INCIDENCE AXIOM 1: For every point P and for every point Q not equal to P there exists a unique line l

incident with P and Q.

INCIDENCE AXIOM 2: For every line l, there exist at least two distinct points incident with I.

INCIDENCE AXIOM 3: There exist three distinct points with the property that no line is incident with all
three of them.

Answer this: For each pair of axioms of incidence geometry, construct an interpretation in which those
two axioms are satisfied but the third axiom is not. (This will show that the three axioms are
independent, in the sense that it is impossible to prove anyone of them from the other two.)
To show that the three axioms of incidence geometry are independent, we need to construct
interpretations where any two axioms are satisfied but the third one is not. Let's consider each pair of
axioms and construct such interpretations.

**Interpretation 1: Axioms 1 and 2 are satisfied, but Axiom 3 is not.**

For this interpretation, we can consider a geometry with only two points, P and Q, and a single line l that
is incident with both P and Q. This satisfies Axiom 1 because there is a unique line incident with the two
distinct points P and Q. It also satisfies Axiom 2 because there are at least two distinct points, P and Q,
incident with the line l. However, Axiom 3 is not satisfied because there are not three distinct points in
this geometry, so we cannot have three distinct points with no line incident with all three of them.

**Interpretation 2: Axioms 1 and 3 are satisfied, but Axiom 2 is not.**

For this interpretation, we can consider a geometry with three distinct points, P, Q, and R, but no lines at
all. This satisfies Axiom 1 trivially because there are no lines to be incident with any pair of points. Axiom
3 is satisfied because we have three distinct points, P, Q, and R, and there is no line incident with all
three of them (since there are no lines). However, Axiom 2 is not satisfied because there are no lines to
have points incident with them.

**Interpretation 3: Axioms 2 and 3 are satisfied, but Axiom 1 is not.**

For this interpretation, we can consider a geometry with infinitely many points and a single line l. The
line l is incident with every point except for one special point P. This satisfies Axiom 2 because there are
at least two distinct points incident with the line l. Axiom 3 is satisfied because we can choose three
distinct points, including the special point P, and no line is incident with all three of them (since P is not
incident with l). However, Axiom 1 is not satisfied because there is not a unique line incident with P and
any other point; in fact, there is no line incident with P and any other point at all.

Each interpretation shows that one of the axioms cannot be derived from the other two, demonstrating
their independence.
Interpretation 1: Axioms 1 and 2 are satisfied, but Axiom 3 is not, by considering a geometry with only
two points and one line.

Interpretation 2: Axioms 1 and 3 are satisfied, but Axiom 2 is not, by considering a geometry with three
points and no lines.

Interpretation 3: Axioms 2 and 3 are satisfied, but Axiom 1 is not, by considering a geometry with
infinitely many points and one line that is not incident with one special point.