Betweenness and the Crossbar Theorem

Lemma: Let A, B, and C be distinct points. If A*B*C, then neither

A*C*B nor B*A*C.

~ Suppose that both A*B*C and A*C*B . Thus AB+BC =AC, and
AC +CB = AB. From this we get AB + BC +CB = AB, or in other
words, AB + 2BC = AB, so BC=0, a contradiction. An exactly
analogous proof works if we assume B*A*C. €

Theorem (Betweenness Theorem for Points): Let l be a line with

distinct points A, B, and C. Let a, b, and c be the coordinates of points
A, B, and C, respectively, under a coordinate function for l. Then
A*B*C iff or .

~ Suppose or . If , then
, , and . Then:
. Therefore,
A*B*C. If , then , , and
, and the same results follow.

For the second half of the proof, suppose A*B*C. If either

or , then part 1 of our proof would give B*A*C, a
contradiction to the Lemma. Similarly, if or ,
we would have B*C*A, again a contradiction. The only possibilities
left are or . €

Corollary: Let A, B, and C be three points such that B lies on .

Then A*B*C if and only if AB < AC. (Mistake in Book)

~ Let a, b, and c be the ruler coordinates for points A, B, and C,

respectively. If A*B*C, then either or . If
, then , so AB < AC. If ,
then , so and again we have
AC > AB.

For the second half of the proof, assume AB < AC. Since B lies on
, by definition either A*B*C or A*C*B. If A*C*B, then AC
+CB = AB, which is impossible since AB <AC and all distances are
positive. Thus A*B*C. €
Corollary: If A, B, and C are three distinct collinear points, then
exactly one of them lies between the other two.

~ There is a coordinate function for the line that points A, B, and C lie
on. Their coordinates are distinct, and can be ordered. Thus exactly
one of the three coordinates lies between the other two, and so exactly
one of the points lies between the other two. €

Definition: Let A and B be two distinct points. The point M is a

midpoint for segment if A*M*B and AM=MB.

Theorem: If A and B are distinct points, there exists a unique point M

such that M is the midpoint of .

~ Let a and b be the ruler coordinates of A and B, respectively, on line

. Use the ruler placement theorem to make a=0 and b>0. By the
rule postulate there is a point on corresponding to coordinate .

Let that point be M. Since we have A*M*B. Also,

. €

Note that this is a typical use of the Ruler postulate to get points
anywhere you want on a line, say a given distance from one end of a
segment. This allows you to get a “copy” of one segment on another
segment or on a line. You can trisect a segment, divide it into fifths,
find a point away from a given point, etc.
 Relationships Between Betweenness and PSP

Theorem: Let l be a line, A be a point on l, and B be a point external

to l. If A*C*B, then B and C are on the same side of l.

~ Given a line l, and points A, B, and C with

. For contradiction, suppose that B and C
were on different sides of l. By PSP, l would have to intersect the
segment . But since A*C*B, A is not between C and B, so A is
not on the segment . Since l and intersect at only one point
(namely, A), l cannot intersect , a contradiction. Thus B and C are
on the same side of l. €

Corollary: Let l be a line, A a point on l, and B a point external to l.

If C is a point on and C A, then B and C are on the same side of
l.

~ Given a line l, and points A, B, and C with

. Since , and C is not A,
either C = B, A*C*B, or A*B*C. If C = B then the conclusion follows
immediately. If A*C*B, the conclusion follows from the previous
theorem. If A*B*C, the conclusion follows from the previous theorem
as well, with the roles of B and C reversed. €

Note: These two results essentially say that if a segment or a ray

has an endpoint A on a line l, then the entire segment or ray lies on
one side of the line.

Corollary: If a point D is in the interior of angle pBAC, then the

entire ray (except for point A) lies in the interior of pBAC. Thus
betweenness for rays is well-defined, i.e., it does not depend on the
particular point D chosen to name the ray .

~ Since D is in the interior of pBAC, D is on the B-side of and

the C-side of . The above corollary guarantees that the entire
ray (except for A) is then on the B-side of and the C-side of
, and therefore lies in the interior of of pBAC. €
Useful Little Corollary: Given angle pBAC, and a point D interior to
, D is interior to pBAC.

~ The first corollary above implies that D and C are on the same side
of and that D and B are on the same side of , which is the
definition of D being interior to the angle. €

Note that this implies that any “crossbar” of an angle lies in its interior
(with the exception of its endpoints).

Corollary (The Z Theorem): If points B and D lie on opposite sides

of line l and distinct points A and C lie on line l, then rays and
have no points in common.

~ B and D are in separate half-planes, and by the previous corollary all

of , except for A, lies in the same half-plane as B. Similarly, all of
lies in the same half-plane as D. Since the two half-planes are
disjoint, and since A and C are distinct, the two rays can have no
points in common. €

Note: Because the rays have no points in common, neither do the

appropriate segments that are subsets of the rays, such as and .
We will use the theorem for both rays and segments as needed without
further comment.
Useful Corollary Not in the Book (The X-Theorem): Suppose
distinct points A and C are on line l and points B and D are not on l.
If and intersect, then B and D are on the same side of l.
~Note that if and intersect, it will not be at points A or C. By
the above corollary all of , except for A, lies in the same half-plane
as B. Similarly, all of lies in the same half-plane as D. If point E
(distinct from A or C) is in both and , then it must be in the
same half-plane as D and in the same half-plane as B. Thus E, B, and
D are all together in the same half-plane. €
Theorem: Let A, B, and C be three noncollinear points and let D be a
point on the line . The point D is between the points B and C if
and only if the ray is between the rays and .

~ Let A, B, and C be three noncollinear points and let D be a point on

the line . Suppose that B*D*C. Then C and D are on the same
side of line , and B and D are on the same side of . But this
is just the definition of D being in the interior of pBAC, which is the
definition of being between the rays and .

For the converse, suppose that ray is between the rays and
. This means that D must be in the interior of pBAC. So D is on
the C side of and on the B side of . Since D and C are
together on one side of , the line cannot intersect the segment
, so no point of the line (in particular, point B) is between D and
C. Similarly, since B and D are on the same side of , C cannot be
on the segment , and C is not between B and D. Since B, C, and
D are collinear, and one point must be between the other two, we are
left with B*D*C. €
Lemma: If A, B, C, and D are four distinct points such that C and D
are on the same side of and D is not on , then either C is in
the interior of pBAD or D is in the interior of pBAC.

~ We will prove the “or” statement by assuming one case is not true
and proving the other must be. So, assume D is not in the interior of
pBAC. We need to show C is in the interior of pBAD. We already
know C is on the D-side of , so our goal in life is now to show
that C is on the B-side of .

Since C and D are on the same side of , it must be that D is not on

the B-side of (otherwise it would be interior to pBAC). Since B
and D are on opposite sides, the line must intersect the segment
at a point we will call CN. Thus the rays and intersect,
and the X Theorem guarantees that C and B are on the same side of
. €
Theorem (The Betweenness Theorem for Rays): Let A, B, C, and
D be four distinct points such that C and D lie on the same side of
. Then µ(pBAD) < µ(pBAC) if and only if is between rays
and .

~ To prove one direction, assume is between rays and .

Then D is in the interior of pBAC. Thus, we have
. Since
we must have .

To prove the other direction, we use the contrapositive. Assume

is not between rays and . Our goal is to prove that
. If it happens that D is on ray , then
, and we are done. Otherwise, since D is
not interior to pBAC, the above lemma gives us that C is interior to
pBAD. In this case, we do something that feels like cheating, but
isn’t. We duplicate the first part of the proof with the roles of C and D
exchanged, since is now between rays and . The result
is that we have . This completes the proof
of the contrapositive. €
Definition: Let A, B, and C be three noncollinear points. A ray
is an angle bisector of pBAC if D is in the interior of pBAC and
µ(pBAD) = µ(pDAC).

Theorem: If A, B and C are three noncollinear points then there exists

a unique angle bisector for pBAC.

~ Exercise €
Theorem (The Crossbar Theorem): If a point D lies in the interior of
pBAC, then ray meets segment at some point G interior to
.

Note: This is the first of our theorems that isn’t pretty straightforward.
We will prove it by extending the ray to a whole line and
applying Pasch; but in order to do this we need to have the line go
through the interior point of a segment; so we must also extend the
side of the angle and create a triangle with as one side.

€Use the ruler postulate to find points E and F with E*A*B and
F*A*D.
For convenience, call the line l. Since D is interior to pBAC we

know that D does not lie on line or on line . Thus

line l cannot intersect point C, B, or E. If it did, then it would have to
be one of these two lines that cannot contain D. Moreover, since
E*A*B we know A is an interior point of and l intersects at
an interior point. Thus, Pasch applies to points E, C, and B and to line
l. We know that l intersects either or . We must show three
things to complete the proof:
1. is the part of l that meets either or ; that is,
a) does not meet , and
b) does not meet ,

and we show

2. does not meet .

We tackle each in turn:

1a: Since F*A*D, F and D are on opposite sides of . Since D is

interior to pA, D is on the C-side of , so C and D are on the same
side of . Thus C and F are on opposite sides of , and so by
the Z Theorem, does not meet .

1b: We just showed that C and F are on opposite sides of , so

another application of the Z Theorem gives us that does not meet
.

2: Because E*A*B, E and B are on opposite sides of . Because D

is interior to pA, D is on the B-side of . Thus, D and B are on the
same side, and E on the opposite side of . Since E and D are on
opposite sides of , the Z theorem once again gives us that
does not meet .

The only remaining possibility is that ray meets segment at

some point G interior to . T. I. J*

* Stands for “That’s It, Jack!” Signifies the end of a proof.

The book points out that the Crossbar Theorem and the theorem
proved above immediately after the X Theorem can be combined into a
single theorem called the Continuity Theorem. Of course, from it you
can prove another theorem that was adopted as an axiom in Birkhoff’s
system.