Line (Euclidean geometry): Difference between revisions
imported>Boris Tsirelson (→Definition via betweenness: correction) |
imported>Boris Tsirelson (→A remark: more) |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Three equivalent definitions of line are given below. Any other definition is equally acceptable provided that it is equivalent to these. Note that a part of a line is not a line. In particular, a line segment is not a line. | Three equivalent definitions of line are given below. Any other definition is equally acceptable provided that it is equivalent to these. Note that a part of a line is not a line. In particular, a line segment is not a line. | ||
We could also define a line as the intersection of two planes (neither parallel nor coinciding). However, this definition does not work in plane geometry. | |||
The first definition (via betweenness) works both in plane geometry and in solid geometry. The other two definitions apply in plane geometry only. | The first definition (via betweenness) works both in plane geometry and in solid geometry. The other two definitions apply in plane geometry only. |
Revision as of 10:30, 3 April 2010
Non-axiomatic approach
By lines we mean straight lines.
Lines are treated both in plane geometry and in solid geometry. Plane geometry (called also "planar geometry") is a part of solid geometry that restricts itself to a single plane ("the plane") treated as a geometric universe. In other words, plane geometry is the theory of the two-dimensional Euclidean space, while solid geometry is the theory of the three-dimensional Euclidean space.
Definitions
A remark
To define a line is more complicated than it may seem.
It is tempting to define a line as a curve of zero curvature, where a curve is defined as a geometric object having length but no breadth or depth. However, this is not a good idea; such definitions are useless in mathematics, since they cannot be used when proving theorems. Straight lines are treated by elementary geometry, but the notions of curves and curvature are not elementary, they need more advanced mathematics and more sophisticated definitions. Fortunately, it is possible to define a line via more elementary notions, and this way is preferred in mathematics. Still, the definitions given below are tentative. They are criticized afterwards, see axiomatic approach.
Three equivalent definitions of line are given below. Any other definition is equally acceptable provided that it is equivalent to these. Note that a part of a line is not a line. In particular, a line segment is not a line.
We could also define a line as the intersection of two planes (neither parallel nor coinciding). However, this definition does not work in plane geometry.
The first definition (via betweenness) works both in plane geometry and in solid geometry. The other two definitions apply in plane geometry only.
Definition via betweenness
First we define betweenness via distances. A point B is said to lie between points A and C if (that is, the distance from A to B plus the distance from B to C is the distance from A to C).
Now we define a line as a set of points that contains more than one point and satisfies the two conditions:
- If three different points belong to the given set then at least one of them lies between the others.
- If one of three different points lies between the others, and at least two of the three points belong to the given set, then the third point also belongs to the given set.
Remark. The second condition should not be confused with the following weaker condition:
- If B lies between A and C, and the points A, C belong to the given set, then B also belongs to the given set.
A set satisfying this weaker condition is called convex. A line is convex; also a line segment is convex; a triangle (including interior) is convex; also a disk is convex (but its boundary, a circle, is not).
Another remark. A line segment satisfies the first condition but violates the second. A plane satisfies the second condition but violates the first.
Planar-geometric definitions
The definition of line given below may be compared with the definition of circle as consisting of those points in a plane that are a given distance (the radius) away from a given point (the center). A circle is a set of points chosen according to their relation to some given parameters (center and radius). Similarly, a line is a set of points chosen according to their relation to some given objects (points, numbers etc). However, a circle determines its center and radius uniquely; for a line, the situation is different.
Below, all points and lines are situated in the plane (assumed to be a two-dimensional Euclidean space).
Definition via distances
Let two different points A and B be given. The set of all points C that are equally far from A and B (that is, ) is a line.
This is the line orthogonal to the line AB through the middle point of the line segment AB.
Definition via Cartesian coordinates
In terms of Cartesian coordinates x, y ascribed to every point of the plane, a line is the set of points whose coordinates satisfy the linear equation . Here real numbers a, b and c are parameters such that at least one of a, b does not vanish.
Some properties of lines
Below, all points and lines are situated in the plane (assumed to be a two-dimensional Euclidean space).
Most basic properties
For every two different points there exists one and only one line that contains these two points.
Every line contains at least two points.
There exist three points not lying on a line.
For every line and every point outside the line there exists one and only one line through the given point which does not intersect the given line.
Further properties
Two lines either do not intersect (are parallel), or intersect in a single point, or coincide.
Two lines perpendicular to the same line are parallel to each other (or coincide).
Axiomatic approach
What is wrong with the definitions given above?
The definitions given above assume implicitly that the Euclidean plane (or alternatively the 3-dimensional Euclidean space) is already defined, together with such notions as distances and/or Cartesian coordinates, while lines are not defined yet. However, this situation never appears in mathematics.
In the axiomatic approach points and lines are undefined primitives.
The modern approach (below) defines lines in a completely different way.
How does it work
Axiomatic approach is similar to chess in the following aspect.
A chess piece, say a rook, cannot be defined before the whole chess game is defined, since such a phrase as "the rook moves horizontally or vertically, forward or back, through any number of unoccupied squares" makes no sense unless it is already known that "chess is played on a square board of eight rows and eight columns" etc. And conversely, the whole chess game cannot be defined before each piece is defined; the properties of the rook are an indispensable part of the rules of the game. No chess without rooks, no rooks outside chess! One must introduce the game, its pieces and their properties in a singe combined definition.
Likewise, Euclidean space, its points, lines, planes and their properties are introduced simultaneously in a set of 20 assumptions known as Hilbert's axioms of Euclidean geometry (solid). It is possible to exclude plane-related axioms thus obtaining axioms of Euclidean plane geometry. The "most basic properties of lines" listed above are roughly the line-related assumptions (Hilbert's axioms), while "further properties" are first line-related consequences (theorems).
Modern approach
The modern approach defines the three-dimensional Euclidean space more algebraically, via linear spaces and quadratic forms, namely, as an affine space whose difference space is a three-dimensional inner product space. For further details see Affine space#Euclidean space and space (mathematics). The Euclidean plane, that is, the two-dimensional Euclidean space is defined similarly.
In this approach a line in an n-dimensional affine space (n ≥ 1) is defined as a (proper or improper) one-dimensional affine subspace.