Beyond the Lobacevskian Geometry

Adrian Chira ©
1 Introduction
So far, the geometers considered that the problem of the Euclidean geometry lays in the postulate of
parallels. In trying to prove the Euclidean geometry or to build non-Euclidean geometries, the geometers
focused their efforts and work on the postulate of parallels (or a replacement for it).
In this essay I intend to show that the issue of the postulate of parallels can be approached in a very
different way – starting with the definition of plane. This way, the issue of Euclidean or Lobacevskian
geometries is not a matter of geometry any more but reduces to a matter of logic.
At the same time, I intend to prove that the new approach is superior to the classical approach (based
on the postulate of parallels) on logical grounds. More than that, I intend to show that starting from the
definition of plane we can construct non-Lobacevskian geometries (different from the Lobacevskian geometry)
with higher degrees of complexity and strangeness.
2 The flaw of the classical definition
Classically, the plane is defined by the axiom that states that three non-collinear points determine a
plane. But this definition is unsatisfactory. It doesn't state how the three points determine the plane, what is the
relation between them and the plane determined by them.
3 Principles of logic concerning the foundations of a system of concepts
When we build a new system of concepts we need to start from as few prime, undefined terms as
possible. Then we need to define all the other terms based on those prime terms. Each undefined term
introduces some degree of imprecision. At the same time each undefined concept should be an elementary
concept. When we have a complex concept, that is, one that can be reduced to more simple concepts and
relations between those concepts, it should be defined based on those elementary concepts and the relation
between them should be stated clearly. Otherwise, the use of the concept will bring an imprecision, an
indetermination in our system.
4 The necessity of a precise definition
Since the plane does not contain all the lines (case in which it would be identical with the space) then
there needs to be a relation so that any line (out of all possible lines) that satisfies it is included in the given
plane. The unity of the plane requires that all the lines included in it will satisfy one and the same relation. This
relation will be the defining relation - it defines what the plane is, specifying which lines form it.
The relation between the three non-collinear points and the plane determined by them is not a direct,
elementary relation but a complex one. At the same time it's not an intuitive relation. Therefore, this relation
implied by the classical definition of plane should be expressed in terms already defined. We can't take it as an
undefined elementary concept /relation.
4.1 The example of the definition of line
Let us take as an example the definition of “straight line.” It states basically that the straight line is
determined by the shortest way between two points. It makes use of the concept of “point” and introduces a
new undefined relation, that of “shortest way.” A definition like: “a straight line is determined by two points”
would be inadequate. It needs to express how the points that form the line relate to the two points that
determine the line. The relation is this: if we consider any point on the line and the two points that determine
the line, one of those three points belongs to the shortest way between the other two points.
The same way, the statement: “three non-collinear points determine a plane” is not adequate either.
The concept of plane is a complex one. It is more than a point and it is more than a line – it is a group of lines
ordered according to a defining relation. Therefore the concept needs to be defined.
5 The new definition of plane
A precise definition of the plane that satisfies the requirements stated above and is also in accordance
with the intuitive concept of plane follows. The plane is formed by the group of all lines that intersect at least

1
two of the three lines which intersect each other (and which determine the plane).1 The three non-collinear
points determine three intersecting lines. If a line will intersect at least two of those three lines it will have at
least two points included in plane and, since through two points only one line can pass, that line is included in
plane.
6 The implication of the new definition
A. N. Whitehead, co-author with B. Russell of the famous book “Principia Mathematica,” being
primarily a philosopher and a logician, was more preoccupied than geometers to define precisely the terms
used. Thus, in his book “Process and Reality” he gives the same definition for plane as the one given above.
He says that the definition applies to any geometry (including non–Euclidean ones). But he did not analyze the
geometrical implications of the precise definition of plane. A few sentences after defining the plane he
describes the non-Euclidean geometries without realizing that they contradict his definition of plane. If in a
plane a line needs to intersect at least two of three intersecting lines (in order to be included in that plane) then
it needs to intersect at least one of two intersecting lines. Otherwise even if it would intersect a third line that
intersect the first two the initial line will only intersect one of three lines and that is not enough to be included
in plane. Consequently, from an exterior point of a line we can't draw two parallel lines to that line (the two
parallel lines intersect each other and the initial line needs to intersect at least one of them).
7 A new definition of the Lobacevskian plane
The question still to be answered that might leave room for the Lobacevskian geometry is this:
"Couldn't the plane be formed by more than just the lines that satisfies the above relation?" Couldn't we give a
less restrictive definition of the plane? Isn't it enough if a line intersects two of other three intersecting lines in
the plane?
First we need to realize that in order to maintain the unity of the plane all the lines of the plane should
relate the same way to the three lines that determine the plane. They should all satisfy one defining relation.
In the Lobacevskian plane some lines will satisfy the defining relation given above, others will not
(will intersect less than two lines of the initial set of three intersecting lines).
In order to “save” the Lobacevskian geometry we need to object to the definition given above as being
too restrictive. We need to argue that it’s not necessary for a line in the plane to intersect two of the three initial
intersecting lines but it’s enough if it intersects any two lines included in that plane. Thus, the line will have
two points included in the plane and, therefore, will itself be included in the plane.
So far, it seems that it’s all a matter of premises on which we base the definition of plane, premises
concerning the requirements for the inclusion of a line in a plane – to intersect two of the initial three lines or
any two lines.
8 The problem of the circular definition
But that is not the case! The Lobacevskian definition is still imprecise and . The premise of the
Lobacevskian geometry is objectionable. The definition of plane based on it is circular. The definition makes
use of the concept to be defined in defining that concept! In defining what lines are included in plane we
assumed we already knew that: “a line is included in a plane if it intersects two lines which are included in that
plane.” If we are now defining what it means for a line to be included in a plane how could we know that those
two lines are included in the plane? The definition implies a circular reasoning.
9 The Lobacevskian plane redefined
We can reword the definition so that it avoids the circular definition: “a plane determined by three
intersecting lines is formed by all the lines that intersect at least two lines which intersect at least two of the
three lines that determine the plane.”
10 Beyond The Lobacevskian geometry
This is indeed a precise definition but it has one more problem (which is closely linked with the
circular definition problem). This problem is that even though the definition leads (adequately) to the
Lobacevskian geometry it doesn’t stop there! It goes beyond the Lobacevskian geometry … to non-

1
Every line needs to intersect two lines in two different points. This requirement is true any times I refer to a line intersecting
two lines in a plane but I will not mention it every time.

2
Lobacevskian geometries of higher degrees. The objection raised against the Euclidean plane definition is a
boomerang type of objection. It hits right back.
10.1 Non-Lobacevskian geometries
The whole point of the definition is that not only the “Euclidean lines” (that intersect directly the three
intersecting lines) are included in plane but also the “Lobacevskian lines” (that intersect the initial lines
indirectly, intersecting the Euclidean lines). If that is the case, isn’t it too restrictive of a definition to say that
only lines which intersect the “Euclidean lines” are included in plane and not the lines that intersect the
Lobacevskian lines? Doesn’t the Lobacevskian definition of plane say that? It has to or it dies. And a new
geometry is born – a non-Lobacevskian geometry that is as strange compared to the Lobacevskian geometry as
the Lobacevskian geometry is compared to the Euclidean geometry. This new geometry (I would call it “third
degree geometry”) allows, for example, the existence2 of points between which you cannot draw a line!3 But
this geometry doesn’t have a long life either because it needs to be argued for, the same way as for the
Lobacevskian geometry and it will eventually lead to another non-Lobacevskian geometry (a forth degree
geometry) and so on. There is an infinity of non-Lobacevskian geometries.
10.2 Back to the Euclidean geometry
If the Lobacevskian geometry does say that only lines which intersect the Euclidean lines are included
in plane and not the lines which intersect the Lobacevskian lines then the infinite series of non-Lobacevskian
geometries is stopped but the very (possibility of) existence of the Lobacevskian lines has to be questioned.
That premise (or axiom) stops all the non-Euclidean geometries altogether giving the Euclidean lines a special
status. If the Lobacevskian lines are included in plane and for a line to be included in plane is not necessary to
intersect the initial set of lines, then why are the lines intersecting the Lobacevskian lines not included in
plane? If the only requirement for a line to be included in plane is to intersect two lines included in that plane4
and if the Lobacevskian lines are included in plane then any line that intersects two Lobacevskian lines is
included in plane.5
11 Conclusion
This approach to geometries based on the definition of plane leads to the conclusion that only the
Euclidean geometry starts from a satisfactory premise. The alternative premise states that in order for a line to
be included in a plane it is sufficient that it intersects any two lines that are included in that plane. This premise
always leads to a higher degree geometry different from the geometry considered and, therefore, doesn’t allow
any geometry.
The “definition approach” does leave room for the non-Euclidean geometries (the Lobacevskian
geometry and non-Lobacevskian geometries of higher degrees). We just need to state (through an axiom) that,
in case of the Lobacevskian geometry, only the sum of the lines which intersect the Euclidean lines are
included in plane and to exclude from the plane some lines that intersect the Lobacevskian lines in that plane.
But such an a statement is, from a logical point of view, very unsatisfactory. It leaves unanswered some very
logical questions (mentioned above). In the classical approach to geometry the plane is defined indirectly6 and,
therefore, these premises and unanswered questions remain concealed.

2
The nature of the geometrical concept of existence implies that if a geometric entity is possible to exist, that is, its existence is
not contradictory, then that entity exists (in the geometrical space).
3
Taking a less restrictive definition, the Lobacevskian geometry made room for the possibility that a line in a plane will not
intersect any of the three intersecting lines that determine the plane. It will only intersect other lines (“Euclidean lines”) that
intersect those lines. The same way, taking a less restrictive definition, the new geometry makes room for the possibility that a
line in a plane will not intersect any of the three lines that determine the plane and will not even intersect lines that intersect those
lines. It will only intersect lines (“Lobacevskian lines”) which intersect other lines (“Euclidean lines”) which intersect the initial
lines. This implies the possibility that there are points between which there is no straight line (see also previous endnote
/footnote). In spite of this strangeness, I believe that it is as hard to prove that these new geometries are contradictory as it is to
prove that for the Lobacevskian geometry.
4
See the first footnote.
5
Such a line would be a “third-degree-geometry line.”
6
In the classical approach, the plane is determined by three non-collinear points so that several axioms are satisfied (one of them
being the axiom of parallels or a replacement for it).