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