Beyond the Lobacevskian Geometry file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/chira/My%20Documents/cat__/...

Beyond the Lobacevskian Geometry

skip CONTENTS

CONTENTS:

1. Introduction
2. The flaw of the classical definition
3. Principles of logic concerning the foundations of a system of concepts
4. The necessity of a precise definition
4.1. The example of the definition of line
5. The new definition of plane
6. The implication of the new definition
7. A new definition of the Lobacevskian plane
8. The problem of the circular definition
9. The Lobacevskian plane redefined
10. Beyond The Lobacevskian geometry
10.1. Non-Lobacevskian geometries
10.2. Back to the Euclidean geometry
11. Conclusion
Endnotes

1. Introduction [go to the next section]

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 [next]

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.

1 of 5 2/22/2010 11:05 AM
Beyond the Lobacevskian Geometry file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/chira/My%20Documents/cat__/...

3. Principles of logic concerning the foundations of a system of concepts [next]

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 [next]

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 or relation.

4.1. The example of the definition of line [next]

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 [next]

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 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 [next]

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

2 of 5 2/22/2010 11:05 AM
Beyond the Lobacevskian Geometry file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/chira/My%20Documents/cat__/...

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 [next]

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 [next]

But that is not the case! The Lobacevskian definition is still imprecise and objectionable. The definition
is circular. It 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 [next]

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 [next]

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

3 of 5 2/22/2010 11:05 AM
Beyond the Lobacevskian Geometry file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/chira/My%20Documents/cat__/...

non-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 [next]

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 existence (2) 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 [next]

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 plane (4) and if the Lobacevskian lines are
included in plane then any line that intersects two Lobacevskian lines is included in plane. (5)

11. Conclusion [next]

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 indirectly and, therefore, these premises and unanswered
questions remain concealed.

Any comments are welcome! Click the e-mail address below!

4 of 5 2/22/2010 11:05 AM
Beyond the Lobacevskian Geometry file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/chira/My%20Documents/cat__/...

Adrian Chira
E-mail:
sir.cher@id-base.com

or

adi@parsmail.com

ENDNOTES:

(1) 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). [go back to the essay]

(2) 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). 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. [back]

(3) See the first footnote. [back]

(4) Such a line would be a "third-degree-geometry line." [back]

(5) 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). [back]

go back to the top

5 of 5 2/22/2010 11:05 AM