Why is “points exist” not an axiom in geometry?
$begingroup$
I am not sure why "points exist" is not an axiom in geometry, given that the other axioms are likewise primitive and seemingly as obvious.
geometry axioms
edited Mar 1 at 10:23
Peter Mortensen
561310
asked Mar 1 at 8:26
user10869858user10869858
398211
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not sure why "points exist" is not an axiom in geometry, given that the other axioms are likewise primitive and seemingly as obvious.
geometry axioms
edited Mar 1 at 10:23
Peter Mortensen
561310
asked Mar 1 at 8:26
user10869858user10869858
398211
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Why not "lines exist" then points would be derived objects? Not an answer, just a thought.
$endgroup$
– Paul
Mar 1 at 9:05
1
$begingroup$
If the question is about Euclid's Elements specifically, there's alot missing in those axioms. For example, in the very first proof, Euclid assumes that two circles draw at a certain distance from one another must intersect.
$endgroup$
– Jack M
Mar 1 at 9:50
9
$begingroup$
See David Hilbert, The Foundations of Geometry (1899), page 2 : "Let us consider three distinct systems of things. The things composing the first system, we will call points and designate them by the letters $A, B, C$ ; those of the second, we will call straight lines and..."
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 1 at 12:09
$begingroup$
Defining too much detail can quickly devolve into a problem wonderful put by Lewis Carrol. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles platonicrealms.com/encyclopedia/Carrolls-Paradox
$endgroup$
– Duck of Death
Mar 1 at 22:02
$begingroup$
I want to say something more about what @JackM said. Euclid's Elements is not only too imprecise to be considered a proper axiomatization of geometry, it is also woefully incomplete and Euclid made numerous unfixable errors, contrary to popular accounts. It is not his fault, since his attempt was a very commendable one (hardly anyone can claim to have even tried before him). But it would be foolish for any student today to use his Elements as a place to learn rigorous Euclidean geometry.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Mar 2 at 9:46
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not sure why "points exist" is not an axiom in geometry, given that the other axioms are likewise primitive and seemingly as obvious.
geometry axioms
edited Mar 1 at 10:23
Peter Mortensen
561310
asked Mar 1 at 8:26
user10869858user10869858
398211
$endgroup$
I am not sure why "points exist" is not an axiom in geometry, given that the other axioms are likewise primitive and seemingly as obvious.
geometry axioms
geometry axioms
edited Mar 1 at 10:23
Peter Mortensen
561310
asked Mar 1 at 8:26
user10869858user10869858
398211
edited Mar 1 at 10:23
Peter Mortensen
561310
asked Mar 1 at 8:26
user10869858user10869858
398211
edited Mar 1 at 10:23
Peter Mortensen
561310
edited Mar 1 at 10:23
Peter Mortensen
561310
edited Mar 1 at 10:23
Peter Mortensen
561310
561310
asked Mar 1 at 8:26
user10869858user10869858
398211
asked Mar 1 at 8:26
user10869858user10869858
398211
asked Mar 1 at 8:26
user10869858user10869858
398211
398211
2
$begingroup$
Why not "lines exist" then points would be derived objects? Not an answer, just a thought.
$endgroup$
– Paul
Mar 1 at 9:05
1
$begingroup$
If the question is about Euclid's Elements specifically, there's alot missing in those axioms. For example, in the very first proof, Euclid assumes that two circles draw at a certain distance from one another must intersect.
$endgroup$
– Jack M
Mar 1 at 9:50
9
$begingroup$
See David Hilbert, The Foundations of Geometry (1899), page 2 : "Let us consider three distinct systems of things. The things composing the first system, we will call points and designate them by the letters $A, B, C$ ; those of the second, we will call straight lines and..."
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 1 at 12:09
$begingroup$
Defining too much detail can quickly devolve into a problem wonderful put by Lewis Carrol. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles platonicrealms.com/encyclopedia/Carrolls-Paradox
$endgroup$
– Duck of Death
Mar 1 at 22:02
$begingroup$
I want to say something more about what @JackM said. Euclid's Elements is not only too imprecise to be considered a proper axiomatization of geometry, it is also woefully incomplete and Euclid made numerous unfixable errors, contrary to popular accounts. It is not his fault, since his attempt was a very commendable one (hardly anyone can claim to have even tried before him). But it would be foolish for any student today to use his Elements as a place to learn rigorous Euclidean geometry.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Mar 2 at 9:46
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Why not "lines exist" then points would be derived objects? Not an answer, just a thought.
$endgroup$
– Paul
Mar 1 at 9:05
1
$begingroup$
If the question is about Euclid's Elements specifically, there's alot missing in those axioms. For example, in the very first proof, Euclid assumes that two circles draw at a certain distance from one another must intersect.
$endgroup$
– Jack M
Mar 1 at 9:50
9
$begingroup$
See David Hilbert, The Foundations of Geometry (1899), page 2 : "Let us consider three distinct systems of things. The things composing the first system, we will call points and designate them by the letters $A, B, C$ ; those of the second, we will call straight lines and..."
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 1 at 12:09
$begingroup$
Defining too much detail can quickly devolve into a problem wonderful put by Lewis Carrol. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles platonicrealms.com/encyclopedia/Carrolls-Paradox
$endgroup$
– Duck of Death
Mar 1 at 22:02
$begingroup$
I want to say something more about what @JackM said. Euclid's Elements is not only too imprecise to be considered a proper axiomatization of geometry, it is also woefully incomplete and Euclid made numerous unfixable errors, contrary to popular accounts. It is not his fault, since his attempt was a very commendable one (hardly anyone can claim to have even tried before him). But it would be foolish for any student today to use his Elements as a place to learn rigorous Euclidean geometry.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Mar 2 at 9:46
2
2
$begingroup$
Why not "lines exist" then points would be derived objects? Not an answer, just a thought.
$endgroup$
– Paul
Mar 1 at 9:05
$begingroup$
Why not "lines exist" then points would be derived objects? Not an answer, just a thought.
$endgroup$
– Paul
Mar 1 at 9:05
1
1
$begingroup$
If the question is about Euclid's Elements specifically, there's alot missing in those axioms. For example, in the very first proof, Euclid assumes that two circles draw at a certain distance from one another must intersect.
$endgroup$
– Jack M
Mar 1 at 9:50
$begingroup$
If the question is about Euclid's Elements specifically, there's alot missing in those axioms. For example, in the very first proof, Euclid assumes that two circles draw at a certain distance from one another must intersect.
$endgroup$
– Jack M
Mar 1 at 9:50
9
9
$begingroup$
See David Hilbert, The Foundations of Geometry (1899), page 2 : "Let us consider three distinct systems of things. The things composing the first system, we will call points and designate them by the letters $A, B, C$ ; those of the second, we will call straight lines and..."
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 1 at 12:09
$begingroup$
See David Hilbert, The Foundations of Geometry (1899), page 2 : "Let us consider three distinct systems of things. The things composing the first system, we will call points and designate them by the letters $A, B, C$ ; those of the second, we will call straight lines and..."
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 1 at 12:09
$begingroup$
Defining too much detail can quickly devolve into a problem wonderful put by Lewis Carrol. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles platonicrealms.com/encyclopedia/Carrolls-Paradox
$endgroup$
– Duck of Death
Mar 1 at 22:02
$begingroup$
Defining too much detail can quickly devolve into a problem wonderful put by Lewis Carrol. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles platonicrealms.com/encyclopedia/Carrolls-Paradox
$endgroup$
– Duck of Death
Mar 1 at 22:02
$begingroup$
I want to say something more about what @JackM said. Euclid's Elements is not only too imprecise to be considered a proper axiomatization of geometry, it is also woefully incomplete and Euclid made numerous unfixable errors, contrary to popular accounts. It is not his fault, since his attempt was a very commendable one (hardly anyone can claim to have even tried before him). But it would be foolish for any student today to use his Elements as a place to learn rigorous Euclidean geometry.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Mar 2 at 9:46
$begingroup$
I want to say something more about what @JackM said. Euclid's Elements is not only too imprecise to be considered a proper axiomatization of geometry, it is also woefully incomplete and Euclid made numerous unfixable errors, contrary to popular accounts. It is not his fault, since his attempt was a very commendable one (hardly anyone can claim to have even tried before him). But it would be foolish for any student today to use his Elements as a place to learn rigorous Euclidean geometry.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Mar 2 at 9:46
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In the presentation I have most convenient to me (Hilbert's axioms), the axioms for plane geometry start with a trio of "axioms of incidence". One of those axioms is "There exist three non-collinear points". That axiom certainly includes the existence of points.
answered Mar 1 at 8:53
jmerryjmerry
17k11633
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
+1. For a specific reference, see Wikipedia's "Hilbert's Axioms" entry. In that listing, the third Incidence axiom reads "There exist at least two points on a line. There exist at least three points that do not lie on the same line." Further, the eighth Incidence axiom reads "There exist at least four points not lying in a plane."
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 8:55
$begingroup$
The version I'm working from (Hartshorne's textbook) organizes it a little differently. The other two incidence axioms in that version are "For any two points $A,B$, there exists a unique line $l$ containing them", and "Every line contains at least two points". (The axioms from #4 on in the Wikipedia version are axioms for three-dimensional geometry)
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Mar 1 at 9:06
$begingroup$
I still would find it interesting to know why it's left out in so many places then.
$endgroup$
– user10869858
Mar 1 at 9:12
1
$begingroup$
@jmerry: Probably every text organizes things a little differently. :) I just thought OP would benefit from access to some version of a "complete" reference, in case there are additional questions about what a comprehensive axiomatic system may-or-may-not cover.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 9:12
5
$begingroup$
@user10869858: What do you mean by "so many places"? Note that Euclid's Elements itself is notoriously lacking in covering all the necessary logical bases; on the other hand, Hilbert's axioms may overwhelm a new learner. It's unsurprising (though perhaps a little unfortunate) that introductory treatments (say, high school textbooks) might make certain compromises, confident that advanced courses and/or readily-available resources (like Math.SE! ;) will fill in any gaps.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 9:24
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Getting a bit meta here, but the point of axioms is not just to play pedant. They meaningfully differentiate between scenarios that might be considered. If the geometry of a system that didn't have points was a thing, then maybe there would be a field with an axiom of this nature.
Side note: often the mathematical fields of interest to the outside world are those that mimic something in real life. There, it's obvious that "the triangle equality holds".
However in maths it is not clear that would always be the case.
Indeed there are interesting cases in which it doesn't hold, and these need to be differentiated.
EDIT below, some extra thoughts:
Often the 'existence' axioms are not needed for the simple grammatical reasons. It's often the case that arguments go (or can be rephrased) something along the lines of: the following restrictions exist/all things considered must obey these rules/there are no things that don't obey these rules. If this is a true statement without the caveat of non-emptiness, then it is in the general case as the empty case is automatically true. This is often the easier to work, and doesn't need 'points exist' as an axiom.
answered Mar 1 at 15:03
ANoneANone
1713
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
You can't just say an axiom is unnecessary because the case where it doesn't hold is boring.
$endgroup$
– user2357112
Mar 1 at 17:54
13
$begingroup$
Strongly disagree with your first sentence. Axioms have various purposes (and the term "axiom" is used with different meanings), but one of their most important purposes is to "play pedant" and provide a thorough logical foundation for a subject. This is certainly the case for the traditional use of axioms in geometry.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 1 at 19:44
$begingroup$
@user2357112 I think there is a miss confusion here. I am not saying that at all, I am saying you can't omit them if the the case it doesn't hold is interesting. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition)
$endgroup$
– ANone
Mar 4 at 9:32
$begingroup$
I am wondering if you meant "nothing for which it doesn't hold is interesting" to be included in "[w]hat's not to say".
$endgroup$
– hkBst
Mar 5 at 10:48
$begingroup$
@hkBst I think I stand by what I said, but as you are not the first to comment, I will change the wording.
$endgroup$
– ANone
Mar 5 at 11:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One point that is missing from the other answers is that of vacuous truth. If formulated properly, we do not need points for the theorems in geometry to hold. If there are no right angled triangles then the Pythagorean theorem trivially holds for all of them, if there are no circles, Thales' theorem hold for all of them and so on. There might be a few theorems that cannot be restated in the form "For all objects x of class Y we have that ...", but even those could be reformulated as "If there exists a point, then...".
So, say you take a model-theoretic point of view of geometry and look at it just as a "set of theorems that hold for any model which satisfies those axioms". Then adding "points exists" as an axiom will only exclude the empty set as a model, which was kind of a boring model anyway. There might be a reason to do so for convenience and readability, in the same way as for example most authors exclude ${0}$ from the fields, but the differences in the resulting theory will be rather minor.
answered Mar 2 at 12:41
mlkmlk
2,9151016
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3131186%2fwhy-is-points-exist-not-an-axiom-in-geometry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In the presentation I have most convenient to me (Hilbert's axioms), the axioms for plane geometry start with a trio of "axioms of incidence". One of those axioms is "There exist three non-collinear points". That axiom certainly includes the existence of points.
answered Mar 1 at 8:53
jmerryjmerry
17k11633
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
+1. For a specific reference, see Wikipedia's "Hilbert's Axioms" entry. In that listing, the third Incidence axiom reads "There exist at least two points on a line. There exist at least three points that do not lie on the same line." Further, the eighth Incidence axiom reads "There exist at least four points not lying in a plane."
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 8:55
$begingroup$
The version I'm working from (Hartshorne's textbook) organizes it a little differently. The other two incidence axioms in that version are "For any two points $A,B$, there exists a unique line $l$ containing them", and "Every line contains at least two points". (The axioms from #4 on in the Wikipedia version are axioms for three-dimensional geometry)
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Mar 1 at 9:06
$begingroup$
I still would find it interesting to know why it's left out in so many places then.
$endgroup$
– user10869858
Mar 1 at 9:12
1
$begingroup$
@jmerry: Probably every text organizes things a little differently. :) I just thought OP would benefit from access to some version of a "complete" reference, in case there are additional questions about what a comprehensive axiomatic system may-or-may-not cover.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 9:12
5
$begingroup$
@user10869858: What do you mean by "so many places"? Note that Euclid's Elements itself is notoriously lacking in covering all the necessary logical bases; on the other hand, Hilbert's axioms may overwhelm a new learner. It's unsurprising (though perhaps a little unfortunate) that introductory treatments (say, high school textbooks) might make certain compromises, confident that advanced courses and/or readily-available resources (like Math.SE! ;) will fill in any gaps.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 9:24
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
In the presentation I have most convenient to me (Hilbert's axioms), the axioms for plane geometry start with a trio of "axioms of incidence". One of those axioms is "There exist three non-collinear points". That axiom certainly includes the existence of points.
answered Mar 1 at 8:53
jmerryjmerry
17k11633
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
+1. For a specific reference, see Wikipedia's "Hilbert's Axioms" entry. In that listing, the third Incidence axiom reads "There exist at least two points on a line. There exist at least three points that do not lie on the same line." Further, the eighth Incidence axiom reads "There exist at least four points not lying in a plane."
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 8:55
$begingroup$
The version I'm working from (Hartshorne's textbook) organizes it a little differently. The other two incidence axioms in that version are "For any two points $A,B$, there exists a unique line $l$ containing them", and "Every line contains at least two points". (The axioms from #4 on in the Wikipedia version are axioms for three-dimensional geometry)
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Mar 1 at 9:06
$begingroup$
I still would find it interesting to know why it's left out in so many places then.
$endgroup$
– user10869858
Mar 1 at 9:12
1
$begingroup$
@jmerry: Probably every text organizes things a little differently. :) I just thought OP would benefit from access to some version of a "complete" reference, in case there are additional questions about what a comprehensive axiomatic system may-or-may-not cover.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 9:12
5
$begingroup$
@user10869858: What do you mean by "so many places"? Note that Euclid's Elements itself is notoriously lacking in covering all the necessary logical bases; on the other hand, Hilbert's axioms may overwhelm a new learner. It's unsurprising (though perhaps a little unfortunate) that introductory treatments (say, high school textbooks) might make certain compromises, confident that advanced courses and/or readily-available resources (like Math.SE! ;) will fill in any gaps.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 9:24
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
In the presentation I have most convenient to me (Hilbert's axioms), the axioms for plane geometry start with a trio of "axioms of incidence". One of those axioms is "There exist three non-collinear points". That axiom certainly includes the existence of points.
answered Mar 1 at 8:53
jmerryjmerry
17k11633
$endgroup$
In the presentation I have most convenient to me (Hilbert's axioms), the axioms for plane geometry start with a trio of "axioms of incidence". One of those axioms is "There exist three non-collinear points". That axiom certainly includes the existence of points.
answered Mar 1 at 8:53
jmerryjmerry
17k11633
answered Mar 1 at 8:53
jmerryjmerry
17k11633
answered Mar 1 at 8:53
jmerryjmerry
17k11633
answered Mar 1 at 8:53
jmerryjmerry
17k11633
17k11633
7
$begingroup$
+1. For a specific reference, see Wikipedia's "Hilbert's Axioms" entry. In that listing, the third Incidence axiom reads "There exist at least two points on a line. There exist at least three points that do not lie on the same line." Further, the eighth Incidence axiom reads "There exist at least four points not lying in a plane."
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 8:55
$begingroup$
The version I'm working from (Hartshorne's textbook) organizes it a little differently. The other two incidence axioms in that version are "For any two points $A,B$, there exists a unique line $l$ containing them", and "Every line contains at least two points". (The axioms from #4 on in the Wikipedia version are axioms for three-dimensional geometry)
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Mar 1 at 9:06
$begingroup$
I still would find it interesting to know why it's left out in so many places then.
$endgroup$
– user10869858
Mar 1 at 9:12
1
$begingroup$
@jmerry: Probably every text organizes things a little differently. :) I just thought OP would benefit from access to some version of a "complete" reference, in case there are additional questions about what a comprehensive axiomatic system may-or-may-not cover.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 9:12
5
$begingroup$
@user10869858: What do you mean by "so many places"? Note that Euclid's Elements itself is notoriously lacking in covering all the necessary logical bases; on the other hand, Hilbert's axioms may overwhelm a new learner. It's unsurprising (though perhaps a little unfortunate) that introductory treatments (say, high school textbooks) might make certain compromises, confident that advanced courses and/or readily-available resources (like Math.SE! ;) will fill in any gaps.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 9:24
|
show 1 more comment
7
$begingroup$
+1. For a specific reference, see Wikipedia's "Hilbert's Axioms" entry. In that listing, the third Incidence axiom reads "There exist at least two points on a line. There exist at least three points that do not lie on the same line." Further, the eighth Incidence axiom reads "There exist at least four points not lying in a plane."
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 8:55
$begingroup$
The version I'm working from (Hartshorne's textbook) organizes it a little differently. The other two incidence axioms in that version are "For any two points $A,B$, there exists a unique line $l$ containing them", and "Every line contains at least two points". (The axioms from #4 on in the Wikipedia version are axioms for three-dimensional geometry)
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Mar 1 at 9:06
$begingroup$
I still would find it interesting to know why it's left out in so many places then.
$endgroup$
– user10869858
Mar 1 at 9:12
1
$begingroup$
@jmerry: Probably every text organizes things a little differently. :) I just thought OP would benefit from access to some version of a "complete" reference, in case there are additional questions about what a comprehensive axiomatic system may-or-may-not cover.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 9:12
5
$begingroup$
@user10869858: What do you mean by "so many places"? Note that Euclid's Elements itself is notoriously lacking in covering all the necessary logical bases; on the other hand, Hilbert's axioms may overwhelm a new learner. It's unsurprising (though perhaps a little unfortunate) that introductory treatments (say, high school textbooks) might make certain compromises, confident that advanced courses and/or readily-available resources (like Math.SE! ;) will fill in any gaps.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 9:24
7
7
$begingroup$
+1. For a specific reference, see Wikipedia's "Hilbert's Axioms" entry. In that listing, the third Incidence axiom reads "There exist at least two points on a line. There exist at least three points that do not lie on the same line." Further, the eighth Incidence axiom reads "There exist at least four points not lying in a plane."
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 8:55
$begingroup$
+1. For a specific reference, see Wikipedia's "Hilbert's Axioms" entry. In that listing, the third Incidence axiom reads "There exist at least two points on a line. There exist at least three points that do not lie on the same line." Further, the eighth Incidence axiom reads "There exist at least four points not lying in a plane."
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 8:55
$begingroup$
The version I'm working from (Hartshorne's textbook) organizes it a little differently. The other two incidence axioms in that version are "For any two points $A,B$, there exists a unique line $l$ containing them", and "Every line contains at least two points". (The axioms from #4 on in the Wikipedia version are axioms for three-dimensional geometry)
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Mar 1 at 9:06
$begingroup$
The version I'm working from (Hartshorne's textbook) organizes it a little differently. The other two incidence axioms in that version are "For any two points $A,B$, there exists a unique line $l$ containing them", and "Every line contains at least two points". (The axioms from #4 on in the Wikipedia version are axioms for three-dimensional geometry)
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Mar 1 at 9:06
$begingroup$
I still would find it interesting to know why it's left out in so many places then.
$endgroup$
– user10869858
Mar 1 at 9:12
$begingroup$
I still would find it interesting to know why it's left out in so many places then.
$endgroup$
– user10869858
Mar 1 at 9:12
1
1
$begingroup$
@jmerry: Probably every text organizes things a little differently. :) I just thought OP would benefit from access to some version of a "complete" reference, in case there are additional questions about what a comprehensive axiomatic system may-or-may-not cover.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 9:12
$begingroup$
@jmerry: Probably every text organizes things a little differently. :) I just thought OP would benefit from access to some version of a "complete" reference, in case there are additional questions about what a comprehensive axiomatic system may-or-may-not cover.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 9:12
5
5
$begingroup$
@user10869858: What do you mean by "so many places"? Note that Euclid's Elements itself is notoriously lacking in covering all the necessary logical bases; on the other hand, Hilbert's axioms may overwhelm a new learner. It's unsurprising (though perhaps a little unfortunate) that introductory treatments (say, high school textbooks) might make certain compromises, confident that advanced courses and/or readily-available resources (like Math.SE! ;) will fill in any gaps.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 9:24
$begingroup$
@user10869858: What do you mean by "so many places"? Note that Euclid's Elements itself is notoriously lacking in covering all the necessary logical bases; on the other hand, Hilbert's axioms may overwhelm a new learner. It's unsurprising (though perhaps a little unfortunate) that introductory treatments (say, high school textbooks) might make certain compromises, confident that advanced courses and/or readily-available resources (like Math.SE! ;) will fill in any gaps.
$endgroup$
– Blue
Mar 1 at 9:24
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Getting a bit meta here, but the point of axioms is not just to play pedant. They meaningfully differentiate between scenarios that might be considered. If the geometry of a system that didn't have points was a thing, then maybe there would be a field with an axiom of this nature.
Side note: often the mathematical fields of interest to the outside world are those that mimic something in real life. There, it's obvious that "the triangle equality holds".
However in maths it is not clear that would always be the case.
Indeed there are interesting cases in which it doesn't hold, and these need to be differentiated.
EDIT below, some extra thoughts:
Often the 'existence' axioms are not needed for the simple grammatical reasons. It's often the case that arguments go (or can be rephrased) something along the lines of: the following restrictions exist/all things considered must obey these rules/there are no things that don't obey these rules. If this is a true statement without the caveat of non-emptiness, then it is in the general case as the empty case is automatically true. This is often the easier to work, and doesn't need 'points exist' as an axiom.
answered Mar 1 at 15:03
ANoneANone
1713
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
You can't just say an axiom is unnecessary because the case where it doesn't hold is boring.
$endgroup$
– user2357112
Mar 1 at 17:54
13
$begingroup$
Strongly disagree with your first sentence. Axioms have various purposes (and the term "axiom" is used with different meanings), but one of their most important purposes is to "play pedant" and provide a thorough logical foundation for a subject. This is certainly the case for the traditional use of axioms in geometry.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 1 at 19:44
$begingroup$
@user2357112 I think there is a miss confusion here. I am not saying that at all, I am saying you can't omit them if the the case it doesn't hold is interesting. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition)
$endgroup$
– ANone
Mar 4 at 9:32
$begingroup$
I am wondering if you meant "nothing for which it doesn't hold is interesting" to be included in "[w]hat's not to say".
$endgroup$
– hkBst
Mar 5 at 10:48
$begingroup$
@hkBst I think I stand by what I said, but as you are not the first to comment, I will change the wording.
$endgroup$
– ANone
Mar 5 at 11:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Getting a bit meta here, but the point of axioms is not just to play pedant. They meaningfully differentiate between scenarios that might be considered. If the geometry of a system that didn't have points was a thing, then maybe there would be a field with an axiom of this nature.
Side note: often the mathematical fields of interest to the outside world are those that mimic something in real life. There, it's obvious that "the triangle equality holds".
However in maths it is not clear that would always be the case.
Indeed there are interesting cases in which it doesn't hold, and these need to be differentiated.
EDIT below, some extra thoughts:
Often the 'existence' axioms are not needed for the simple grammatical reasons. It's often the case that arguments go (or can be rephrased) something along the lines of: the following restrictions exist/all things considered must obey these rules/there are no things that don't obey these rules. If this is a true statement without the caveat of non-emptiness, then it is in the general case as the empty case is automatically true. This is often the easier to work, and doesn't need 'points exist' as an axiom.
answered Mar 1 at 15:03
ANoneANone
1713
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
You can't just say an axiom is unnecessary because the case where it doesn't hold is boring.
$endgroup$
– user2357112
Mar 1 at 17:54
13
$begingroup$
Strongly disagree with your first sentence. Axioms have various purposes (and the term "axiom" is used with different meanings), but one of their most important purposes is to "play pedant" and provide a thorough logical foundation for a subject. This is certainly the case for the traditional use of axioms in geometry.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 1 at 19:44
$begingroup$
@user2357112 I think there is a miss confusion here. I am not saying that at all, I am saying you can't omit them if the the case it doesn't hold is interesting. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition)
$endgroup$
– ANone
Mar 4 at 9:32
$begingroup$
I am wondering if you meant "nothing for which it doesn't hold is interesting" to be included in "[w]hat's not to say".
$endgroup$
– hkBst
Mar 5 at 10:48
$begingroup$
@hkBst I think I stand by what I said, but as you are not the first to comment, I will change the wording.
$endgroup$
– ANone
Mar 5 at 11:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Getting a bit meta here, but the point of axioms is not just to play pedant. They meaningfully differentiate between scenarios that might be considered. If the geometry of a system that didn't have points was a thing, then maybe there would be a field with an axiom of this nature.
Side note: often the mathematical fields of interest to the outside world are those that mimic something in real life. There, it's obvious that "the triangle equality holds".
However in maths it is not clear that would always be the case.
Indeed there are interesting cases in which it doesn't hold, and these need to be differentiated.
EDIT below, some extra thoughts:
Often the 'existence' axioms are not needed for the simple grammatical reasons. It's often the case that arguments go (or can be rephrased) something along the lines of: the following restrictions exist/all things considered must obey these rules/there are no things that don't obey these rules. If this is a true statement without the caveat of non-emptiness, then it is in the general case as the empty case is automatically true. This is often the easier to work, and doesn't need 'points exist' as an axiom.
answered Mar 1 at 15:03
ANoneANone
1713
$endgroup$
Getting a bit meta here, but the point of axioms is not just to play pedant. They meaningfully differentiate between scenarios that might be considered. If the geometry of a system that didn't have points was a thing, then maybe there would be a field with an axiom of this nature.
Side note: often the mathematical fields of interest to the outside world are those that mimic something in real life. There, it's obvious that "the triangle equality holds".
However in maths it is not clear that would always be the case.
Indeed there are interesting cases in which it doesn't hold, and these need to be differentiated.
EDIT below, some extra thoughts:
Often the 'existence' axioms are not needed for the simple grammatical reasons. It's often the case that arguments go (or can be rephrased) something along the lines of: the following restrictions exist/all things considered must obey these rules/there are no things that don't obey these rules. If this is a true statement without the caveat of non-emptiness, then it is in the general case as the empty case is automatically true. This is often the easier to work, and doesn't need 'points exist' as an axiom.
answered Mar 1 at 15:03
ANoneANone
1713
edited Mar 5 at 11:18
answered Mar 1 at 15:03
ANoneANone
1713
answered Mar 1 at 15:03
ANoneANone
1713
answered Mar 1 at 15:03
ANoneANone
1713
1713
6
$begingroup$
You can't just say an axiom is unnecessary because the case where it doesn't hold is boring.
$endgroup$
– user2357112
Mar 1 at 17:54
13
$begingroup$
Strongly disagree with your first sentence. Axioms have various purposes (and the term "axiom" is used with different meanings), but one of their most important purposes is to "play pedant" and provide a thorough logical foundation for a subject. This is certainly the case for the traditional use of axioms in geometry.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 1 at 19:44
$begingroup$
@user2357112 I think there is a miss confusion here. I am not saying that at all, I am saying you can't omit them if the the case it doesn't hold is interesting. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition)
$endgroup$
– ANone
Mar 4 at 9:32
$begingroup$
I am wondering if you meant "nothing for which it doesn't hold is interesting" to be included in "[w]hat's not to say".
$endgroup$
– hkBst
Mar 5 at 10:48
$begingroup$
@hkBst I think I stand by what I said, but as you are not the first to comment, I will change the wording.
$endgroup$
– ANone
Mar 5 at 11:03
add a comment |
6
$begingroup$
You can't just say an axiom is unnecessary because the case where it doesn't hold is boring.
$endgroup$
– user2357112
Mar 1 at 17:54
13
$begingroup$
Strongly disagree with your first sentence. Axioms have various purposes (and the term "axiom" is used with different meanings), but one of their most important purposes is to "play pedant" and provide a thorough logical foundation for a subject. This is certainly the case for the traditional use of axioms in geometry.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 1 at 19:44
$begingroup$
@user2357112 I think there is a miss confusion here. I am not saying that at all, I am saying you can't omit them if the the case it doesn't hold is interesting. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition)
$endgroup$
– ANone
Mar 4 at 9:32
$begingroup$
I am wondering if you meant "nothing for which it doesn't hold is interesting" to be included in "[w]hat's not to say".
$endgroup$
– hkBst
Mar 5 at 10:48
$begingroup$
@hkBst I think I stand by what I said, but as you are not the first to comment, I will change the wording.
$endgroup$
– ANone
Mar 5 at 11:03
6
6
$begingroup$
You can't just say an axiom is unnecessary because the case where it doesn't hold is boring.
$endgroup$
– user2357112
Mar 1 at 17:54
$begingroup$
You can't just say an axiom is unnecessary because the case where it doesn't hold is boring.
$endgroup$
– user2357112
Mar 1 at 17:54
13
13
$begingroup$
Strongly disagree with your first sentence. Axioms have various purposes (and the term "axiom" is used with different meanings), but one of their most important purposes is to "play pedant" and provide a thorough logical foundation for a subject. This is certainly the case for the traditional use of axioms in geometry.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 1 at 19:44
$begingroup$
Strongly disagree with your first sentence. Axioms have various purposes (and the term "axiom" is used with different meanings), but one of their most important purposes is to "play pedant" and provide a thorough logical foundation for a subject. This is certainly the case for the traditional use of axioms in geometry.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 1 at 19:44
$begingroup$
@user2357112 I think there is a miss confusion here. I am not saying that at all, I am saying you can't omit them if the the case it doesn't hold is interesting. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition)
$endgroup$
– ANone
Mar 4 at 9:32
$begingroup$
@user2357112 I think there is a miss confusion here. I am not saying that at all, I am saying you can't omit them if the the case it doesn't hold is interesting. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition)
$endgroup$
– ANone
Mar 4 at 9:32
$begingroup$
I am wondering if you meant "nothing for which it doesn't hold is interesting" to be included in "[w]hat's not to say".
$endgroup$
– hkBst
Mar 5 at 10:48
$begingroup$
I am wondering if you meant "nothing for which it doesn't hold is interesting" to be included in "[w]hat's not to say".
$endgroup$
– hkBst
Mar 5 at 10:48
$begingroup$
@hkBst I think I stand by what I said, but as you are not the first to comment, I will change the wording.
$endgroup$
– ANone
Mar 5 at 11:03
$begingroup$
@hkBst I think I stand by what I said, but as you are not the first to comment, I will change the wording.
$endgroup$
– ANone
Mar 5 at 11:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One point that is missing from the other answers is that of vacuous truth. If formulated properly, we do not need points for the theorems in geometry to hold. If there are no right angled triangles then the Pythagorean theorem trivially holds for all of them, if there are no circles, Thales' theorem hold for all of them and so on. There might be a few theorems that cannot be restated in the form "For all objects x of class Y we have that ...", but even those could be reformulated as "If there exists a point, then...".
So, say you take a model-theoretic point of view of geometry and look at it just as a "set of theorems that hold for any model which satisfies those axioms". Then adding "points exists" as an axiom will only exclude the empty set as a model, which was kind of a boring model anyway. There might be a reason to do so for convenience and readability, in the same way as for example most authors exclude ${0}$ from the fields, but the differences in the resulting theory will be rather minor.
answered Mar 2 at 12:41
mlkmlk
2,9151016
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One point that is missing from the other answers is that of vacuous truth. If formulated properly, we do not need points for the theorems in geometry to hold. If there are no right angled triangles then the Pythagorean theorem trivially holds for all of them, if there are no circles, Thales' theorem hold for all of them and so on. There might be a few theorems that cannot be restated in the form "For all objects x of class Y we have that ...", but even those could be reformulated as "If there exists a point, then...".
So, say you take a model-theoretic point of view of geometry and look at it just as a "set of theorems that hold for any model which satisfies those axioms". Then adding "points exists" as an axiom will only exclude the empty set as a model, which was kind of a boring model anyway. There might be a reason to do so for convenience and readability, in the same way as for example most authors exclude ${0}$ from the fields, but the differences in the resulting theory will be rather minor.
answered Mar 2 at 12:41
mlkmlk
2,9151016
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One point that is missing from the other answers is that of vacuous truth. If formulated properly, we do not need points for the theorems in geometry to hold. If there are no right angled triangles then the Pythagorean theorem trivially holds for all of them, if there are no circles, Thales' theorem hold for all of them and so on. There might be a few theorems that cannot be restated in the form "For all objects x of class Y we have that ...", but even those could be reformulated as "If there exists a point, then...".
So, say you take a model-theoretic point of view of geometry and look at it just as a "set of theorems that hold for any model which satisfies those axioms". Then adding "points exists" as an axiom will only exclude the empty set as a model, which was kind of a boring model anyway. There might be a reason to do so for convenience and readability, in the same way as for example most authors exclude ${0}$ from the fields, but the differences in the resulting theory will be rather minor.
answered Mar 2 at 12:41
mlkmlk
2,9151016
$endgroup$
One point that is missing from the other answers is that of vacuous truth. If formulated properly, we do not need points for the theorems in geometry to hold. If there are no right angled triangles then the Pythagorean theorem trivially holds for all of them, if there are no circles, Thales' theorem hold for all of them and so on. There might be a few theorems that cannot be restated in the form "For all objects x of class Y we have that ...", but even those could be reformulated as "If there exists a point, then...".
So, say you take a model-theoretic point of view of geometry and look at it just as a "set of theorems that hold for any model which satisfies those axioms". Then adding "points exists" as an axiom will only exclude the empty set as a model, which was kind of a boring model anyway. There might be a reason to do so for convenience and readability, in the same way as for example most authors exclude ${0}$ from the fields, but the differences in the resulting theory will be rather minor.
answered Mar 2 at 12:41
mlkmlk
2,9151016
answered Mar 2 at 12:41
mlkmlk
2,9151016
answered Mar 2 at 12:41
mlkmlk
2,9151016
answered Mar 2 at 12:41
mlkmlk
2,9151016
2,9151016
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3131186%2fwhy-is-points-exist-not-an-axiom-in-geometry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Why not "lines exist" then points would be derived objects? Not an answer, just a thought.
$endgroup$
– Paul
Mar 1 at 9:05
1
$begingroup$
If the question is about Euclid's Elements specifically, there's alot missing in those axioms. For example, in the very first proof, Euclid assumes that two circles draw at a certain distance from one another must intersect.
$endgroup$
– Jack M
Mar 1 at 9:50
9
$begingroup$
See David Hilbert, The Foundations of Geometry (1899), page 2 : "Let us consider three distinct systems of things. The things composing the first system, we will call points and designate them by the letters $A, B, C$ ; those of the second, we will call straight lines and..."
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 1 at 12:09
$begingroup$
Defining too much detail can quickly devolve into a problem wonderful put by Lewis Carrol. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles platonicrealms.com/encyclopedia/Carrolls-Paradox
$endgroup$
– Duck of Death
Mar 1 at 22:02
$begingroup$
I want to say something more about what @JackM said. Euclid's Elements is not only too imprecise to be considered a proper axiomatization of geometry, it is also woefully incomplete and Euclid made numerous unfixable errors, contrary to popular accounts. It is not his fault, since his attempt was a very commendable one (hardly anyone can claim to have even tried before him). But it would be foolish for any student today to use his Elements as a place to learn rigorous Euclidean geometry.
$endgroup$
– user21820
Mar 2 at 9:46