Constructive Geometry and the Parallel Postulate

TL;DR

This paper develops Euclidean geometry within intuitionistic logic, analyzing three versions of the parallel postulate and establishing their logical relationships and independence using constructive methods.

Contribution

It introduces a constructive framework for Euclidean geometry, defining Euclidean fields without case distinctions, and clarifies the implications and independence of three parallel postulate versions.

Findings

Strong parallel postulate implies Euclid 5

Euclid 5 implies the strong parallel postulate

Playfair's postulate does not imply Euclid 5

Abstract

Euclidean geometry consists of straightedge-and-compass constructions and reasoning about the results of those constructions. We show that Euclidean geometry can be developed using only intuitionistic logic. We consider three versions of Euclid's parallel postulate: Euclid's own formulation in his Postulate 5; Playfair's 1795 version, and a new version we call the strong parallel postulate. These differ in that Euclid's version and the new version both assert the existence of a point where two lines meet, while Playfair's version makes no existence assertion. Classically, the models of Euclidean (straightedge-and-compass) geometry are planes over Euclidean fields. We prove a similar theorem for constructive Euclidean geometry, by showing how to define addition and multiplication without a case distinction about the sign of the arguments. With intuitionistic logic, there are two possible definitions of Euclidean fields, which turn out to correspond to the different versions of the parallel axiom. In this paper, we completely settle the questions about implications between the three versions of the parallel postulate: the strong parallel postulate easily implies Euclid 5, and in fact Euclid 5 also implies the strong parallel postulate, although the proof is lengthy, depending on the verification that Euclid 5 suffices to define multiplication geometrically. We show that Playfair does not imply Euclid 5, and we also give some other independence results. Our independence proofs are given without discussing the exact choice of the other axioms of geometry; all we need is that one can interpret the geometric axioms in Euclidean field theory. The proofs use Kripke models of Euclidean field theories based on carefully constructed rings of real-valued functions.