect plane α in A and which belong to plane β.
(AB)2 ⊥ a too (3). Relations (2) and (3) contradict We take on line a a point B and a point E on the
theorem 3, therefore the initial premise is false. other side and on line b a point C on the same side
Theorem 5 with E and a point G on the same side with B. Line
In a plane, from an exterior point of a line, there BC will intersect plane α in a point different from A
is only one perpendicular line to that line. which we will call D. The same way, EG will
Demonstration intersect it in a point F. Points A, D and E need to be
Let us consider a line a and a exterior point A. collinear because otherwise we will have two planes
Let us suppose that from it there are two distinct instead of β – one formed by lines BA, AD and DB,
lines drawn so that they are perpendicular to line a. and another one formed from lines BA, AF and FB.
They will intersect it in points B and C. We take on But, there is just one plane – plane β, threrefore A, D
AB a point D so that B-A-D. Since AB is distinct and F need to be collinear. Therefore, the
from AC, D is not collinear with A and C (according intersection of two planes is at least on line.
to theorem 4). Therefore, there is a way from D to C Let us suppose that it is two lines. Let us
shorter than the way through point A. Let F be a suppose that the lines intersect each other (the case
point collinear with D and C and D-F-C. We have: in which they don’t intersect can be reduced to the
‚DCƒA Ž ‚DCƒF (1). ‚DCƒA ˆ ‚DAƒ ‡ ‚ACƒ (2). But case in which they intersect by drawing a third line
AB ⊥ BC and AC ⊥ BC. Therefore, ‚ABƒ ˆ ‚ACƒ which intersects the two parallel lines). We take a
(3). From equalities (2) and (3) we have: ‚DCƒA ˆ point on each line so that the points are distinct. In
‚DAƒ ‡ ‚ABƒ ˆ ‚DBƒ (4). From (1) and (4) we have: order that two distinct planes would pass through the
‚DCƒF 6 ‚DBƒ. But DB ⊥ BC, threrefore ‚DBƒ is the two lines it should be the case that at least two
shortest way from D to BC. The last two conclusions distinct lines would pass through the two points
contradict each other, therefore, the initial premise is considered. This conclusion contradicts theorem 4.
false. Theorem 8
Theorem 6 From a point exterior to a plane we can draw
There is only one parallel line from a point only one perpendicular line to that plane.
exterior to a given line.
Demonstration 8
We construct the perpendicular line c to the line b based on
First, we will prove the existence of parallel theorem 3. Otherwise, based on the principle that the laws
lines. Let us take a line a and two points on it, B and of geometry are the same in any plane and for all the lines
C. In the same plane we draw two perpendicular (either we can draw a perpendicular line from an exterior
lines, b and c, on line a in point B and C, point either we cannot) we draw the conclusion that there is
respectively. Lines b and c cannot intersect each no perpendicular lines and then that there is no plane. We
can also construct c based on theorem 1.
Demonstration line and the line on which it is perpendicular is not
The point is exterior to the plane, therefore, it is described by the half of this angle, that is by 900. In
at a distance from the plane. Therefore, there is at this case, from a point of a given line we could draw
least one shortest way from it to the plane. two distinct perpendicular lines since the angle
Let us suppose that there are two shortest ways, between them is not zero. This conclusion
therefore two perpendicular lines to the plane from contradicts theorem 3, therefore, the relation
the same point. It implies that there are two coplanar between a perpendicular line a and the line b on
concurrent perpendicular lines on the line of which a is perpendicular is described by an angle of
intersection between the initial plane and the plane 900 (we will call it a right angle) (1). Line b needs to
formed by the two concurrent lines. This conclusion be unique (2). Otherwise there would be more than
contradicts theorem 5. one angle that describes the relation between the
Theorem 9 perpendicular line a and line b and that contradicts
If a ⊥ b then b ⊥ a too. conclusion (1). If the angle between b and a is
different than a right angle b is not unique anymore
Demonstration 1
(the double of an angle which is not a right angle is
Let A be the intersection point. Let us suppose
not 1800). In this case we can draw another line, b',
that the perpendicular line a to line b is not the line
so that a ⊥ b’ but this contradicts conclusion (2).
on which b is perpendicular but it is another line c so
Therefore, the angle between b and a is also a right
that b ⊥ c in point A. Let α be a plane on which b is
angle (3). From conclusions (1) and (3) we can
perpendicular in point A – b ⊥ α in point A (plane α directly derive the validity of the theorem.
will include line a). Let β be the plane formed by the We can arrive to the same conclusion another
perpendicular lines on b in point A – β ⊥ b in point way. The process of rotation of a half of a line in
A (plane β will include line c).9 Let d be a line of the order to form an angle needs to be symmetric in time
intersection of the of the plane β with plane α. It or if we change the direction or rotation (geometry
will have the properties of both planes: b ⊥ d and d needs to be independent of movement or time
⊥ b. This conclusion contradicts the initial premise, direction, see Appendix 1). Therefore, if we have
therefore the theorem is true.10 two halves of lines ‚AB) and ‚AC) then angle BAC
Demonstration 2 is equal to angle CAB. If one is a right angle then the
The theorem can also be demonstrated if we other is a right angle too. Therefore, if a ⊥ b then b
define the concept of angle. Let angle be the degree ⊥ a.
by which two half of lines which have the same Theorem 10
origin are away from each other so that using the If two lines are parallel they are perpendicular
concept of angle we could uniquely determine or on the same line.
describe the relation between two lines. Let us define Demonstration
the angle formed by a half of line and its Let us suppose that two parallel lines are not
complementary half of line to be 1800. Now let us perpendicular on the same line. We take two parallel
suppose that the relation between a perpendicular lines a and b which intersect a third line c in A and B
respectively so that a ⊥ AB. If b is not perpendicular
Even if those lines didn’t form a plane, they will form a on AB then there will be another line d which will be
continuous surface formed by lines which intersect each perpendicular on AB in point B. Since a does not
other in A and are perpendicular on b. Since this intersect line b, based on theorem 2, a will intersect
countinuous surface intersect line b it will also intersect line d. This means that two perpendicular lines to the
plane α which passes through line b. Since both the same line intersect each other which contradicts
continuous surface and plane α are formed by straight lines theorem 5. Therefore, if two lines are parallel they
which passes through A their intersection needs to be a are perpendicular on the same line.
straight line (d) which passes through A (and is also
perpendicular on b). Theorem 11
The demonstration is based on the principle that the laws If in a plane we draw two perpendicular lines to
of geometry are the same in any plane. This principle is a line a and through two points of the perpendicular
implied any time we suppose that a demonstration of a that are at the same distance from line a and are on
theorem for a plane is true for any plane. The principle is
based on the fact that the lines or planes that we start with
the same side of it we draw a second line b, the
can be any other lines or planes so that the conclusions are perpendicular lines on line a are perpendicular on
true for any other plane. In this case the principle is either line b too.
<if a ⊥ b then b is not perpendicular on a> either <if a ⊥ b
then b ⊥ a too>. The last one proved to be correct.
Demonstration Demonstration
We draw the figure mentioned in the theorem. The demonstration can be derived from theorem
Let A and B be the points on line a from which we 13 and theorem 5.
draw the perpendicular lines and C and D the points
on the perpendicular lines which are at the same Commentaries about possible
distance from line a on the same side so that the two geometries in relation with:
perpendicular lines are AC and BD. Let us suppose 1. The theorem of the perpendicular line to a
that AC is not perpendicular on b. Then there is plane (theorem 5)
another line EC so that EC ⊥ CD. Let E be the point From this theorem we derive the conclusion that
of intersection with line a. AC and BD, being four distinct dimensions are not just impossible to
perpendicular on the same line, don’t intersect each imagine but, even more, their existence is
other. EC intersects AC. Threrefore, based on geometrically impossible (no matter of the physical
theorem 2, EC intersects line BD. Let F be the point nature of the dimensions when the geometrical
of intersection. ‚ECƒ ≥ ‚ACƒ because otherwise AC model is applied to a physical model). A forth
would not be perpendicular on AB. But ‚ACƒ ˆ ‚BDƒ distinct dimension requires that it should be
(mentioned in theorem), threrefore ‚CEƒ ≥ ‚BDƒ (1). perpendicular on the other three. But, since from an
The same way, ‚EFƒ ≥ ‚FBƒ (2) because otherwise exterior point of a plane there is only one
FB would not be perpendicular on AB. ‚FCƒ ˆ ‚FEƒ perpendicular line to that plane, the existence of a
‡ ‚ECƒ (3) and ‚FDƒ ˆ ‚FBƒ ‡ ‚BDƒ (4). From forth perpendicular line on the first three lines
relations (1) – (4) we get: ‚FCƒ ≥ ‚FDƒ (5). But, ‚FDƒ perpendicular on each other is impossible. The
≥ ‚FCƒ (6) because otherwise FC would not be existence of a forth dimension requires that from an
perpendicular on CD. From relations (5) and (6) we exterior point of a plane it should be possible to draw
get that ‚FCƒ ˆ ‚FDƒ. From this relation and relations at least two perpendicular lines to that plane, which
(1) – (4) we get: ‚CEƒ ˆ ‚ASƒ. Then, since AS ⊥ AB, should also be perpendicular on each other (which
CE needs to be perpendicular on AB too. But that implies that we can draw an infinity of distinct
contradicts theorem 5. Threrefore, initial premise is perpendicular lines to that plane from the same
false and the above theorem is true. point).
In order that the fourth dimension would form,
Theorem 12 together with the other dimensions, one space (in
The distance between two parallel lines remains order to be a dimension of the same space) it needs
constant. to be possible to relate it to the other dimensions. It
Demonstration needs to be perpendicular on them (or it should be
From theorem 9 and 11 we derive the following possible to be “converted” so that it is
conclusion: a line which passes through two points perpendicular). Otherwise we cannot say that it is
which are at the same distance from a given line is exterior to the space formed by the others,
parallel with that given line (otherwise contradicts independent from them. This fourth dimension
theorem 5). In other words, if we have a line a and a would form together with one of the other
point A exterior to it through which we draw a line b dimensions a plane which is perpendicular on the
parallel to line a, then a point B at the same distance space formed by the three initial dimensions. In
to line a as point A (and on the same side) is situated other words, in this extra plane there is an infinity of
on line b parallel to line a. Threrefore, theorem is perpendicular lines to a plane formed by two of the
true. three initial dimensions. This conclusion contradicts
Theorem 13 theorem 8.
A perpendicular to a given line is perpendicular We can talk about “curved” geometries as
on any line parallel with that given line. geometries on bi-dimensional curved surfaces
Demonstration (which are particular figures of the flat three-
The demonstration can be derived from theorem dimensional space), but we cannot talk about
12 together with theorem 3 or 5. geometries on three-dimensional curved surfaces
(which are particular figures of the flat 4-
Theorem 14 dimensional space, which is geometrically
If ab and bc then ac.11 impossible).
The theorem of the uniqueness of the
perpendicular line to a plane from an exterior point
The Lobacevskian geometry constradicts this theorem of the plane (theorem 8) disproves the physical
also. models which are based on the existence of more
than three geometrical dimensions, as the theory “corrupted” concept of straight line. Let us consider
general relativity (it implies four distinct dimensions, a sphere (corresponding to a Riemannian space) and
three spatial and a temporal one) or string theories two “lines” on it. In how many points do they
which are based on 10 or even 26 dimensions. This intersect? In two! This conclusion contradicts the
theorem is closely linked with theorem 5 (which is theorem of the uniqueness of the line determined by
used for its demonstration) and, through it, by the two points (theorem 4).12
parallel theorem (theorem 6). The theory of relativity 3. The definition of the plane
is based on a non-Euclidean space which contradicts The classic definition of the plane is made
the parallel theorem. through the axiom which states that: <three non-
2. The theorem of the parallels (theorem 6) collinear points determine a plane>. This phrasing is
The definition of space used in this essay deficient because it is imprecise. We can ask the
implies that three lines which intersect each other question: “How do the three points determine a
determine a plane and, in this respect is equivalent plane?>, <Which is the relation which relates to the
with the proposition that three non-collinear points plane determined by them?>. There is no direct
determine a plane (the three non-collinear points relation between the three necolinear points and the
determine three lines which intersect each other). plane! This <determining> or relation needs to be
But, the definition used here is precise and excludes expressed using the elements or relations already
any curved plane and makes the “parallel postulate” established and defined.
as easy to prove as possible.If from a point exterior In the process of building the system of
to a line we can draw two parallel lines to that line concepts of a given field we need to start from prime
then either one of them is not in the same plane with undefined concepts or relations.13 It is preferably to
the given line, either the plane is not flat. In fact, start from as less undefined concepts as possible
these possibilities are equivalent. If we “condense” because by the fact that they are not defined they are
the two planes (formed by the given line with each not as definite and precise as the defined concepts.
of the two lines parallel to it) by the requirement of Each undefined concept introduces therefore, some
coplanarity of parallel lines then the unique plane degree of imprecision in our system. These
resulted is not flat anymore. Thus, the postulate that undefined prime concepts need to be elementary
from an exterior point of a line we can draw more concepts, irreducible concepts. If a concept is
than one parallel lines to that line “hides” an extra complex, that is, it can be reduced to other concepts
dimension or plan in the curvature of that dimension and relations between them, then it should be a
or plan. As we shall see in the next section, this defined concept. If it is taken as a undefined concept
curved plane is inadequate. and thus, its sub-concepts and sub-relations are not
If we introduce a curvature of the space we, in determined this also introduces an indetermination it
effect, introduce a new dimension. Without this extra the system which is to be built. Any new complex
dimension there would be no room for curvature. concept is to be defined only on already defined
The extra dimension offers the room in which the concepts and relations, if possible. Introducing a new
old space can be curved. Let us take an example and undefined concept makes the system less precise.
suppose we have an uni-dimensional space. Does it When we defined the concept of “straight line”
make sense to talk about its curvature? By the very we used the elementary concept of “point” and an
fact that it has a one dimension this dimension is undefined relation of “shortest way.” The (intuitive)
necessarily straight. By the fact that the way concept of “plane” is a complex concept. It is based
determined by this one dimension is unique (because on more elementary concepts like “line” and “point”
there are no other dimensions there are no other and relations between them. Therefore, it needs to be
ways) it is implicitly straight. The concept of defined. The concept of “line” and “intersection”
“curvature” has no meaning in lack of the plurality (which is the property of a point to belong to two or
of possible ways. “Straight” is linked with “unique” more lines) are enough to define the concept of
or “minimal” and “curved” is linked with “plural”. “plane”. They are enough to establish a relation
“Curved” means not-straight; it is a modification of
what is straight. Since there are a lot of ways in Saccheri and Lambert used this argumentation to prove the
which we can modify what is straight “curved” invalidity of the “obtuse angle hypothesis” (the riemannian
implies the plurality of possible ways. In order to 13
It’s evident that we cannot define all the concepts (each
talk about more possible ways we need to add an concept is defined based on other concepts which are to be
extra dimension so that we have two. defined and so on indefinitely). Therefore, we need to start
The “corrupted” concept of plane of the non- from some prime undefined terms, based only on an
Euclidean geometries implies, of course, a intuitive or knowledge of them.
between the three non-collinear points and the plane axiom which does not require the new
determined by them (see the definition given in this definition of plane
essay). The concept of “plane”, as any concept, Note: We will use the symbol Σ for the sum of
needs to have a unity and an order of the wholeness the angles of a geometrical figure and σ (that we will
(that is needed for the oneness of the concept). The call geometrical shift) for the difference between the
concept of “point” is too elementary to base the sum of the angles of that figure in Euclidean
definition of plane only on it. Therefore, we will geometry and the sum of the angles of the figure in a
base the definition on the concept of “line” (which given case of the Lobacevskian geometry. We have
already implies an order, a unity in the group of all the relation: σ ˆ (n – 2)π – Σ (where n is the number
possible points). Therefore, the plane is composed of of segments that the figure has). It is easy to see that
lines. But if the plane does not consist of all the lines the geometry shift of a figure is the sum of the
(in which case it is identical with the geometrical geometrical shifts of the figures that the initial figure
space) there should be a relation so that a line’s is made up of. For example, the geometrical shift of
satisfying it implies the line’s inclusion in that plane. the quadrangle ABCD is the sum of the geometrical
The only possible relation is that given in the shifts of the triangles ABD and CBD.
definition of plane (or an equivalent one). If a line We can prove the validity of the parallel axiom
intersects only one line of the three that is not without the new definition of plane. We start from
enough (the plane would be identical with the space) the premise that the sum of the angles in a triangle is
and if it needs to intersect all three lines that is too less than π (the axiom of the Lobacevskian
much (it excludes the parallel lines). If a line geometry) is true.
intersects two out of the three intersecting lines First we will show that any triangle needs to
which determine the plane then the line has two have the sum of its angles greater than a given value
points in plane (the points of intersection with two of
(we will take π/2).
the three lines) and, based on theorem 4, it is
We take a triangle (which can be any triangle)
included in plane (because the plane is composed of
∆ABC, where AB is the biggest segment of the
lines and there is a unique line that links the two
points that line needs to belong to the plane). triangle (let’s say its length is l). We draw a line a
A. N. Whitehead, co-author together with B. on which we take two points, D and E, so that DE Ž
Russell of the famous book Principia Mathematica, l. We draw two perpendicular lines, b and c, on a in
being primarily a philosopher and logician, was points D and E. We take a point F on the line c so
more preocupated than geometers to define as that ‚FEƒ 6 l and we draw the perpendicular line
precisely as possible the concepts to be used. In his from it to line b which intersects it in point G. We
book Process and Reality, he gives the same draw the line GE and we take point H on FE so that
definition for plane as the one given here. He states GH ⊥ FE. The sum of the angles 6EGD and 6GED
that this definition applies to any geometry, is less than π/2 (according to our initial premise, the
including the non-Euclidean ones.14 Although, sadly, sum of the angles in a triangle needs to be less than
he did not examined the geometrical implications of π). Therefore, the sum of the angles 6FGE and
the precise definition of plane. The problem of 6FEG is greater than π/2 (angles 6FGD and 6FED
geometry was not related to the postulate of parallels are right angles) (1). In Lobacevskian geometry we
but to a mere definition.15 have ‚FGƒ Ž ‚DEƒ and, therefore, ‚FGƒ Ž ‚FEƒ.16
The circle with the center in F and the diameter
twice as ‚FGƒ will intersect ‚FE) in a point I so that
Appendix A: A demonstrations of the parallel
14 ‚FGƒ Ž ‚GHƒ and so on up to ‚DEƒ. Also, we can move
N. A. Whitehead, Process and Reality, New York, The line b far enough from c (or c far eough from b) so that
Free Press, 1969, pag. 388. Whitehead also gives another ‚FGƒ Ž ‚FEƒ. Anyway, if ‚FGƒ 6 ‚FEƒ then FG is the
definition which, as he himself says, is equivalent with one shortest segment of the triangle FGE and therefore, angle
given here.
15 6FEG is the smallest angle. If it is greater than π/4 then we
Some mathematicians have considered modifying use triangle FGE for our demonstration instead of triangle
definitions to solve the parallel problem but they dealed
JGE (triangle FGE has segment GE greater than l and both
with the definition of parallel lines. Proclus (sec. V), for
example, sugested redefining the concept of a line parallel of its angles 6FGE and 6FEG are greater than π/4). If angle
to a given line as the locus (or the group) of points which 6FEG is smaller than π/4 then angle 6GED is greater than
are situated at a given constant distance from the given π/4 and we take triangle DEG for our demonstration (it has
line. But he couldn’t prove that the group of points make a segment DE equal with l and both of its angles 6GDE and
stright line. 6GED greater than π/4).
F–E–I (‚FGƒ ≡ ‚FIƒ). Let’s consider a point J call it σ1) and therefore, π/6 6 α 6 π/3. We draw
movable on line c (J–F–E). Let K be the point of other triangles identical with triangle ABC so that
intersection of the circle with the center in point J one of the corners of all triangles are in the same
and the diameter twice as ‚JGƒ (point K is point and that triangles are adjacent to each other.
corresponding to point I for the circle centered in F) We draw n triangles so that 2π – α1 6 n·α1 ≤ 2π (6)
– ‚JGƒ ≡ ‚JKƒ. The farther away from point F we take (in Euclidean geometry α1 ˆ π/3 and n ˆ 6 and the
point J the closer to point H point K gets (point K total figure is a hexagon). If n·α1 6 2π then we draw
will reach point H when point J is infinitely far away the segment that links the exterior corners of the two
from point H). Therefore, there is a point J so that triangles which are not adjacent with other two
point K is identical with point E (‚JGƒ ≡ ‚JEƒ).17 triangles. The total figure will consist of n triangles
Therefore, for that point J we have: 6JGE ≡ 6GEJ identical with triangle ABC and we will have the
(2). But, 6JGE ‡ 6GEJ Ž π/2 (see conclusion (1)) following relation for the geometrical shift: σt ≥ n·σ1
(3). From conclusions (2) and (3) we draw the (7) (where σt is the geometrical shift for the total
further conclusion that 6JGE ˆ 6GEJ Ž π/4 (4). figure). The total figure has at the most (n ‡ 1)
Now we draw the initial triangle ABC in the interior segments. Therefore, we can construct out of it ‚(n ‡
of the isosceles triangle JGE so that point A will be 1) – 2ƒ ˆ (n – 1) triangles. There will be at least one
identical with point G (or E) and segment AB and triangle among them (let us call it ∆ DEF) which has
GE will be on the same line (line a) and point C will a geometrical shift σ2 so that σ2 ≥ σt / (n – 1) (8).
be on the same side of line a as point J. If triangle From relatioins (7) and (8) we get the following
ABC will be completely inside triangle JGE then relation: σ2 ≥ n·σ1 / (n – 1) which is equivalent with
σABC 6 σJGE and ΣABC Ž ΣJGE (see note at the n ≥ σ2 / (σ2 – σ1) (9). Also, σ1 ˆ π – ΣABC ˆ π – 3· α1
beginning of this appendice). If triangle ABC is not (10). From relations (6), (9) and (10) we get: σ2 ≥
completely inside triangle JGE then it is necessary
6π·σ1 / (5π – σ1) (11). Now we consider triangle
that at least one of the angles 6CAB or 6ABC are
DEF. Let us say that DE is the longest segment. We
greater than 6JGE or 6JEG (which are both greater
take a point G on DE so that FG ⊥ DE. Let us say
than π/4 – see conclusion (4)). Therefore, at least one
that FE is the shortest segment. We take a point H on
of these two angles are greater than π/4. But segment line DE (D–E–H) so that triangles DGE and HGE
‚ABƒ is the longest segment of the triangle ABC,
are identical. In triangle FDH ‚FDƒ ≡ ‚FHƒ and DH is
therefore, angle 6ACB is the greatest angle of the
the longest segment. Now we take a point I on line
triangle. Therefore, 6ACB also needs to be greater
FG so that ‚IDƒ ≡ ‚IHƒ ≡ ‚DHƒ. Triangle IDH is an
than π/4 and ΣABC Ž π/2. In conclusion in any case
equilateral triangle. Point F needs to be between I
the sum of the angles of the triangle ABC is greater
and G because ‚IHƒ Ž ‚FHƒ and ‚IDƒ Ž ‚FDƒ.
than π/2. Triangle ABC can be any triangle, Therefore, triangle FDH is included in triangle IDH.
therefore the sum of any triangle needs to be greater
Therefore, σIDH Ž σFDH ≥ σ2. Thus we have
than π/2, that is, the geometrical shift needs to be constructed an equilateral triangle that has the
smaller than π/2 (5). geometrical shift greater than σ2. Now it starts a
The second part of the demonstration is to prove cycle. We do with triangle IDH what we did with
that if the sum of the angles of a triangle is less than triangle ABC and we will get a third equilateral
π then it can decrease indefinitely towards zero triangle with a bigger geometrical shift, σ3, and so
(therefore it can be smaller than π/2). on. The relation between the geometrical shifts is
Let’s consider an equilateral triangle, ABC. All relation (11): σ2 ≥ 6π·σ1 / (5π – σ1). According to
its angles have the same value, α1. So far it is this relation the geometrical shift grows closer and
required that π/2 6 ΣABC 6 π (and σABC 6 π/2, let’s closer to π (which means that the sum of the angles
decreases towards zero). For example, if we start
If we take a point J so that J–F–E then point K (‚GJƒ ( with a geometrical shift σ1 ˆ π/3 we will get after
‚KJƒ) will be between I and J: ‚IJƒ ˆ ‚IFƒ ‡ ‚FJƒ ˆ ‚GFƒ ‡ four cycles: σ5 ˆ 0,51π Ž π/2. This conclusion
‚FJƒ Ž ‚GJƒ ˆ ‚KJƒ. Now, if we take a point J2 we will get a contradicts the conclusion of the first part,
point K2 between K1 and J and so on. Each K will get conclusion (5), which states that in any triangle the
closer and closer to point H and K∞ will be identical with geometrical shift needs to be smaller than π/2.
point H (for an J∞ infinitely far away from point H which Consequently, the initial premise – the axiom of
implies that ‚GJ∞ƒ ≡ ‚HJ∞ƒ). There is a point J for each Lobacevskian geometry – is an invalid axiom.
point between I and H (for each K, so that ‚GJƒ ≡ ‚JKƒ)
therefore, there will be a point J for point E so that ‚GJƒ ≡