In KG Binmore's "Topological Ideas" he says

The geometric terms which appear in Hilbert's axioms are the words point, line, lie on, between and congruent. To show $\mathbb{R}^2$ is a model for Euclidean plane geometry one has to give a precise definition of each of these words in terms of $\mathbb{R}^2$ and then prove each of Hilbert's axioms for Euclidean plane geometry as a theorem in $\mathbb{R}^2$... Interested readers ill find the book Elementary geometry from an advanced standpoint by E. E. Moise (Addison-Wesley, 1963) an excellent reference.

Except I recently got this book and it does not do this. It is an interesting book, but it simply accepts the primitive notions ("the geometric terms") and Hilbert's axioms. I would like to see the construction of these entities directly from $\mathbb{R}^n$, Binmore defines lines, circles, points, and planes. But nowhere is there congruence (presumably for line segments this would be the usual distance between two points) or betweenness defined (presumably a point $b$ would be between $a$ and $c$ if $d(a,c) = d(a,b) + d(b,c))$. I've attempted to do this myself but I'm in over my head a little bit.

So, does anyone have resources that systematically defines each of these geometric objects as sets of $\mathbb{R}^n$ and then proves hilbert's axioms as theorems in $\mathbb{R}^n$? Especially Euclid's postulate.

  • $\begingroup$ You might want to look at chapter IV of "Foundations of geometry" by Karol Borsuk and Wanda Szmielew (1960). They prove that $\mathbb{R}^3$ is a model for Hilbert's axioms for Euclidean 3D geometry.(the axioms are slightly modified compared to original Hilbert's work) $\endgroup$ – Kulisty Jan 21 at 19:31

What you have is basically real linear algebra with usual metric. Define a point as an element of $\Bbb R^n$, a line as the set $\vec{a} + t\vec{b}$, betweeness exactly like you did (using distances - in this case, the norm), and planes and other hyperplanes as you'd do with subspaces on $\Bbb R^n$.

You’ll might be interested in this question.

  • $\begingroup$ So, I get that you would define two lines to be parallel if the intersection is zero, how do you show that given a point and a line on a plane there is one and only one parallel line containing that point? How would you define angles? Dot products? $\endgroup$ – Remus Bleys Jan 19 at 1:54
  • $\begingroup$ Angles are actually not cited by Hilber, but you can use angles from the dot product definition and Cauchy-Schwarz, while $\cos$ and $\sin$ being solely algebraic functions (in the sense that they don't depend on geometric reasoning). Dot product is usual coordinate product and sum. Say that a plane is a subspace of dimension 2; for a line on a plane spanned by $\vec{u}, \vec{v}$ you can do a change of basis to get this plane to $xy$ (in terms of Cartesian coordinates) and then the proof is very simple. $\endgroup$ – Lucas Henrique Jan 19 at 2:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.