1

The liberation of geometry .

George Mpantes mathematics teacher

https://www.scribd.com/user/46567432

Preface
The mathematical theory of Euclidean geometry

is founded on a rigorous mathematical

description of the straight line. But straight line is described by the five postulates of Euclid or as the
shortest line between two points. So (S. Brondie has shown) the parallel postulate is an equivalent
alternative of the Pythagorean theorem.
Well, the two gates of Euclidean edifice are the fifth axiom of Euclid and Pythagorean
theorem. The first was violated by Lobatchewskys work, changing the parallel postulate, and the
second by Riemanns metric, changing the formula of measuring distances. So the geometry was
liberated from hidden intuition and many geometries occurred, we have the liberation of geometry.

Mathematical and physical space

As is known, the unique tool for making physical theories, i.e. theories to explain the
physical world, is mathematics.
The mathematical construction is produced in mind, in a process which is not a
subject of mathematics. The mathematical structure and the natural world are two entities,
which communicate interactively, producing concepts, through the senses and the
experiences they produce (the measurements). So is created the miracle of understanding,
for which Einstein said:

The most incomprehensible thing is that the world is

understandable.
The existence of these two worlds is clearly distinguishable in the case of the
geometry. When Carnap states that it is necessary to distinguish the mathematical

2
geometry from physical geometry he means these two worlds : the geometry in mind viz
the abstraction from the space of experience which we call mathematical space, and the
space outside it, the space of experience, the physical space. For many centuries in history
of geometry, the mathematical space of the Euclidean universe was treated as

an

inexplicable truth behind of hidden meanings, thus creating philosophical doctrines to

interpret the absoluteness of geometry, adding useless knowledge in natural philosophy.
But Euclid was deeply intuitive, he theorized, in a scheme of hypothetic-productive
reasoning, the experiences of material bodies around us. Indeed, the straight lines in the
world around us are Euclidean, light behaves giving the impression of Euclidean straight,
the meaning of the straight line for us is given by a tightrop or the edge of the ruler, even if
we do close our eyes and think of a straight, we are thinking always material bodies. Yes
the geometry of Euclid was logical, but it had two unsurpassed intuitive limits. This of the
concept of parallelism and this of the concept of rigid bodies. It was difficult to imagine
(two parallels in a straight line), that when we move to deeper observations the things are
changing, especially when these observations did not exist. To a first approximation, to be
sure, this geometry appears to be Euclidean; but we cannot prophesy what it may turn out
to be when nature is studied with ever increasing refinement. The absoluteness of
Euclidean geometry were due to the absoluteness of these two intuitive concepts. This
empirical origin of Euclids geometrical axioms and postulates was lost sight of, indeed was
never realized! Hence we cannot assert with Kant that the proprositions of Euclidean
geometry posses any universal truth even when restricting ourselves to this particular world
in which we live.
The overcoming of this error was the greatest achievement of the human spirit and
occurred in the 19th century. If we establish the geometry only on logical foundations, then
appear other geometries as a product of pure reasoning.
Gauss had certain misgivings on the matter, but he did not the courage to publish
his results owing to his fear of the outcry of Btians At any rate, the honour of
discovering non-Euclidean geometry fell to Lobatchewsky and Bolyai.

the parallel axiom in mathematical space (the first entrance gate).

Euclids parallel postulate can be expressed by stating that

through a point in the plane it is always possible to trace one and
only one straight line parallel to a given straight line lying in the plane.
This is the hidden intuition.

Its empirical base was the light ray.

Lobatchewsky denied this postulate and assumed that an indefinite

number of non-intersecting straight lines could be drawn, and
Riemann assumed that none could be drawn. To make a long story short, it was found that
by varying one of Euclids fundamental assumptions, known as Parallel Postulate, it was
possible to construct two other geometrical doctrines, perfectly consistent in every respect,
though differing widely from Euclidean geometry. These are known as the non-Euclidean
geometries of Lobatchewsky and of Riemann. This was the point of the removal of geometry
from intuition. At any rate , the honour of discovering non-Euclidean geometry fell to
Lobatchewsky and Bolyai.
From this difference in the geometrical premises important variations followed.
Thus, whereas in Euclidean geometry the sum of the angles of any triangle is always equal to
two right angles, in non-Euclidean geometry the value of this sum varies with the size of the
triangles. It is always less than two right angles in Lobatchewskys, and always greater in
Riemanns. Again, in Euclidean geometry, similar figures of vatious sizes can exist and in
non-Euclidean geometry, this is impossible.

The result of this evolution was to be created two geometries in mind, depending
on the form of the fifth axiom of Euclid, and a reasonable question arises: what is the
correct geometry for the mathematical space? Later with the discoveries of Riemann,
mathematical geometries became more than two, and the quest of the "truth" more
intense.
But, the mathematical space seemed neutral. The question about the kind of
mathematical space refers to the question of the kind of line in this area : it satisfies the
Euclid's, Lobatschewskys or Riemanns axioms;

4
But it is a meaningless question! The mathematical space contains no straight lines, it
is empty ! The line is created by material bodies that are located inside!
Summarizing we see that

mathematical space has no particular metrics, no

particular geometry. According to our methods of measuring, we may obtain one geometry
or another in the same space. It has any structure we give it. It is convenient to express all
these results by saying that space is Euclidean, Lobatchewskian, or Riemannian.
We say that the mathematical space is amorphous. it possesses no intrinsic metrics
and our choice of standard parallelism is largely arbitrary. If there was a global "absolute
straight line" we will decide which of the geometries was correct for the mathematical
space. But the considered as absolute straight line of mathematical construction, the
Euclidean straight line, proved a myth, which precisely was abolished by the geometry of
Lobatchewsky.

The mathematical space and the congruence

(the other entrance gate in Euclidean edifice) .

Continuing in mathematical space, we present an approach to non- Euclidean

geometry not through the 5o axiom of parallelism, but through the concept of congruence.
By congruence we mean the equality of two distances in space or more generally of two
volumes in space. This was the method of Riemann.
How do we exemplify

the congruence in Euclidean

geometry? This was the other unsurpassed intuitive limit in this

geometry.
In Euclidean geometry congruent lengths at different places
are exemplified by the lengths spanned by a

material rod

transported from one place to another. This empirical criterion to

define congruence, was shelf- evident in Euclidean geometry, the
bodies were non-deformale, this was the intuitive foundations of congruence that we had
not notice. It is evident from the third postulate of Euclid, that equal parts remain equal
everywhere are moved (the Euclidean definition of the circle). The length of a line segment
remains unchanged when moving, and this concept of equal lengths of Euclidean geometry
became absolute like the concept of the straight line. It was again forgotten the material
basis of the method, i.e. forgotten that the mathematical equality is actually physical

5
equality,

this is indeed the case for the following reason: a prerequisite for the

measurement is that the measuring rod is not deformable, it is congruent with itself when
transported from one place to another. It's what we call a 'rigid' body. The rigid body is the
hidden intuition of the congruence. Its empirical base are the bodies around us. We cannot
imagine bodies to be deformed when are moved. This was so obvious that it was considered
that the distance was something absolute in space as the straightness of the light ray.
Congruent or rigid bodies having thus been defined, a straight line is defined by the
shortest distance between two points measured with our rigid rod, instead of the line
axioms. The measure of the distance is given by the Pythagorean theorem, but behind the
theorem

there is hidden

the physical process of transportations of rigid bodies.

Nevertheless, although the various methods of presentation are equivalent , it may be of

advantage to make the definition of congruence fundamental rather than that of straight
line. Such was the procedure followed by Riemann.

Riemanns procedure

As Lobatchewsky challenged the absolute of Euclidean straight line , so Riemann

refused the absolute of Euclidean congruence. And searched for other definitions of
geometrical equality, being logical, independently of the ' obvious' and self-evident of
intuition.
The ideas of Riemann is an evolution of the ideas of Gauss through differential
geometry on curved surfaces. He discovered another formula of measuring the lengths as
Pythagorean theorem measured Euclidean lengths. He tried to discover a metrical geometry
on a curved space as Euclid proposed on the plane. This is now our mental picture. We must
take a rod for the proof of congruence, which , when moved about, would squirm like a
warm and elevate it to the position of a standard rod to which all other lengths would have
been compared. But this would be too extreme; for although mathematical space possesses
no inherent metrics, yet certain requirements are demanded of rods susceptible of being
considered as remaining congruent when displaced. So Riemann assumed that if we restrict
ourselves to infinitesimal volume of space, congruence would be established be means of
Euclidean solids and measuring rods: this is his postulate of the Euclideanism in the
infinitesimal. The measuring rods are infinitesimals which are rectilinear infinitesimal
portions in every curve or infinitesimal planes (volumes) in every surface(space).

The final proposal of the formula of distances is so in differential form, the description
of the line element, the infinitesimal length in the space, the infinitesimals rod defines the
new rigidity, but the surprising feature is that the Euclidean length of a segment depends
on its position in space. It is deformed here and there. This causes a deformation (
Euclidean ) of the segment during displacement in non Euclidean space.
The famous expression of the Riemann's formula

( below), expressing the

distance in a non Euclidean space is (1)

ds2

dx 2 dy 2 dz 2
x2 y2 z2
1 k
2

which expresses a the metric of space, in which the term k is the curvature of the
space.
The mathematical approach of this formula is in the field of differential geometry. It
is the differential expression of isomorphism, established by the stereographic projection.
We shall only express the meaning of the formula: it gives the infinitesimal
distance between point A (x, y, z) and A (x +dx, y+dy, z+dz). The integration of formula
gives the distance between two points A and B . The corresponding formula in Euclidean
geometry is ds2 = dx2 + dy2 + dz2 the famous Pythagorean theorem ( k = 0 ) and the
difference between the two formulas is important: the Pythagorean theorem tells us that
the distance between two points A and A is stable anywhere in space, while ( 1 ) correlates
the distance of these points from their position in space ( the x , y, z of the formula). This is
therefore a new definition of distance.
But the new definition has the following effect on the geometric congruence:
Is written in Cartesian coordinates! This means that in a space with curvature k0 there are
not Cartesian coordinates satisfying the new Pythagorean theorem. This means that if we
insist in Cartesian reference systems, then the (Cartesian) size of a body,

is altered

compared with our system. It is not a rigid body. Indeed the new metric verifies that:
Riemanns metric is equivalent with Euclidean deformation of measuring rods. These
are Riemanns rigid rods.
So for two lengths at different points of the mathematical space, it makes no sense
to claim that they are equal or not equal . The rod would measure here or there may be
constant in size in relation to a Cartesian system ( Euclidean rod ) or deformed compared
with this ( Riemannian rod). This is the logical abolition of the intuition. Then the distance is

7
measured otherwise and the metric of space ultimately depends on how we define the
behavior of the rods of measuring i.e. material bodies ! Congruence is not defined from
distance when bodies are not rigid.
Mathematical space has not in itself any particular way of measuring to impose us .
We just choose any we like as are reasonably possible both . The Euclidean model of elliptic
geometry where the plane behaves like a sphere, is the best proof that the mathematical
space ( in this case the familiar plane) has not its own metric, but it takes any one we give it .
Changing two of the axioms of Euclid, we present a consistent system with a new metric ,
whose only " disadvantage "is its distance from the intuition. In this sense, the geometry of
mathematical space can be determined a priori and the way of measuring for the distance
of two points suggested by Euclid is not the only one, merely it was imposed on our minds,
as the Euclidean straight, because describes the behavior of the bodies as we perceive in our
immediate environment. It is the first approach of the physical space.
Now in the light of Riemannian metric (which has a corresponding Riemannian
parallelism, the two characteristics decide each other ), the question what is a straight line
we reply: is the shortest line between two points. How to find the shortest line? We should
know to measure distances. The Euclidean habit tells us that the distances measured by the
Pythagorean theorem, however, but we forget that this is based on Euclid's fifth postulate
and therefore for geometry, these two pillars of Euclidean geometry, the straight line and
distance formula ( Pythagorean ) is only one! the 5th axiom. If it is not recognized that we
can measure distances otherwise, it means that we are not allowed to question the 5th
axiom. If we adopt a non-Euclidean type of congruence we are led to the non-Euclidean
straight lines, those which satisfy the non- Euclidean postulates and vice versa. The two
methods of presenting non-Euclidean geometry, either the metrical (congruence) method
or the parallel postulate method, are in the main equivalent.
Well, in mathematical space, Euclidean geometry was a geometry , among many. It
is interesting to see if it will keep its uniqueness in physical space.
This is another article as the problem of physical space.

I have read .
The evolution of scientic thought DAbro (Dover)
Introduction to Geometry H.S.M. Coxeter , (New York John Wiley and son)
Non Euclidean geometry Boberto Bonola (Dover)

8
Euclidean and no Euclidean geometries Marvin Jay Greenberg (W.H.Freeman and
Company NY)
A modern introduction to Geometries Annita Tuler (D.Van Norstrad Company
Princeton New Jersey)
George Mpantes mathematics teacher,
https://www.scribd.com/user/46567432