Euclidean geometry

Euclidean geometry is a mathematical

system attributed to Alexandrian Greek
mathematician Euclid, which he described
in his textbook on geometry: the Elements.
Euclid's method consists in assuming a
small set of intuitively appealing axioms,
and deducing many other propositions
(theorems) from these. Although many of
Euclid's results had been stated by earlier
mathematicians,[1] Euclid was the first to
show how these propositions could fit into
a comprehensive deductive and logical
system.[2] The Elements begins with plane
geometry, still taught in secondary school
(high school) as the first axiomatic system
and the first examples of formal proof. It
goes on to the solid geometry of three
dimensions. Much of the Elements states
results of what are now called algebra and
number theory, explained in geometrical
language.[1]
Detail from Raphael's The School of Athens featuring
a Greek mathematician – perhaps representing Euclid
or Archimedes – using a compass to draw a
geometric construction.

For more than two thousand years, the

adjective "Euclidean" was unnecessary
because no other sort of geometry had
been conceived. Euclid's axioms seemed
so intuitively obvious (with the possible
exception of the parallel postulate) that
any theorem proved from them was
deemed true in an absolute, often
metaphysical, sense. Today, however,
many other self-consistent non-Euclidean
geometries are known, the first ones
having been discovered in the early 19th
century. An implication of Albert Einstein's
theory of general relativity is that physical
space itself is not Euclidean, and
Euclidean space is a good approximation
for it only over short distances (relative to
the strength of the gravitational field).[3]

Euclidean geometry is an example of

synthetic geometry, in that it proceeds
logically from axioms describing basic
properties of geometric objects such as
points and lines, to propositions about
those objects, all without the use of
coordinates to specify those objects. This
is in contrast to analytic geometry, which
uses coordinates to translate geometric
propositions into algebraic formulas.

The Elements
The Elements is mainly a systematization
of earlier knowledge of geometry. Its
improvement over earlier treatments was
rapidly recognized, with the result that
there was little interest in preserving the
earlier ones, and they are now nearly all
lost.

There are 13 books in the Elements:

Books I–IV and VI discuss plane geometry.

Many results about plane figures are
proved, for example, "In any triangle two
angles taken together in any manner are
less than two right angles." (Book I
proposition 17) and the Pythagorean
theorem "In right angled triangles the
square on the side subtending the right
angle is equal to the squares on the sides
containing the right angle." (Book I,
proposition 47)
Books V and VII–X deal with number
theory, with numbers treated geometrically
as lengths of line segments or areas of
regions. Notions such as prime numbers
and rational and irrational numbers are
introduced. It is proved that there are
infinitely many prime numbers.

Books XI–XIII concern solid geometry. A

typical result is the 1:3 ratio between the
volume of a cone and a cylinder with the
same height and base. The platonic solids
are constructed.

Axioms …
The parallel postulate (Postulate 5): If two lines
intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the
inner angles on one side is less than two right angles,
then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other
on that side if extended far enough.

Euclidean geometry is an axiomatic

system, in which all theorems ("true
statements") are derived from a small
number of simple axioms. Until the advent
of non-Euclidean geometry, these axioms
were considered to be obviously true in the
physical world, so that all the theorems
would be equally true. However, Euclid's
reasoning from assumptions to
conclusions remains valid independent of
their physical reality.[4]

Near the beginning of the first book of the

Elements, Euclid gives five postulates
(axioms) for plane geometry, stated in
terms of constructions (as translated by
Thomas Heath):[5]

Let the following be postulated:

1. To draw a straight line from any point
to any point.
2. To produce (extend) a finite straight
line continuously in a straight line.
 3. To describe a circle with any centre
and distance (radius).
4. That all right angles are equal to one
another.
5. [The parallel postulate]: That, if a
straight line falling on two straight
lines make the interior angles on the
same side less than two right angles,
the two straight lines, if produced
indefinitely, meet on that side on
which the angles are less than two
right angles.

Although Euclid only explicitly asserts the

existence of the constructed objects, in his
reasoning they are implicitly assumed to
be unique.

The Elements also include the following

five "common notions":

1. Things that are equal to the same

thing are also equal to one another
(the Transitive property of a
Euclidean relation).
2. If equals are added to equals, then
the wholes are equal (Addition
property of equality).
3. If equals are subtracted from equals,
then the differences are equal
(Subtraction property of equality).
 4. Things that coincide with one another
are equal to one another (Reflexive
property).
5. The whole is greater than the part.

Modern scholars agree that Euclid's

postulates do not provide the complete
logical foundation that Euclid required for
his presentation.[6] Modern treatments use
more extensive and complete sets of
axioms.

Parallel postulate …

To the ancients, the parallel postulate

seemed less obvious than the others. They
aspired to create a system of absolutely
certain propositions, and to them it
seemed as if the parallel line postulate
required proof from simpler statements. It
is now known that such a proof is
impossible, since one can construct
consistent systems of geometry (obeying
the other axioms) in which the parallel
postulate is true, and others in which it is
false.[7] Euclid himself seems to have
considered it as being qualitatively
different from the others, as evidenced by
the organization of the Elements: his first
28 propositions are those that can be
proved without it.
Many alternative axioms can be
formulated which are logically equivalent
to the parallel postulate (in the context of
the other axioms). For example, Playfair's
axiom states:

In a plane, through a point not on a given

straight line, at most one line can be
drawn that never meets the given line.

The "at most" clause is all that is needed

since it can be proved from the remaining
axioms that at least one parallel line
exists.
A proof from Euclid's Elements that, given a line
segment, one may construct an equilateral triangle
that includes the segment as one of its sides: an
equilateral triangle ΑΒΓ is made by drawing circles Δ
and Ε centered on the points Α and Β, and taking one
intersection of the circles as the third vertex of the
triangle.

Methods of proof
Euclidean Geometry is constructive.
Postulates 1, 2, 3, and 5 assert the
existence and uniqueness of certain
geometric figures, and these assertions
are of a constructive nature: that is, we are
not only told that certain things exist, but
are also given methods for creating them
with no more than a compass and an
unmarked straightedge.[8] In this sense,
Euclidean geometry is more concrete than
many modern axiomatic systems such as
set theory, which often assert the
existence of objects without saying how to
construct them, or even assert the
existence of objects that cannot be
constructed within the theory.[9] Strictly
speaking, the lines on paper are models of
the objects defined within the formal
system, rather than instances of those
objects. For example, a Euclidean straight
line has no width, but any real drawn line
will. Though nearly all modern
mathematicians consider nonconstructive
methods just as sound as constructive
ones, Euclid's constructive proofs often
supplanted fallacious nonconstructive
ones—e.g., some of the Pythagoreans'
proofs that involved irrational numbers,
which usually required a statement such
as "Find the greatest common measure of
..."[10]

Euclid often used proof by contradiction.

Euclidean geometry also allows the
method of superposition, in which a figure
is transferred to another point in space.
For example, proposition I.4, side-angle-
side congruence of triangles, is proved by
moving one of the two triangles so that
one of its sides coincides with the other
triangle's equal side, and then proving that
the other sides coincide as well. Some
modern treatments add a sixth postulate,
the rigidity of the triangle, which can be
used as an alternative to superposition.[11]

System of measurement and

arithmetic
Euclidean geometry has two fundamental
types of measurements: angle and
distance. The angle scale is absolute, and
Euclid uses the right angle as his basic
unit, so that, for example, a 45-degree
angle would be referred to as half of a
right angle. The distance scale is relative;
one arbitrarily picks a line segment with a
certain nonzero length as the unit, and
other distances are expressed in relation
to it. Addition of distances is represented
by a construction in which one line
segment is copied onto the end of another
line segment to extend its length, and
similarly for subtraction.
Measurements of area and volume are
derived from distances. For example, a
rectangle with a width of 3 and a length of
4 has an area that represents the product,
12. Because this geometrical
interpretation of multiplication was limited
to three dimensions, there was no direct
way of interpreting the product of four or
more numbers, and Euclid avoided such
products, although they are implied, for
example in the proof of book IX,
proposition 20.

An example of congruence. The two figures on the left

are congruent, while the third is similar to them. The
last figure is neither. Congruences alter some
properties, such as location and orientation, but leave
others unchanged, like distance and angles. The latter
sort of properties are called invariants and studying
them is the essence of geometry.

Euclid refers to a pair of lines, or a pair of

planar or solid figures, as "equal" (ἴσος) if
their lengths, areas, or volumes are equal
respectively, and similarly for angles. The
stronger term "congruent" refers to the
idea that an entire figure is the same size
and shape as another figure. Alternatively,
two figures are congruent if one can be
moved on top of the other so that it
matches up with it exactly. (Flipping it over
is allowed.) Thus, for example, a 2x6
rectangle and a 3x4 rectangle are equal
but not congruent, and the letter R is
congruent to its mirror image. Figures that
would be congruent except for their
differing sizes are referred to as similar.
Corresponding angles in a pair of similar
shapes are congruent and corresponding
sides are in proportion to each other.

Notation and terminology

Naming of points and figures …

Points are customarily named using
capital letters of the alphabet. Other
figures, such as lines, triangles, or circles,
are named by listing a sufficient number of
points to pick them out unambiguously
from the relevant figure, e.g., triangle ABC
would typically be a triangle with vertices
at points A, B, and C.

Complementary and supplementary

angles
…

Angles whose sum is a right angle are

called complementary. Complementary
angles are formed when a ray shares the
same vertex and is pointed in a direction
that is in between the two original rays
that form the right angle. The number of
rays in between the two original rays is
infinite.

Angles whose sum is a straight angle are

supplementary. Supplementary angles are
formed when a ray shares the same vertex
and is pointed in a direction that is in
between the two original rays that form
the straight angle (180 degree angle). The
number of rays in between the two original
rays is infinite.

Modern versions of Euclid's

notation
…
In modern terminology, angles would
normally be measured in degrees or
radians.

Modern school textbooks often define

separate figures called lines (infinite), rays
(semi-infinite), and line segments (of finite
length). Euclid, rather than discussing a ray
as an object that extends to infinity in one
direction, would normally use locutions
such as "if the line is extended to a
sufficient length," although he occasionally
referred to "infinite lines". A "line" in Euclid
could be either straight or curved, and he
used the more specific term "straight line"
when necessary.
Some important or well
known results
The pons asinorum or bridge of asses
theorem' states that in an isosceles
triangle, α = β and γ = δ.

The triangle angle sum theorem states that

the sum of the three angles of any triangle,
in this case angles α, β, and γ, will always
equal 180 degrees.
The Pythagorean theorem states that the
sum of the areas of the two squares on
the legs (a and b) of a right triangle equals
the area of the square on the hypotenuse
(c).
 Thales' theorem states that if AC is a
diameter, then the angle at B is a right
angle.

Pons Asinorum …

The pons asinorum (bridge of asses)

states that in isosceles triangles the angles
at the base equal one another, and, if the
equal straight lines are produced further,
then the angles under the base equal one
another.[12] Its name may be attributed to
its frequent role as the first real test in the
Elements of the intelligence of the reader
and as a bridge to the harder propositions
that followed. It might also be so named
because of the geometrical figure's
resemblance to a steep bridge that only a
sure-footed donkey could cross.[13]

Congruence of triangles …
Congruence of triangles is determined by specifying
two sides and the angle between them (SAS), two
angles and the side between them (ASA) or two
angles and a corresponding adjacent side (AAS).
Specifying two sides and an adjacent angle (SSA),
however, can yield two distinct possible triangles
unless the angle specified is a right angle.

Triangles are congruent if they have all

three sides equal (SSS), two sides and the
angle between them equal (SAS), or two
angles and a side equal (ASA) (Book I,
propositions 4, 8, and 26). Triangles with
three equal angles (AAA) are similar, but
not necessarily congruent. Also, triangles
with two equal sides and an adjacent
angle are not necessarily equal or
congruent.

Triangle angle sum …

The sum of the angles of a triangle is

equal to a straight angle (180 degrees).[14]
This causes an equilateral triangle to have
three interior angles of 60 degrees. Also, it
causes every triangle to have at least two
acute angles and up to one obtuse or right
angle.

Pythagorean theorem …

The celebrated Pythagorean theorem

(book I, proposition 47) states that in any
right triangle, the area of the square whose
side is the hypotenuse (the side opposite
the right angle) is equal to the sum of the
areas of the squares whose sides are the
two legs (the two sides that meet at a right
angle).

Thales' theorem …
Thales' theorem, named after Thales of
Miletus states that if A, B, and C are points
on a circle where the line AC is a diameter
of the circle, then the angle ABC is a right
angle. Cantor supposed that Thales
proved his theorem by means of Euclid
Book I, Prop. 32 after the manner of Euclid
Book III, Prop. 31.[15][16]

Scaling of area and volume …

In modern terminology, the area of a plane

figure is proportional to the square of any
of its linear dimensions, , and the
volume of a solid to the cube, .
Euclid proved these results in various
special cases such as the area of a
circle[17] and the volume of a
parallelepipedal solid.[18] Euclid
determined some, but not all, of the
relevant constants of proportionality. E.g.,
it was his successor Archimedes who
proved that a sphere has 2/3 the volume
of the circumscribing cylinder.[19]

Applications
This section needs expansion.
Learn more

Because of Euclidean geometry's

fundamental status in mathematics, it is
impractical to give more than a
representative sampling of applications
here.
A surveyor uses a level

Sphere packing applies to a

stack of oranges.
 A parabolic mirror brings parallel
rays of light to a focus.

As suggested by the etymology of the

word, one of the earliest reasons for
interest in geometry was surveying,[20] and
certain practical results from Euclidean
geometry, such as the right-angle property
of the 3-4-5 triangle, were used long before
they were proved formally.[21] The
fundamental types of measurements in
Euclidean geometry are distances and
angles, both of which can be measured
directly by a surveyor. Historically,
distances were often measured by chains,
such as Gunter's chain, and angles using
graduated circles and, later, the theodolite.

An application of Euclidean solid geometry

is the determination of packing
arrangements, such as the problem of
finding the most efficient packing of
spheres in n dimensions. This problem has
applications in error detection and
correction.
Geometric optics uses Euclidean geometry
to analyze the focusing of light by lenses
and mirrors.
Geometry is used in art and
architecture.

The water tower consists of a

cone, a cylinder, and a
hemisphere. Its volume can be
calculated using solid geometry.
 Geometry can be used to design
origami.

Geometry is used extensively in

architecture.

Geometry can be used to design origami.

Some classical construction problems of
geometry are impossible using compass
and straightedge, but can be solved using
origami.[22]
Quite a lot of CAD (computer-aided
design) and CAM (computer-aided
manufacturing) is based on Euclidean
geometry. Design geometry typically
consists of shapes bounded by planes,
cylinders, cones, tori, etc. In the present
day, CAD/CAM is essential in the design of
almost everything, including cars,
airplanes, ships, and smartphones. A few
decades ago, sophisticated draftsmen
learned some fairly advanced Euclidean
geometry, including things like Pascal's
theorem and Brianchon's theorem. But
now they don't have to, because the
geometric constructions are all done by
CAD programs.
As a description of the
structure of space
Euclid believed that his axioms were self-
evident statements about physical reality.
Euclid's proofs depend upon assumptions
perhaps not obvious in Euclid's
fundamental axioms,[23] in particular that
certain movements of figures do not
change their geometrical properties such
as the lengths of sides and interior angles,
the so-called Euclidean motions, which
include translations, reflections and
rotations of figures.[24] Taken as a physical
description of space, postulate 2
(extending a line) asserts that space does
not have holes or boundaries (in other
words, space is homogeneous and
unbounded); postulate 4 (equality of right
angles) says that space is isotropic and
figures may be moved to any location
while maintaining congruence; and
postulate 5 (the parallel postulate) that
space is flat (has no intrinsic
curvature).[25]
As discussed in more detail below, Albert
Einstein's theory of relativity significantly
modifies this view.

The ambiguous character of the axioms as

originally formulated by Euclid makes it
possible for different commentators to
disagree about some of their other
implications for the structure of space,
such as whether or not it is infinite[26] (see
below) and what its topology is. Modern,
more rigorous reformulations of the
system[27] typically aim for a cleaner
separation of these issues. Interpreting
Euclid's axioms in the spirit of this more
modern approach, axioms 1-4 are
consistent with either infinite or finite
space (as in elliptic geometry), and all five
axioms are consistent with a variety of
topologies (e.g., a plane, a cylinder, or a
torus for two-dimensional Euclidean
geometry).

Later work

Archimedes and Apollonius …

A sphere has 2/3 the volume and surface area of its

 p /
circumscribing cylinder. A sphere and cylinder were
placed on the tomb of Archimedes at his request.

Archimedes (c. 287 BCE – c. 212 BCE), a

colorful figure about whom many
historical anecdotes are recorded, is
remembered along with Euclid as one of
the greatest of ancient mathematicians.
Although the foundations of his work were
put in place by Euclid, his work, unlike
Euclid's, is believed to have been entirely
original.[28] He proved equations for the
volumes and areas of various figures in
two and three dimensions, and enunciated
the Archimedean property of finite
numbers.
Apollonius of Perga (c. 262 BCE – c. 190
BCE) is mainly known for his investigation
of conic sections.

René Descartes. Portrait after Frans Hals, 1648.

17th century: Descartes …

René Descartes (1596–1650) developed

analytic geometry, an alternative method
for formalizing geometry which focused
on turning geometry into algebra.[29]

In this approach, a point on a plane is

represented by its Cartesian (x, y)
coordinates, a line is represented by its
equation, and so on.

In Euclid's original approach, the

Pythagorean theorem follows from
Euclid's axioms. In the Cartesian approach,
the axioms are the axioms of algebra, and
the equation expressing the Pythagorean
theorem is then a definition of one of the
terms in Euclid's axioms, which are now
considered theorems.
The equation

defining the distance between two points

P = (px, py) and Q = (qx, qy) is then known
as the Euclidean metric, and other metrics
define non-Euclidean geometries.

In terms of analytic geometry, the

restriction of classical geometry to
compass and straightedge constructions
means a restriction to first- and second-
order equations, e.g., y = 2x + 1 (a line), or
x2 + y2 = 7 (a circle).
Also in the 17th century, Girard Desargues,
motivated by the theory of perspective,
introduced the concept of idealized points,
lines, and planes at infinity. The result can
be considered as a type of generalized
geometry, projective geometry, but it can
also be used to produce proofs in ordinary
Euclidean geometry in which the number
of special cases is reduced.[30]

Squaring the circle: the areas of this square and this

circle are equal. In 1882, it was proven that this figure
cannot be constructed in a finite number of steps with
an idealized compass and straightedge.

18th century …

Geometers of the 18th century struggled

to define the boundaries of the Euclidean
system. Many tried in vain to prove the
fifth postulate from the first four. By 1763,
at least 28 different proofs had been
published, but all were found incorrect.[31]

Leading up to this period, geometers also

tried to determine what constructions
could be accomplished in Euclidean
geometry. For example, the problem of
trisecting an angle with a compass and
straightedge is one that naturally occurs
within the theory, since the axioms refer to
constructive operations that can be
carried out with those tools. However,
centuries of efforts failed to find a solution
to this problem, until Pierre Wantzel
published a proof in 1837 that such a
construction was impossible. Other
constructions that were proved impossible
include doubling the cube and squaring
the circle. In the case of doubling the cube,
the impossibility of the construction
originates from the fact that the compass
and straightedge method involve
equations whose order is an integral
power of two,[32] while doubling a cube
requires the solution of a third-order
equation.

Euler discussed a generalization of

Euclidean geometry called affine
geometry, which retains the fifth postulate
unmodified while weakening postulates
three and four in a way that eliminates the
notions of angle (whence right triangles
become meaningless) and of equality of
length of line segments in general
(whence circles become meaningless)
while retaining the notions of parallelism
as an equivalence relation between lines,
and equality of length of parallel line
segments (so line segments continue to
have a midpoint).

19th century and non-Euclidean

geometry
…

Comparison of elliptic, Euclidean and hyperbolic

geometries in two dimensions

In the early 19th century, Carnot and

Möbius systematically developed the use
of signed angles and line segments as a
way of simplifying and unifying results.[33]
The century's most significant
development in geometry occurred when,
around 1830, János Bolyai and Nikolai
Ivanovich Lobachevsky separately
published work on non-Euclidean
geometry, in which the parallel postulate is
not valid.[34] Since non-Euclidean geometry
is provably relatively consistent with
Euclidean geometry, the parallel postulate
cannot be proved from the other
postulates.

In the 19th century, it was also realized

that Euclid's ten axioms and common
notions do not suffice to prove all of the
theorems stated in the Elements. For
example, Euclid assumed implicitly that
any line contains at least two points, but
this assumption cannot be proved from
the other axioms, and therefore must be
an axiom itself. The very first geometric
proof in the Elements, shown in the figure
above, is that any line segment is part of a
triangle; Euclid constructs this in the usual
way, by drawing circles around both
endpoints and taking their intersection as
the third vertex. His axioms, however, do
not guarantee that the circles actually
intersect, because they do not assert the
geometrical property of continuity, which
in Cartesian terms is equivalent to the
completeness property of the real
numbers. Starting with Moritz Pasch in
1882, many improved axiomatic systems
for geometry have been proposed, the best
known being those of Hilbert,[35] George
Birkhoff,[36] and Tarski.[37]

20th century and relativity …

A disproof of Euclidean geometry as a description of

physical space. In a 1919 test of the general theory of
relativity, stars (marked with short horizontal lines)
were photographed during a solar eclipse. The rays of
starlight were bent by the Sun's gravity on their way to
the earth. This is interpreted as evidence in favor of
Einstein's prediction that gravity would cause
deviations from Euclidean geometry.

Einstein's theory of special relativity

involves a four-dimensional space-time,
the Minkowski space, which is non-
Euclidean. This shows that non-Euclidean
geometries, which had been introduced a
few years earlier for showing that the
parallel postulate cannot be proved, are
also useful for describing the physical
world.
However, the three-dimensional "space
part" of the Minkowski space remains the
space of Euclidean geometry. This is not
the case with general relativity, for which
the geometry of the space part of space-
time is not Euclidean geometry.[38] For
example, if a triangle is constructed out of
three rays of light, then in general the
interior angles do not add up to 180
degrees due to gravity. A relatively weak
gravitational field, such as the Earth's or
the sun's, is represented by a metric that is
approximately, but not exactly, Euclidean.
Until the 20th century, there was no
technology capable of detecting the
deviations from Euclidean geometry, but
Einstein predicted that such deviations
would exist. They were later verified by
observations such as the slight bending of
starlight by the Sun during a solar eclipse
in 1919, and such considerations are now
an integral part of the software that runs
the GPS system.[39]

Treatment of infinity

Infinite objects …

Euclid sometimes distinguished explicitly

between "finite lines" (e.g., Postulate 2)
and "infinite lines" (book I, proposition 12).
However, he typically did not make such
distinctions unless they were necessary.
The postulates do not explicitly refer to
infinite lines, although for example some
commentators interpret postulate 3,
existence of a circle with any radius, as
implying that space is infinite.[26]

The notion of infinitesimal quantities had

previously been discussed extensively by
the Eleatic School, but nobody had been
able to put them on a firm logical basis,
with paradoxes such as Zeno's paradox
occurring that had not been resolved to
universal satisfaction. Euclid used the
method of exhaustion rather than
infinitesimals.[40]
Later ancient commentators, such as
Proclus (410–485 CE), treated many
questions about infinity as issues
demanding proof and, e.g., Proclus
claimed to prove the infinite divisibility of a
line, based on a proof by contradiction in
which he considered the cases of even
and odd numbers of points constituting
it.[41]

At the turn of the 20th century, Otto Stolz,

Paul du Bois-Reymond, Giuseppe
Veronese, and others produced
controversial work on non-Archimedean
models of Euclidean geometry, in which
the distance between two points may be
infinite or infinitesimal, in the Newton–
Leibniz sense.[42] Fifty years later,
Abraham Robinson provided a rigorous
logical foundation for Veronese's work.[43]

Infinite processes …

One reason that the ancients treated the

parallel postulate as less certain than the
others is that verifying it physically would
require us to inspect two lines to check
that they never intersected, even at some
very distant point, and this inspection
could potentially take an infinite amount of
time.[44]
The modern formulation of proof by
induction was not developed until the 17th
century, but some later commentators
consider it implicit in some of Euclid's
proofs, e.g., the proof of the infinitude of
primes.[45]

Supposed paradoxes involving infinite

series, such as Zeno's paradox, predated
Euclid. Euclid avoided such discussions,
giving, for example, the expression for the
partial sums of the geometric series in
IX.35 without commenting on the
possibility of letting the number of terms
become infinite.
Logical basis
This article needs attention from an expert in
mathematics. Learn more

This section needs expansion.

Learn more

Classical logic …

Euclid frequently used the method of proof

by contradiction, and therefore the
traditional presentation of Euclidean
geometry assumes classical logic, in
which every proposition is either true or
false, i.e., for any proposition P, the
proposition "P or not P" is automatically
true.
Modern standards of rigor …

Placing Euclidean geometry on a solid

axiomatic basis was a preoccupation of
mathematicians for centuries.[46] The role
of primitive notions, or undefined
concepts, was clearly put forward by
Alessandro Padoa of the Peano delegation
at the 1900 Paris conference:[46][47]

...when we begin to formulate

the theory, we can imagine that
the undefined symbols are
completely devoid of meaning
and that the unproved
propositions are simply
conditions imposed upon the
undefined symbols.

Then, the system of ideas that

we have initially chosen is
simply one interpretation of the
undefined symbols; but..this
interpretation can be ignored by
the reader, who is free to
replace it in his mind by another
interpretation.. that satisfies the
conditions...

Logical questions thus become

completely independent of
empirical or psychological
questions...

The system of undefined symbols

can then be regarded as the
abstraction obtained from the
specialized theories that result
when...the system of undefined
symbols is successively replaced
by each of the interpretations...

— Padoa, Essai d'une théorie

algébrique des nombre
entiers, avec une
 Introduction logique à une
théorie déductive quelconque

That is, mathematics is context-

independent knowledge within a
hierarchical framework. As said by
Bertrand Russell:[48]

If our hypothesis is about

anything, and not about some
one or more particular things,
then our deductions constitute
mathematics. Thus,
mathematics may be defined as
the subject in which we never
know what we are talking
 about, nor whether what we are
saying is true.

— Bertrand Russell,
Mathematics and the
metaphysicians

Such foundational approaches range

between foundationalism and formalism.

Axiomatic formulations …

Geometry is the science of

correct reasoning on incorrect
figures.
 — George Pólya, How to
Solve It, p. 208

Euclid's axioms: In his dissertation to

Trinity College, Cambridge, Bertrand
Russell summarized the changing role
of Euclid's geometry in the minds of
philosophers up to that time.[49] It was a
conflict between certain knowledge,
independent of experiment, and
empiricism, requiring experimental
input. This issue became clear as it was
discovered that the parallel postulate
was not necessarily valid and its
applicability was an empirical matter,
deciding whether the applicable
geometry was Euclidean or non-
Euclidean.
Hilbert's axioms: Hilbert's axioms had
the goal of identifying a simple and
complete set of independent axioms
from which the most important
geometric theorems could be deduced.
The outstanding objectives were to
make Euclidean geometry rigorous
(avoiding hidden assumptions) and to
make clear the ramifications of the
parallel postulate.
Birkhoff's axioms: Birkhoff proposed
four postulates for Euclidean geometry
that can be confirmed experimentally
with scale and protractor. This system
relies heavily on the properties of the
real numbers.[50][51][52] The notions of
angle and distance become primitive
concepts.[53]
Tarski's axioms: Alfred Tarski (1902–
1983) and his students defined
elementary Euclidean geometry as the
geometry that can be expressed in first-
order logic and does not depend on set
theory for its logical basis,[54] in contrast
to Hilbert's axioms, which involve point
sets.[55] Tarski proved that his axiomatic
formulation of elementary Euclidean
geometry is consistent and complete in
a certain sense: there is an algorithm
 that, for every proposition, can be shown
either true or false.[37] (This doesn't
violate Gödel's theorem, because
Euclidean geometry cannot describe a
sufficient amount of arithmetic for the
theorem to apply.[56]) This is equivalent
to the decidability of real closed fields,
of which elementary Euclidean
geometry is a model.

See also
Absolute geometry
Analytic geometry
Birkhoff's axioms
Cartesian coordinate system
 Hilbert's axioms
Incidence geometry
List of interactive geometry software
Metric space
Non-Euclidean geometry
Ordered geometry
Parallel postulate
Type theory

Classical theorems …

Angle bisector theorem

Butterfly theorem
Ceva's theorem
Heron's formula
 Menelaus' theorem
Nine-point circle
Pythagorean theorem

Notes
1. Eves 1963, p. 19
2. Eves 1963, p. 10
3. Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973),
p. 47
4. The assumptions of Euclid are
discussed from a modern perspective
in Harold E. Wolfe (2007). Introduction
to Non-Euclidean Geometry . Mill
Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-4067-1852-2.
5. tr. Heath, pp. 195–202.
 . Venema, Gerard A. (2006),
Foundations of Geometry, Prentice-
Hall, p. 8, ISBN 978-0-13-143700-5
7. Florence P. Lewis (Jan 1920), "History
of the Parallel Postulate", The
American Mathematical Monthly, The
American Mathematical Monthly, Vol.
27, No. 1, 27 (1): 16–23,
doi:10.2307/2973238 ,
JSTOR 2973238 .
. Ball, p. 56
9. Within Euclid's assumptions, it is quite
easy to give a formula for area of
triangles and squares. However, in a
more general context like set theory, it
 is not as easy to prove that the area of
a square is the sum of areas of its
pieces, for example. See Lebesgue
measure and Banach–Tarski paradox.
10. Daniel Shanks (2002). Solved and
Unsolved Problems in Number Theory.
American Mathematical Society.
11. Coxeter, p. 5
12. Euclid, book I, proposition 5, tr. Heath,
p. 251
13. Ignoring the alleged difficulty of Book
I, Proposition 5, Sir Thomas L. Heath
mentions another interpretation. This
rests on the resemblance of the
figure's lower straight lines to a steeply
inclined bridge that could be crossed
by an ass but not by a horse: "But
there is another view (as I have learnt
lately) which is more complimentary to
the ass. It is that, the figure of the
proposition being like that of a trestle
bridge, with a ramp at each end which
is more practicable the flatter the
figure is drawn, the bridge is such that,
while a horse could not surmount the
ramp, an ass could; in other words, the
term is meant to refer to the sure-
footedness of the ass rather than to
any want of intelligence on his part."
(in "Excursis II," volume 1 of Heath's
 translation of The Thirteen Books of
the Elements.)
14. Euclid, book I, proposition 32
15. Heath, p. 135. Extract of page 135
1 . Heath, p. 318
17. Euclid, book XII, proposition 2
1 . Euclid, book XI, proposition 33
19. Ball, p. 66
20. Ball, p. 5
21. Eves, vol. 1, p. 5; Mlodinow, p. 7
22. Tom Hull. "Origami and Geometric
Constructions" .
23. Richard J. Trudeau (2008). "Euclid's
axioms" . The Non-Euclidean
 Revolution. Birkhäuser. pp. 39 ff.
ISBN 978-0-8176-4782-7.
24. See, for example: Luciano da Fontoura
Costa; Roberto Marcondes Cesar
(2001). Shape analysis and
classification: theory and practice .
CRC Press. p. 314. ISBN 0-8493-3493-
4. and Helmut Pottmann; Johannes
Wallner (2010). Computational Line
Geometry . Springer. p. 60. ISBN 978-
3-642-04017-7. The group of motions
underlie the metric notions of
geometry. See Felix Klein (2004).
Elementary Mathematics from an
Advanced Standpoint: Geometry
(Reprint of 1939 Macmillan Company
 ed.). Courier Dover. p. 167. ISBN 0-486-
43481-8.
25. Roger Penrose (2007). The Road to
Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws
of the Universe . Vintage Books. p. 29.
ISBN 978-0-679-77631-4.
2 . Heath, p. 200
27. e.g., Tarski (1951)
2 . Eves, p. 27
29. Ball, pp. 268ff
30. Eves (1963)
31. Hofstadter 1979, p. 91.
32. Theorem 120, Elements of Abstract
Algebra, Allan Clark, Dover, ISBN 0-
 486-64725-0
33. Eves (1963), p. 64
34. Ball, p. 485
35. * Howard Eves, 1997 (1958).
Foundations and Fundamental
Concepts of Mathematics. Dover.
3 . Birkhoff, G. D., 1932, "A Set of
Postulates for Plane Geometry (Based
on Scale and Protractors)," Annals of
Mathematics 33.
37. Tarski (1951)
3 . Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973),
p. 191
39. Rizos, Chris. University of New South
Wales. GPS Satellite Signals
 Archived 2010-06-12 at the Wayback
Machine. 1999.
40. Ball, p. 31
41. Heath, p. 268
42. Giuseppe Veronese, On Non-
Archimedean Geometry, 1908. English
translation in Real Numbers,
Generalizations of the Reals, and
Theories of Continua, ed. Philip
Ehrlich, Kluwer, 1994.
43. Robinson, Abraham (1966). Non-
standard analysis.
44. For the assertion that this was the
historical reason for the ancients
considering the parallel postulate less
 obvious than the others, see Nagel and
Newman 1958, p. 9.
45. Cajori (1918), p. 197
4 . A detailed discussion can be found in
James T. Smith (2000). "Chapter 2:
Foundations" . Methods of geometry.
Wiley. pp. 19 ff. ISBN 0-471-25183-6.
47. Société française de philosophie
(1900). Revue de métaphysique et de
morale, Volume 8 . Hachette. p. 592.
4 . Bertrand Russell (2000). "Mathematics
and the metaphysicians" . In James
Roy Newman (ed.). The world of
mathematics. 3 (Reprint of Simon and
Schuster 1956 ed.). Courier Dover
 Publications. p. 1577. ISBN 0-486-
41151-6.
49. Bertrand Russell (1897). "Introduction".
An essay on the foundations of
geometry . Cambridge University
Press.
50. George David Birkhoff; Ralph Beatley
(1999). "Chapter 2: The five
fundamental principles" . Basic
Geometry (3rd ed.). AMS Bookstore.
pp. 38 ff. ISBN 0-8218-2101-6.
51. James T. Smith (10 January 2000).
"Chapter 3: Elementary Euclidean
Geometry" . Cited work. pp. 84 ff.
ISBN 9780471251835.
52. Edwin E. Moise (1990). Elementary
geometry from an advanced
standpoint (3rd ed.). Addison–
Wesley. ISBN 0-201-50867-2.
53. John R. Silvester (2001). "§1.4 Hilbert
and Birkhoff" . Geometry: ancient and
modern. Oxford University Press.
ISBN 0-19-850825-5.
54. Alfred Tarski (2007). "What is
elementary geometry" . In Leon
Henkin; Patrick Suppes; Alfred Tarski
(eds.). Studies in Logic and the
Foundations of Mathematics – The
Axiomatic Method with Special
Reference to Geometry and Physics
 (Proceedings of International
Symposium at Berkeley 1957–8;
Reprint ed.). Brouwer Press. p. 16.
ISBN 978-1-4067-5355-4. "We regard
as elementary that part of Euclidean
geometry which can be formulated
and established without the help of
any set-theoretical devices"
55. Keith Simmons (2009). "Tarski's
logic" . In Dov M. Gabbay; John Woods
(eds.). Logic from Russell to Church.
Elsevier. p. 574. ISBN 978-0-444-
51620-6.
5 . Franzén, Torkel (2005). Gödel's
Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its
 Use and Abuse. AK Peters. ISBN 1-
56881-238-8. Pp. 25–26.

References
Ball, W.W. Rouse (1960). A Short
Account of the History of Mathematics
(4th ed. [Reprint. Original publication:
London: Macmillan & Co., 1908] ed.).
New York: Dover Publications. pp. 50–
62 . ISBN 0-486-20630-0.
Coxeter, H.S.M. (1961). Introduction to
Geometry. New York: Wiley.
Eves, Howard (1963). A Survey of
Geometry (Volume One). Allyn and
Bacon.
Heath, Thomas L. (1956). The Thirteen
Books of Euclid's Elements (2nd ed.
[Facsimile. Original publication:
Cambridge University Press, 1925] ed.).
New York: Dover Publications. In 3 vols.:
vol. 1 ISBN 0-486-60088-2, vol. 2 ISBN 0-
486-60089-0, vol. 3 ISBN 0-486-60090-4.
Heath's authoritative translation of
Euclid's Elements, plus his extensive
historical research and detailed
commentary throughout the text.
Misner, Charles W.; Thorne, Kip S.;
Wheeler, John Archibald (1973).
Gravitation. W.H. Freeman.
 Mlodinow (2001). Euclid's Window . The
Free Press.
Nagel, E.; Newman, J.R. (1958). Gödel's
Proof . New York University Press.
Tarski, Alfred (1951). A Decision Method
for Elementary Algebra and Geometry.
Univ. of California Press.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media

related to Euclidean geometry.

"Euclidean geometry" , Encyclopedia of

Mathematics, EMS Press, 2001 [1994]
 "Plane trigonometry" , Encyclopedia of
Mathematics, EMS Press, 2001 [1994]
Kiran Kedlaya, Geometry Unbound (a
treatment using analytic geometry; PDF
format, GFDL licensed)

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Euclidean_geometry&oldid=994576246"

Last edited 14 days ago by 79.183.209.19

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.