PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY

Introduction

Geometry means measuring the Earth. The ancient Greek scholar Eratosthenes used it to estimate
the size of the Earth. It was certainly known to the Ancient Egyptians for they used it to re-establish
land boundaries after the Nile had flooded, and possibly before. However the systematic
development of the subject comes to us from the Ancient Greeks, particularly Euclid. He set forth a
number of axioms that are supposed to be self-evident and therefore in no need of proof e.g. given
two points then there is one straight line joining them. These were used to prove other theorems
such as that of Pythagoras (which was already known to the Egyptians and used practically). Most
of his geometry is based on the notions "length" and "angle" and much effort goes into proving that
distinct lengths are or are not equal, and likewise for angles e.g. an isosceles triangle has two equal
sides, and it is then proved that it also has two equal angles.

Projective geometry started with Girad Desargues in the 17th Century, although Pappus proved the
first purely projective theorem about 300BC. It was developed over the following centuries by the
brilliant Blaise Pascal, the engineer and soldier Jean-Victor Poncelait, Jacob Steiner, Charles Julier
Brianchon, Karl von Staudt, Felix Klein and many others. In its pure form projective geometry is
not concerned with measurements, but rather with relationships between points, straight lines, flat
planes and other geometrical forms. These relationships typically concern whether two objects are
incident e.g. whether a point lies on a straight line or flat plane, or whether three points lie on a
straight line. More recently it has come to be viewed in terms of transformations which change a
geometrical object while retaining certain properties unchanged or invariant.

Much effort, particularly by von Staudt, went into removing the concepts 'length', 'angle' and
'orthogonal' from projective geometry. It was finally achieved by the Italian school including Mario
Pieri. However in this book the subject is intended for practical use where the use of length, angle
and orthogonality are necessary. Those concepts will be used uncritically as self-understood to
provide a straight forward practical approach to the subject, but see Appendix #A for a discussion of
its relation to pure projective geometry. Also where numbers are used they will be taken mostly to
belong to the set of real numbers without further explanation of their mathematical status, although
complex numbers as applied to points will be introduced at the end. The aim is to present the
subject in terms readily grasped by the imagination. There are many excellent books dealing with
the mathematical niceties and exploring the byways of other number systems and less-intuitive
forms of geometry.

Basics

In the projective geometry of the plane there are two undefined basic elements: the point and the
straight line. They are intuitively recognised, a point being a location in the plane of infinitely
small size. In what follows "line" will be taken to mean "straight line". The straight line is often
thought of as "made of points" but in projective geometry it is a simple object without such
structure. Points may lie on a line, which is often expressed as being incident with it. Equally a
line may be incident with or on a point. One and only one line joins two distinct points, and two
distinct lines intersect in one and only one point. These two statements are accepted as obvious and
are known as the axioms of incidence in the plane1. However if two lines are parallel then in
Euclidean geometry they do not intersect in a point.

1 Two additional trivial axioms are that there exists a point not on a line, and every line has at least three points.
 Figure $1

In Figure $1 points on a line v are projected from a point P onto a line u. The line s through P is
parallel to u and meets v in the point I. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the points on
u and v except for I and the analogous point J on u. The Euclidean plane is customarily extended
by saying that s and u intersect in an ideal point or point at infinity. They only meet in one ideal
point, not two at "either end" of s and u. That is logically consistent with the one-to-one
correspondence as only one point should correspond to I. Then the axiom that any two distinct lines
meet in one and only one point is true without exception. An ideal point is so-called because it acts
just like an ordinary point. Clearly there is an ideal point for every direction in the plane, the sum
total of which forms an ideal line or line at infinity. This line is added to the Euclidean plane to
give the projective plane, which is closed and once defined ideal elements cease to be special. An
example of an instance of two-dimensional projective geometry with no need for ideal elements is
given in Appendix #A. Initially the real projective plane will be considered in which all points and
lines are visible (for a sufficiently large page!). A further extension of the plane to include so-called
imaginary points and lines will be introduced at the end.

There is an interesting story behind the concept of parallel lines. Euclid postulated (but in other
words) that there is only one line through P parallel to u in figure $1, but was not satisfied as his
powerful mathematical intuition sensed an inherent problem he was unable to solve. For 2,000
years or so mathematicians wrestled with and tried to prove Euclid's postulate, which is called the
parallel axiom, and failed. Then in the 19th Century three mathematicians resolved the issue by
showing that it is false i.e. there exist geometries where it does not hold. The great mathematician
Carl Friedrich Gauss was the first by 40 years, but he dared not publish in the mathematical climate
of his day. After him two resolutions were published: in 1829 Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky
published his solution and Janos Bolyai did so in 1840. They showed that a geometry exists where
there is no parallel line through P, known as an elliptic geometry. Later work then found geometries
where more than one parallel line through P may exists, known as hyperbolic geometries.
Mathematicians did not welcome this, as foreseen by Gauss, but Felix Klein finally settled the issue
by demonstrating that if hyperbolic geometry is untenable then so is Euclidean (parabolic)
geometry! No one was prepared to give that up, so the scene was set for the use of non-Euclidean
or curved spaces by Einstein and others. The projective plane does not recognise infinity or
parallelism and has no need of any of this, and requires the model of it in the extended Euclidean
plane to have only one line though P parallel to u (and only one parallel to v) so that the axioms of
incidence remain intact. This is perfectly permissible as the existence of Euclidean geometry was
not disproved, on the contrary the other geometries were initially admitted precisely to preserve it!

Strictly speaking a line is infinitely extended in either direction to close in its ideal point, but many
diagrams below will show segments of lines to avoid confusion. It should be borne in mind that all
such line segments are intended to represent proper lines.

In what follows letters in lower case will be used to label lines, while those in upper case will label
points. Other entities such as circles or ellipses will be labelled with Greek letters. If two points A
and B are joined by a line, that line will be written as AB. The point common to two lines p and q
will be written as pq. The point of intersection of two lines AB and CD will be denoted by
[AB,CD], and the line common to two points ab and cd by [ab,cd]. Now let's get down to work!
Pyramids and Triangles

Girard Desargues, a French architect who lived from 1593 to 1661, first proposed a fundamentally
important theorem.

Figure $2

The above diagram shows a tetrahedral pyramid ABCD on the left. If a red plane A'B'C' intersects
it then that plane will meet the base plane ABC in a line LMN as shown. L is the point where the
lines AB and A'B' intersect, M where BC and B'C' meet and N where AC and A'C' meet. These
three points must lie on a line as they lie on the intersection of the planes ABC and A'B'C'.
Furthermore the lines AA' BB' and CC' obviously meet in the apex D. The diagram on the right
shows a view of a pyramid from the top. In that diagram, regarded now as lying in a plane, there
are two triangles ABC and A'B'C' such that the lines AA' BB' and CC' joining corresponding
vertices intersect in the point D. Desargue's Theorem states that if that is true then the
corresponding sides AB A'B', AC A'C' and BC B'C' must meet in three points lying on a straight
line. That is clearly true because the flat diagram may be seen as the projection of a pyramid as
above. Conversely if corresponding sides meet in three collinear points such as L M and N, then
the joins of corresponding vertices must be concurrent i.e. all pass through the same point. Again
that follows from the pyramid projection.

It is notable that this theorem cannot be proved within the plane without algebra, but is obvious
when related to the three-dimensional tetrahedron. Consequently it is taken as an axiom of two-
dimensional projective geometry since it is self-evident as above.

The figure on the left shows the case where corresponding sides
of the triangles are parallel. This illustrates the fact that the three
ideal points where they meet on the ideal line behave like
ordinary points on an ordinary line. Ideal elements function like
ordinary ones.
Projection and Section

Figure $3

The figure illustrates the two most fundamental operations of projective geometry: projection and
section. There is a range of points A B C D on the line p which is projected from P onto the line q
as A' B' C' D' respectively. The red lines through P effecting the projection form a pencil of lines,
and the line p is seen as taking a section of the pencil, as does q. A further projection centred on Q
followed by a section by the line r yields a third range A" B" C" D". The ranges ABCD and
A'B'C'D' are said to be in perspective, as are the ranges A'B'C'D' and A"B"C"D". Furthermore the
red and cyan pencils are also in perspective, as are the cyan and yellow pencils. Two ranges are in
perspective if the joins of corresponding points all meet in a single point, while two pencils are in
perspective if corresponding rays all intersect on the same straight line. It is clear that M is self-
corresponding i.e. M as a point of the range on p is projected into itself on q. The red and cyan
lines through C C' and C' C" respectively are in fact the same line which is self-corresponding.

The dashed lines joining AA" BB" CC" and DD" are seen not to meet all in one point.
Consequently the ranges ABCD and A"B"C"D" are not in perspective but are projectively related
by a sequence of projections and sections. The lines joining corresponding points envelope a curve
as will be seen. Two such ranges are said to be projective, and also the red and yellow pencils are
projective. Corresponding rays of two projective pencils meet in points which describe a curve. A
well-known example of an enveloped curve is the string construction of a parabola:
 Figure $4

Returning to Figure $3, when points on the line p are projected from P onto q there is a one-to-one
correspondence between points on p and those on q. For, given a point such as A there is only one
line joining P and A and only one point of intersection of q and PA giving A', so (pedantically!)
PA=PA'. Conversely given A' there is only one line PA' intersecting p in only one point, and we
have already seen that that point is A since PA=PA'. Thus to every point on p there corresponds one
unique point on q and vice versa i.e. a one-to-one correspondence. This holds for points on lines
and similarly there is a one-to-one correspondence between the lines of the pencils centred on P and
Q. A projective transformation is defined as a series of projections and sections (a projective series)
and thus is one-to-one since two successive one-to-one
correspondences obviously yield a resultant such
correspondence. Generally a correspondence is projective if
it can be reduced to or mapped onto a projective series. As
shown in the sketch there is not a one-to-one
correspondence between the lines in P and the points of the
conic as both A and B determine the same line, but for Q on the conic there is a one-to-one
correspondence between lines in Q and points such as A and B. If a correspondence is one-to-one it
is likely to be projective, but not necessarily. A one-to-one projective correspondence is also known
as a homography.

Duality

The axioms of incidence in the plane are in a sense symmetrical, for they assert that there is one and
only one line common to two distinct points, and one and only one point common to two distinct
lines. If 'point' and 'line' are swapped in the first clause we obtain the second. Thus anything that
can be said about points and lines can also be said with lines and points swapped in view of the
symmetry of the axioms. The principle of duality in the plane follows, namely that for any true
theorem, the corresponding theorem where points and lines are interchanged is also true. A range
on a line is dual to a pencil 'in' a point, and the operations of projection and section are dual. Lines
will be said to lie 'in' or be 'in' a point, that terminology being economical and based on duality. It is
not meant that a line is contained by a point! The triangle is self-dual with three vertices joined by
three points. The hexagon is dual to the hexagram, and so on. Desargue's Theorem is self-dual, and
other dual theorems will be encountered later.

Ratio-of-Ratios

Two projective ranges have the remarkable property, discovered by Euclid, that they have the same
ratio-of-ratios. For two ranges ABCD and A'B'C'D' this takes the form

AC AD A' C 'A ' D'

=
BC BD B ' C 'B ' D '

which refers to the lengths AC, AD etc. The signs are important, so if AC is positive then CA,
which is in the opposite direction on the line, is negative. This ratio-of-ratios is called the cross-
ratio of four points and is denoted by (AB, CD), so (AB, CD)=(A'B', C'D'). It is necessary to be
consistent when taking the order of the points. This important result is proved in Appendix #B. It
assumes that lengths are understood. Thus if two ranges have the same cross-ratio they are
projective. Clearly perspective ranges have the same cross-ratio. Pencils also have cross-ratios,
defined to equal that of the range of a section of the pencil by a line. Thus the cross-ratio of the red
pencil is (AB, CD). Note that there are 24 ways of defining a cross ratio of four points e.g.

BC BD
( BA , CD )=
AC AD

which is the reciprocal of (AB, CD). Cross-ratio is the only numerical invariant in projective
geometry. A basic and rather obvious theorem may now be proved.
In Figure $3 M was seen to be self-corresponding.
The Characterisation Theorem says that two
corresponding ranges are in perspective if and only if
they possess a self-corresponding point, and dually for
pencils. First suppose the ranges BCD and B'C'D' are
projected from a point P, then the intersection A of
their base lines is obviously self-corresponding as only
one line may join P to A. Conversely suppose the two
ranges ABCD and AB'C'D' are projective, A being
common, and P not yet defined. Then join BB' and
CC' meeting in the point P. Join PD meeting the other
line in a point D", say. The cross-ratios (AB,CD) and
(AB',C'D') are equal since the ranges are projective, and (AB,CD)=(AB',C'D") since ABCD and
AB'C'D" are in perspective, so (AB',C'D')=(AB',C'D") i.e. D" is actually the point D'. Thus the two
ranges are in perspective with P as their centre of projection.

Now suppose that a range ABC on some line p is related to another range A"B"C" on some other
line r by a series of projections and sections such as in Figure $3, so that D projects into D". Then
suppose ABC is projected into A"B"C" by some other series of projections and sections. It seems
possible that under this new process D might not be transformed into D", but into E" say. However
the cross-ratios of ABCD and A"B"C"D" are the same, and also ABCD and A"B"C"E" are the same,
so (A"B", C"D")=(A"B", C"E") and hence E" is the same point as D" (c.f. Appendix #B). This
proves the Fundamental Theorem of projective geometry, which says that there is one and only one
projectivity between two ranges ABC and A"B"C", regardless of the sequence of projections and
sections or other method used to establish it. In particular, the simplest possible sequence in any
case is definitive. Dually for pencils. Figure $5 below shows that any two ranges ABC and
A"B"C" are projectively related.

Figure $5

Given two arbitrary ranges ABC and A"B"C" on two lines as shown, draw the line AA" and select
two points P and Q on it. Now join PB and QB" in lines intersecting in M, and similarly join PC
and QC" intersecting in N. Join M and N to give the line u, and find the point L where it meets the
line AA". Thus the ranges ABC and A"B"C" are projective as the series of projections and sections
shown takes ABC into A"B"C". This proves that a projectivity exists between any two ranges of
three points each. By duality the same applies to two pencils of three lines each. Note that given
any other point X on the line AC, its corresponding point X" is found as shown for this projectivity.
Or if the cross ratio of (AX, BC) is found and X" is constructed such that (A"X", B"C")=(AX, BC)
then QX" will intersect PX on u.

The line u above is the cross-axis as all cross-joins such as the intersection of AB" and A"B lie on it:

Figure $6

Here the ranges are ABC and A'B'C', and the points P and Q of Figure $5 have been taken as A and
A', yielding the cross-axis u as before from [AB',A'B] and [AC', A'C]. If X' is the point [AB, A'B']
where the lines of the ranges meet, and u meets AB in the point X, then (XL, MN)=(X'A', B'C') as
those ranges are in perspective from A. Similarly (XL, MN)=(XA, BC) as those ranges are in
perspective via A'. Thus (XA, BC)=(X'A', B'C') and so X corresponds to X' in the projectivity.
Thus u passes through the point corresponding to X'. If now B and B' are taken as the centres of
perspectivity then the new cross-axis u', say, joins M and R=[BC', B'C]. But u' must contain X as
did u, so u and u' share the two points X and M and so are the same line. The same reasoning
applies for any pair of corresponding points taken as centres of projection, so all cross-joins meet on
a fixed cross-axis u.

This proves Pappus' Theorem, which was first proved by the Greek mathematician Pappus around
300BC and was the first purely projective theorem:

Figure $7

The theorem states that the points L=[AB', A'B], M=[AC', A'C] and N=[BC', B'C] lie on a straight
line, which is true since they are the cross-joins of the two ranges ABC and A'B'C'.

Harmonic Forms

Figure $8

A special cross-ratio arises for a harmonic range as shown in Figure $8. The range is MNAA'.
Projecting from P onto the green line takes A to L, and then projecting L from Q back onto the
original line gives A'. Thus A' corresponds to A in that projectivity. Projecting A' from P onto the
green line gives V, and then projecting from Q back onto the original line gives A, so A corresponds
to A'. M and N are self-corresponding for this process. Thus A and A' are reciprocally
corresponding as each transforms into the other by the same projective sequence, and such a
projectivity is called an involution. If we take the green line and P and Q as fixed for a fixed
projectivity, then any other point B corresponds to B' the same way as A to A', so B and B' are also
mutually corresponding. Given the cross-ratio (MN, AA'), since the projectivity transforms M N A
A' to M N A' A respectively, we have (MN, AA')=(MN, A'A)=k, say. Now

MAMA ' MA' MA

( M N , A A' )= and ( M N , A ' A )=
NANA' NA' NA

so the second cross-ratio is the reciprocal of the first and thus k = 1/k i.e. k 2=1. But taking MA
positive, then NA and NA' are positive but MA' is negative, so k = -1. This important result shows
that any self-projectivity in which points are mutually corresponding in pairs is an involution with a
cross-ratio of -1. That cross-ratio always refers to the two self-corresponding or double-points M
and N together with any corresponding pair. Four points such as MNAA' in involution are said to
form a harmonic range. Dually there are harmonic pencils which are such that any section of the
pencil by a line yields an involution of points on that line. Later we will see that an involution need
not possess real double-points.

Figure $9

In Figure $9 the complete quadrilateral ABCD has diagonal points F G and H. The ranges ABWH,
DCW'H, ADYG, BCY'G, ACFX and BDFX' are all harmonic c.f. Figure $8. Projecting BCY'G
from H shows that FGWW' is harmonic, ABWH from G that FHYY' is harmonic and finally
BCY'G from F that X'XHG is harmonic. This is normally expressed by saying that a line through
two diagonals of a complete quadrilateral meets a pair of opposite sides in a harmonic range. The
diagram implies that result for the quadrilaterals ABCD, ACDB and ADBC.

The process in Figure $8 established a special projectivity between ranges on the same line, and is
an example of a transformation of the line into itself with two self-corresponding points. This leads
to the subject of projective transformations.
Projective Transformations

Figure $10

The diagram shows a line of equally spaced Douglas Firs of equal height, shown in perspective as
we might experience them. They appear to get shorter and closer together, but we "know" that is
not the case despite what we see. The point V is the vanishing point on the (unshown) vanishing
line. A projective construction of the positions of the bases of the trees is shown in magenta, which
will be explained shortly. The resulting points form what is called a measure, and in this case it is a
special type of measure known as a step measure or more formally a parabolic measure. This
introduces us to projective transformations.

Figure $11

It was shown in Figure $3 how a line can be projected into another line. That was an example of a
transformation where all the points of the line p were projected via q onto those of r, which was
termed a projectivity. Now it is possible to transform a line into itself, as is shown in Figure $11,
which was done in a special way in the discussion of involutions. Here the points on s are projected
from P onto u, but instead of proceeding to a third line they are projected from Q back onto s again.
Thus the point A is moved to, or corresponds to, B. Proceeding in this fashion B moves to C, C to
D, D to E and so on. The point N is where the line v=PQ intersects s. It is clear that as the points
approach N the steps get ever smaller, and in fact even after one million steps, say, N is never
reached. It cannot ever be reached in that way because it is a self-corresponding or double point.
To find where N goes, join it to P giving the line v, and then join the points Q and the point uv. But
that join is v which meets s in N again i.e. N transforms into itself. Since projectivities are one-to-
one no other point can transform into N. Going backwards from A, by joining it to Q and then
projecting from P, the points move back towards M, and the steps again get ever smaller towards M.
It is easy to see now that M is also a double point. Thus this transformation leaves two points fixed,
and moves all the others, also outside M and N. It is known as a breathing measure, because it
"breathes" between M and N, or more formally a hyperbolic measure.

Generally there cannot be more than two double points, which is easily seen as follows.

Figure $12

Suppose that there are three double points M, N and A as shown. The lines u and v are as before,
but suitable points P and Q must be found. P may be chosen conveniently on v as shown, so that PA
meets u in X. Now if A is to transform into itself then X must be projected back onto A, so the line
QX must be the same as PX and hence Q and P coincide as Q must lie on v. If now the point B is to
be transformed, it is clearly also a double point, so all points of the line are double points. Thus
forcing a third double point "freezes" the line into the identity transformation. This is known as the
fixed point theorem i.e. that there can be no more than two double points if the transformation is not
the identity. This applies to all one-dimensional transformations such as flat pencils of lines and
later axial pencils of planes.

The situation in Figure $11 may be altered by making the line v parallel to s:

Figure $13

The double point N has gone to infinity and the remarkable fact arises that in this growth measure
(still hyperbolic) the ratios BM/AM = CM/BM = DM/CM = EM/DM etc. all the way to infinity,
giving a geometric series. It illustrates in one dimension affine geometry in which the projective
transformations are restricted to those leaving the line at infinity fixed, and thus N. Also the
property of affine geometry that ratios in a given direction are well-defined and invariant e.g.
transforming MAB to MBC leaves the ratio MB/MA = MC/MB unaltered. The cross ratio
(MN,BA) = (MN,CB) as MNBA transforms into MNCB, so allowing infinite lengths to cancel in
the limit this becomes MB/MA=MC/MB, which proves the point. This has great importance when
egg forms in Nature are studied, as will be seen later.

Another modification of Figure $11 is to make M and N coincide:

Figure $14

This is the step measure encountered for the trees in Figure $10, where V played the role of M=N.
Notice that X transforms into a point on the left of M, "skipping" infinity. It is a projective
transformation of a measure with genuinely equal steps which is why it gives correct perspective.
That is demonstrated by moving M and N together to infinity:

Figure $15

M and N have been "sent to infinity" by making both u and v parallel to s. The triangles PQA and
PQB have the same area as they are on the same base and between the same parallels. The ratio
QP:LM equals QP:MN which equals that of the separations of v s and u. Thus LM=MN. In
triangles QAB and QBC, AB/LM=BC/MN so AB=BC. Thus the steps AB, BC ... are all equal
which is why this is called step measure or parabolic measure. Flat pencils where the angles
between rays are all equal gives step measure in a pencil. This is a one-dimensional version of
metric geometry where distances are preserved by transformations, not just their ratios as in affine
geometry.

The above measures describe possible types of self-transformation of the line. There is one other
type which will be described later.
Conic Sections

Figure $16

On the left of Figure $16 is a circular cone. Next is shown a section of it which leaves an elliptic
red plane, then one leaving a parabolic red plane and finally a hyperbolic one. The parabola arises
from a plane section at the same angle to the vertical as the rulers of the cone, while the hyperbola
arises from any plane at a smaller angle to the vertical than that e.g. 0 o in the example on the right.
Horizontal cross-sections yield circles, while a plane through the vertex may either cut the cone in
two lines, or else only in the vertex itself. Thus circles, ellipses, parabolae, hyperbolae, intersecting
line-pairs and a point counted twice are all called conic sections. Such a curve has the properties
that any line may cut it in at most two points, while in any point there are at most two tangents.
That is why the point is regarded as a double-point if arising as a conic section, so that a line
through it contains it twice!

Figure $17

Note that a tangent touches a conic at a point, which is taken to be a double-point. The number of
points in which a line meets a curve is called its order, while the number of tangents through a point
is called its class.

Figure $18

Figure $18 shows two projective ranges on the lines u and v, and the lines joining corresponding
points such as AA'. The lines envelope a curve. The range on u is now projected from P onto v.
This establishes a range of points on v consisting of points such A". Clearly the original (magenta)
and the new (black) ranges are projective, and thus have two self-corresponding points M and N. If
A' moves towards M on the line u causing A to move towards M on the line v then the lines PA and
PA' coincide when A' reaches M, forming a tangent to the curve. Similarly for N. Thus there are
only two tangents PM and PN to the curve through P. Since P was arbitrarily chosen, that applies to
any point outside the curve. The curve is thus of class 2 and so is a conic.

Figure $19

Figure $19 shows two projective pencils centred on U (blue lines) and V (magenta lines) with
corresponding rays intersecting in points such as M on a curve . A line p (yellow) intersects the
curve. It makes a section of the blue pencil in points as shown, and V is joined to those points
(dashed lines) which creates a pencil in V projective to the magenta pencil. Those two pencils
possess two double-rays in M and N where p cuts the curve. Since there can be at most two double
lines p meets the curve in at most two points, and so the curve is of the second order and thus a
conic (being also of the second class as above).

This shows that projective ranges and pencils determine conics, and conversely two pencils
projecting the same range on a conic are projective.
Ranges and Pencils on Conics

A range on a line may be projected onto a conic as shown in Figure $20:

Figure $20

The points of a line are projected onto a conic from a point U on the conic; in the lower figure a
range on a tangent to a conic is projected into tangents to the conic. There is a one-to-one
projective correspondence in each case, and we speak of ranges and envelopes on a conic.

Pascal and Brianchon

Figure $21
Figure $22

Figure $21 shows Pascal's Theorem, which states that opposite sides of a hexagram inscribed in a
conic intersect in three points lying on a straight line. Figure $22 shows Brianchon's Theorem,
which states that the joins of opposite vertices of a hexagon circumscribed to a conic intersect in a
point. These two theorems, although discovered independently, are dual so it suffices to prove one
of them. Pascal discovered his theorem when he was 16, which will now be proved. The opposite
sides of the (folded) hexagram are coloured the same. The pencils A(BA'B'C'), i.e. the points
(BA'B'C') projected from A, and C(BA'B'C') are projective (c.f. Figure $19), so the ranges in which
they intersect the lines BA' and BC' respectively are projective. If AC' and A'B meet in H while BC'
and A'C intersect in K then those ranges are BA'LH and BKNC'. Since they have the point B in
common they are in perspective so the lines A'K, LN and HC' are concurrent i.e. M lies on LN.
An important deduction from Brianchon's Theorem
concerns a quadrilateral circumscribed to a conic, which
may be regarded as a hexagon where the sides a and c'
coincide and the tangent point replaces their point of
intersection, and similarly for a' and c. Then the joins of the
points [ab',a'b] and [bc',b'c] determine the Brianchon point,
and the join of the points of tangency EG passes through
that point. Similarly HF also passes through it. That is, the
joins of opposite vertices and opposite tangent points of a
Figure $23 quadrilateral are concurrent. Dually if two pairs of points
coincide for Pascal's Theorem, their tangents intersect on the Pascal line.

Figure $24

Figure $24 shows two ranges of three points on a conic. The pencil A'(ABC) is projective with the
pencil A(A'B'C') as corresponding rays intersect on the conic. Therefore the cross-joins of those
pencils [AB',A'B] and [AC',A'C] intersect on the cross-axis u (c.f. Figure $6), and by Pascal's
Theorem [BC',B'C] lies on u. The points M and N where u meets the conic are the double-points of
the two ranges as is clear from the diagram. Thus given two projective pencils on a conic, the
double points are where the cross-axis intersects the conic.

This enables second degree problems to be solved, as now will be illustrated for involutions.
Earlier an involution was constructed given its double points, which had to be real in the present
context. It is also possible to construct the double points of an involution from two pairs (or mates).
 Figure $25

The involution AA'BB' on the line is projected from S onto a circle. The cross-join [AB',A'B] on
the circle gives a point L which lies on the cross-axis u. But since B and B' transform into each
other we may swap them in which case their cross-join meets in the point K, which also lies on u.
Thus u is the line LK meeting the circle in M and N. They are the double-points of the involution
as in Figure $24, so projecting them back onto the original line yields the double-points of the
original involution. The procedure is verified by the standard construction of an involution shown
above the line for the mates A and A'. An involution on a conic has a special property proved
below.

Figure $26

Figure $26 shows an involution with corresponding pairs AA', BB' and CC' on a conic . The
Pascal line is p. As before B and B' may be swapped so AB and A'B' intersect on p, as do AC and
A'C' and also BC and B'C'. The triangles ABC and A'B'C' have corresponding sides intersecting on
p so by Desargue's Theorem AA', BB' and CC' intersect in a point, shown as O. This proves that the
joins of mates of an involution on a conic are concurrent. It allows a simple construction of an
involution on a conic by choosing a point O and then pairs of corresponding points lie on lines
through O. It is clear from Figure $9 that the ranges AA'O[OA,p], BB'O[OB,p] and CC'O[OC,p]
are harmonic i.e. O and p are harmonic with respect to the conic. The tangents through O give the
double points M and N where p meets the conic c.f. Figure $25. Now let B' and B move
indefinitely close to A and A' respectively. Then AB' and A'B become tangents at A and A' meeting
on p. Thus the tangents at corresponding points of an involution on a conic also intersect on the
cross-axis.

In the above case O lay outside the conic, but it may also lie inside:

Figure $27

Clearly there can be no real tangents to the conic through O so this involution has no real double
points. It has been projected from S onto a line which shows that such an involution has
corresponding pairs that all overlap each other, whereas in Figure $25 AA' and BB' did not overlap.
An involution is the simplest case of a cyclic projectivity with a cycle length of 2. Longer cycles
are also possible. Projective pencils may also be in involution, and may be constructed by
projecting two ranges in involution. Alternatively the dual construction is:

Figure $28

In place of the point O in Figure $27, Figure $28 has a line o, and dual to the lines through O
intersecting the conic in points are points in o through which tangents to the conic are drawn,
yielding an involution of tangents. Dual to S on the conic is the line s tangential to it which meets
the tangent pairs in points which are projeced from P to give an involution of lines in the pencil
centred on P.
Pencils and Ranges of Conic Sections

Figure $29

Figure $29 shows on the left that four points are insufficient to define a unique conic. However five
points do suffice. In the centre the points A B C A' B' are shown together with the cross-join
L=[AB',A'B]. A',C and B',C are joined. The red cross-axis u must contain L, and may be rotated
about L to any desired position, intersecting A'C and B'C in variable M and N. For a chosen
position of u the lines AM and BN meet in C' as shown on the right, which by Pascal's Theorem lies
on a common conic together with A B C A' B'. Another point C" on the conic is shown, constructed
by the yellow lines. Thus the complete conic may be constructed given the five initially chosen
points i.e. those points determine a unique conic apart from special cases. If three of the five points
are collinear, say A B and C, then by Pappus' Theorem (Figure $7) the constructed points will lie on
the line A'B'. Pappus' Theorem is a special case of Pascal's where the conic consists of two distinct
lines.

As illustrated on the left several conics may share four common points, indeed infinitely many. For
given a line through one of the common points, every point on that line will - together with the four
common points - determine a unique conic distinct from every other. A pencil of lines is defined by
one point, and now the concept pencil is extended to all the conics sharing four common points.
Henceforth pencils of lines should be referred to as flat pencils, but that will be taken for granted
when the context is clear. Dually, employing Brianchon's Theorem five tangents define a unique
conic, so a range of conics is defined as all those conics touching four common lines. See Figure
$30.

Figure $30
The four blue lines are the base-lines of the range.

Desargues is known, apart from his fundamental theorem (Figure $2), for having discovered
another important theorem, that an arbitrary line meets a pencil of conics in corresponding pairs of
points of an involution.

Figure $31

Cremona Art. 183 is followed here. On the left a quadrangle WXYZ is inscribed in a conic, and an
arbitrary red transversal meets the conic in the points P and P', and the opposite sides of the
quadrangle in the pairs A A' and B B'. The two flat pencils W(PZP'X) and Y(PZP'X) are projective
since W Y P Z P' and X lie on the conic, so the ranges PBP'A and PA'P'B' in which they cut the
transversal are projective. Thus (PB,P'A) = (PA',P'B') which equals (P'B',PA') from the definition of
cross-ratio i.e. (PB,P'A) = (P'B',PA') so the pairs PP', BB' and AA' are in involution, recalling that
any projectivity in which points are mutually corresponding in pairs is an involution (see under
Figure $8). Furthermore the points WXYZ may instead be joined in the sequence WXZY, making
WY and XZ opposite sides of that quadrangle, together as before with WX and YZ. Thus the pair C
C' shown is also a pair of the involution. But, recalling that two corresponding pairs of points
determine an involution, the one on the red transversal is determined by the quadrangle, so any
conic circumscribed to it must meet the transversal in a pair of that involution. Thus a pencil of
conics circumscribed to the quadrangle is met by the transversal in pairs of an involution, which
proves the theorem. A verifying construction is shown on the right of Figure $31, where the
involution for a pencil of three conics is projected onto a circle, and the joins of corresponding pairs
are concurrent in O, proving it is an involution. Incidentally the above argument also shows that the
opposite sides and the diagonals of a quadrangle are met by any transversal in pairs of an
involution.

The dual theorem states that the tangents in an arbitrary point P to a range of conics are pairs of an
involution of the flat pencil {P}, introducing the symbol {P} to denote a pencil centre P. Also, the
pairs of lines in {P} joining the vertices and diagonal points of a quadrilateral are in involution.
Two Dimensional Transforms

Two dimensional transformations may be constructed with the help of the projective measures
introduced earlier, but first a more subtle type of measure needs to be introduced which will prove
to be of great importance.

The measures studied earlier all had real double-points, but just as an involution may not have real
double-points, so there exists a circling (formally elliptic) measure with no real double-points. It
may be constructed by noting that u and v in Figure $11 can be regarded as a degenerate conic
which may be replaced by a circle (or any other conic) using instead the projectivities on the circle:

Figure $32

On the left a breathing measure is constructed on the line s using a circle. The two double-points M
and N are where the cross-axis s intersects the circle. On the right s does not intersect the circle so
there are no double-points. This measure is important for constructing spirals.

Now we come to transformations of a plane into itself. A plane can be projected onto another
plane from a centre P, and then can be projected from a point Q onto a third plane , analogous
to the succesion of projections and sections in Figure $3.

Figure $33

In Figure $33 a red plane is projected from a point P onto a blue one , a red line in containing a
range of four points being projected into a blue line in as part of that. Then the blue plane (and
line) are projected from Q onto the pink plane . First of all it is clear that the red line determines a
yellow plane in P which intersects the blue plane in the blue line, and that the range on the red line
is projected into a corresponding range on the blue one. Then for the projection from Q the blue
line determines a green plane in Q which meets the pink plane in a pink line containing the
projection of the blue range. This illustrates the fundamental fact that projective transformations
preserve incidence as points on the red line are necessarily projected into points on the pink one.
Dually lines meeting in a point are projected into lines meeting in the projected point. Also the
cross-ratios of the red and blue ranges are equal since the projection lies in the yellow plane, and
again those of the blue and pink ranges are similarly equal, so cross-ratio is invariant. The two-
dimensional projectivity thus induces one-dimensional ones on lines, and all the results previously
derived are valid. The same would be true for flat pencils. Furthermore a projectivity within the
red plane would be transformed into projectivities in the blue and pink ones, as all incidences
involved would be conserved.

Instead of projecting from Q onto the pink plane, the blue plane could be projected back onto the
red one again from Q or another point, in which case the red plane would be transformed into itself.
But as now will be shown, it is not necessary to resort to three dimensions in this way to do so. The
reason for that excursion was to illustrate that incidences are conserved and a two-dimensional
projectivity induces one-dimensional projectivities in lines and pencils.

Just as there are at most two double-points on a line, in the plane there are at most three if the
transformation is not the identity. This is usually proved algebraically, but Edwards will be
followed here. Consider any two flat pencils centred on A and B.

Figure $34

Suppose a projective transformation of the plane is given, which transforms the pencil {A} into
{A'} and {B} into {B'}. A projectivity is induced between {A} and {A'} by the two-dimensional
projectivity so their corresponding rays meet on a conic, and similarly for {B} and {B'}. This is
shown in Figure $34 fully for {A} and {A'} but to avoid confusion only the conic given by {B} and
{B'} is shown. To transform some point X all that is needed is to join X to A and B, and let XA
meet the first conic in P and XB the second in Q. Then the lines PA' and QB' are the transforms of
XA and XB meeting in the transformed point X'. So the transformation has been fully defined by
choice of A A' B and B' as now the transform of any point such as X may be found. Of the four
points L M N Y where the conics intersect, it is clear that L M and N are self-corresponding or
invariant points e.g. MA and MB transform to MA' and MB' which of course meet in M. AB is
transformed into A'B' so those lines must intersect on both conics, which is the point Y. However Y
is not self-corresponding as the point of intersection of AY and BY is indeterminate, those lines
being coincident. Thus there are up to three invariant or double-points depending on whether the
conics meet in two or four points, noting that because Y lies on both conics, they must intersect in at
least two points. That means there must be at least one invariant point. Clearly there can be no
fourth invariant point in the above diagram.

The invariant points L M and N form a triangle the sides of which are invariant lines. For,
incidences are preserved so given a line AB determined by two points A and B, the transformed line
must be A'B'. Now L and M are invariant, so the line joining them transforms into the line joining
LM i.e. it is itself invariant. However points on it are not all invariant, only the line as a whole.
LMN is called the invariant triangle of the transformation. A practical method of transforming the
plane will now be shown.

Figure $35

The invariant triangle is UVW and constructions for breathing measures are shown on the sides UV
and VW, U V and W being the invariant points of those measures. To transform any point L, let the
join of WL meet UV in the point A1 and that of UL meet VW in A2. Then transform A1 to B1 and A2
to B2 using the measures and finally join UB2 and WB1 intersecting in M, which is the transform of
L. M transforms into N using the same procedure. It works just as well for points outside the
triangle. To transform a line p, transform the two points A 1 and A2 in which it meets UV and VW
using the measures, and then join B1 and B2 giving the transformed line q.

An important deduction from Figure $35 is that given an invariant triangle and two corresponding
points L and M, the transformation is fully determined, for the two measures are uniquely
determined by projecting L and M from U and W onto the sides VW and UV respectively. Thus a
two-dimensional projectivity is fully determined by four pairs of corresponding elements, noting
that the double-points are such corresponding pairs. That was already seen in connection with
Figure $34. This will be important later in three-dimensional geometry.

Notice that three successive points L M and N have been found, which could be continued beyond
N and successive points will be ever closer together since that is true of the points of the measures,
which never reach U or W. Reversing the transform takes L backwards towards U. The resulting
set of points lie on a path curve which tends towards two of the invariant points. These curves were
first discovered by Felix Klein in the 19th Century, and result from repeatedly applying a projective
transformation to a point or to a line. A field of such path curves is shown in Figure $36:
 Figure $36

Path curves are the two-dimensional equivalents of the one dimensional measures studied earlier.

The invariant triangle can take any form, and in particular one vertex may be placed at infinity as in
the following example:

Figure $37

The triangle is shown in black with one vertical and two parallel horizontal sides. The breathing
measures have become growth measures placed on the horizontal sides. This time the path curve is
enveloped by the red lines and is egg-shaped, the enveloping lines being transformed as was shown
in Figure $35. Notice that the upper measure moves in the opposite direction to the lower one so
that its inner point is joined to the outer point of the lower measure. Later it will be shown that the
egg profile is a cross-section of a three-dimensional surface and is of importance in some
fundamental research projects.

There are two kinds of two-dimensional path-curve: the egg above and the vortex shown below.

Figure $38

A breathing measure is used on the vertical axis together with a growth measure to yield a vortex
profile enveloped by the red lines. In fact the red lines also meet the left half of the lower side in a
growth measure. Two special types of vortex arise if either X or Y goes to infinity:

Figure $39

The red curve on the left is called by Edwards an airy vortex in view of its tornado-like form, while
the blue one on the right he calls a watery vortex as it may accurately fit the profile of a water
vortex for suitable measures. Both are constructed from beathing measures as indicated by the
intercepts of the tangents with the invariant lines.
Circling measures were demonstrated previously (Figure $32), and may also be used to transform
the plane and produce path curves.

Figure $40

This diagram is important as it shows an alternative way of constructing a path curve which will be
very useful shortly. First consider the circle on the left. The red lines will be recognised as the
construction lines for the measure ABCD on the line MN, as shown previously in Figure $32, where
M and N are the invariant points. The triangle LMN is taken as the invariant triangle, and a
breathing measure A"B"C"D" is shown on the side LN (construction not shown). The lines LA and
MA" meet in a point W. As in Figure $35 the measures transform W into X, the intersection of LB
and MB", and so on for Y and Z. The line WX transforms into XY, and the latter into YZ. These
lines meet MN in the points P Q and R respectively which is also a measure on MN, just as A 1A2
was transformed into B1B2 using the measures in Figure $35. Furthermore it is another instance of
the same measure as ABCD, as shown by the dashed lines LP and KQ which meet on the circle.
This enables an alternative way of constructing the path curve which is reproduced in the circle on
the right where the measure A"B"C"D" is not used.

Instead the procedure is as follows: choose W on LA and suppose it transforms into X on LB. Join
WX meeting MN in the point P. Then transform P into Q using the measure on MN as shown by
the dashed lines LP and KQ, and join QX meeting LC in Y. Q is then transformed into R as shown,
giving RY meeting LD in Z. This construction produces the same path curve using L and the line
MN of the invariant triangle, but without any need to employ the sides LM and LN. That in turn
enables MN=s to be moved below the circle to yield a circling measure on the line s.
 Figure $41

In Figure $41 the point L and the line s of the invariant triangle remain, but M and N are no longer
available. This is a semi-imaginary triangle, a term that will be explained later. A circling measure
ABCD on s has been constructed as in Figure $32, and the pencils centred on L and K are now also
in circling measure. The two points W and X on a path curve have been selected on the lines LB
and LC respectively. The join of WX meets s in the point Q, which is transformed to R using the
circling measure shown by the yellow lines KQ and LR intersecting on the circle. Then the next
point Y on the path curve is the intersection of RX and LD, the latter being the transform of the line
LC using the red measure. The next point Z is similarly constructed by finding the next point after
R in the yellow measure. That is, RK meets the circle in the point H which is joined to L. The
required point S is however off the diagram to the left where the lines HL and s meet. This
illustrates the fact that the circling measure "circles round the line s", never coming to a stop. The
line SY meets the next line LZ of the red pencil {L} in Z, which is the next point on the path curve.
The point V on the curve preceding W has also been constructed, and the magenta curve VWXYZ
is shown which is a portion of the path curve. It is a spiral line with its pole at L and spirals round
and round eventually towards s as its asymptote. Thus circling measures yield spiral path curves.

This has been exhibited using only real lines and points. So-called imaginary points and lines will
be introduced later, but for now it is instructive to work with the real projective plane.

The line s may be moved to infinity to become the ideal line of the plane. In that case the lines of
the pencil in L are separated by equal angles as shown in Figure $42.
 Figure $42

On the left LA is a ray of the pencil {L}, and then K is joined to the point where it meets the line at
infinity i.e. KB is parallel to LA. The next line of {L} is the line LB, and then KC is parallel to LB,
and so on. The angle between LB and KB equals that between LA and LB as they are alternate
angles. But all the angles at A B C etc. are in the same segment of the circle and so are equal,
whence the angles between adjacent lines of {L} are all equal. Similarly for {K}. On the right it is
demonstrated that this holds good when a line such as KC moves into the other segment, for the
three marked angles excluding CLB are equal. If the angle is a factor of 360 o then the pencil is
called an equal pencil.

It has been seen that circling measures give rise to spiral path curves, and now the case will be
considered when s is at infinity in Figure $41.

Figure $43

Figure $43 is the construction of Figure $41 when s is at infinity. On the left, there is an equal
pencil {L} of blue lines separated by the angle . Starting at point W, and working inwards this
time, choose a point X on the line LX and join WX as in Figure $41. There WX met s in Q and
then Q was transformed to R, which was joined to X to give the line Y as the intersection of XQ and
LD. Here Q is at infinity and the direction of R at infinity is at an angle to WX since the same
circling measure is used as for the pencil {L}. Thus XY is drawn at an angle to WX, meeting LY
in Y. The procedure is repeated to produce the red spiral. If the angle LWX = then LXY =
because WX and XY are separated by the same angle as LW and LX. Thus the triangles LWX and
LXY are similar, so the ratio LW/LX = LX/LY, and the equivalent ratio is the same for all the
triangles. Hence the points W X Y ... move inwards towards L with a constant multiplier
m=LX/LW and thus follow a radial growth measure. The diagram on the right of Figure $43 shows
the same spiral with concentric circles having radii intersecting every blue line in that growth
measure. This affords an easier way of constructing the path curve, which is the standard piecewise
construction of a logarithmic or equiangular spiral. A true such spiral is shown through the
constructed points. The fact that path curves in a plane based on an invariant triangle of the above
special type are logarithmic spirals will be important when three-dimensional path curves are
studied. Especially important is that a logarithmic spiral intersects any line through its pole (the
centre of the above concentric circles) in a geometric series, which is the same as a growth measure,
see Figure $44:

Figure $44

The points shown where the spiral intersects a horizontal line are in growth measure, which follows
from Figure $43, where a rotation of 360 o equals a rotation of 16. Thus rotating by 360o mutiplies
by a factor 16m (=16 LX/LW in Figure $43), so rotating by 720 o multiplies by 256m2 and so on i.e.
16m is the geometric multiplier along the horizontal line in Figure $44, giving a growth measure as
claimed.

Figure $45A
Equiangular spirals occur frequently in Nature, and this is another indication that path curves relate
to natural forms. Figure $45A shows a Nautilus Pompilius and a Kerria Japonica bud with fitted
path curves. More on that later.

It will be noticed that a circle was used to generate circling measures in Figures $40 to $43. This
was projectively "harmless" in Figures $40 and $41 where the circle could be replaced by any
conic, and was simply a convenience. However in Figure $42 the metric qualities of the circle were
relied upon using equal angles to generate an equal pencil, which then gave rise to the equiangular
spiral in Figure $43. This nicely revealed the relation of path curves to that spiral when referred to
a semi-imaginary triangle of reference, and perversely seems more "archetypal" than the pure case.
For the projective case it suffices to replace the circle used in Figure $42 with an ellipse, and
arrange for the measure to be cyclic i.e. the initially chosen point on s or line in {F} is returned to
after a finite number of steps. That results in spirals like that of Figure $43 projected onto an
oblique plane. The general construction with s at infinity is shown in Figure $45.

Figure $45

The blue pencil {L} is a cyclic measure but not equiangular, projecting a measure of points on s at
infinity. The pencil {K} is cyclic and projective with {L} via the ellipse, intersecting s in a second
related measure. Starting with W and selecting KH as the initial line in {K}, draw the line through
W parallel to HK so that W is effectively joined to the point of the second measure at infinity. It
intersects the line LG in the transformed point X. Rotating anticlockwise gives the next line LF of
{L} and KG of {K}. Thus draw the line through X parallel to KG meeting LF in the next point Y
on the spiral, and so on. The procedure is essentially the same as before, but angles between
successive lines WX, XY etc. have not been used. To carry out the construction gives a good feel
for what is going on, although it is time consuming and needs care and precision, especially where
the lines are closely spaced.
Polarity

So far the transforms studied have related points to points and lines to lines e.g. in the measures a
point was transformed into another point. The path curves moved either from point to point or line
to line. Such transforms are called collineations when they are projective and one-to-one. It is also
possible to establish a one-to-one correspondence between points and lines, which is called a
correlation. The simplest example is the polarity which uses a conic section. On the left of Figure
$46 a line e intersects a conic in two points, and the two tangents at those points intersect in a point
E, which is defined as the pole of e, while e is the polar of E. E and e are harmonic with respect to
the conic as was shown for Figure $26, which means that every line through E intersects the conic
in a pair of points harmonic to E and its intercept with e.

Figure $46

In the diagram on the right the pole and polar E and e are shown, the tangents through E being EU
and EV at the tangent points U and V. Choose a line through E meeting e in Q and the conic in S
and T. E and Q separate S and T harmonically as seen above. Let the tangents at S and T meet in F,
which lies on the cross-axis e for the involution determined by lines through E (c.f. deductions from
Figure $26). U V and S T are now corresponding pairs in the involution on the conic determined by
lines through Q, so the line q=EF is the cross-axis of that involution. Now take any line in Q
meeting the conic in C and D. The tangents at C and D will meet in a point on the cross-axis q of
the involution in Q i.e. the pole X of the line CD lies on q. That will be true for all lines in Q, so the
poles of the pencil in Q all lie on the line q. Clearly there is a one-to-one correspondence between
the polars in Q and their poles on q, so conversely the polar of every point on q lies in Q.

Just as S T separated E Q harmonically, so F Q separates U V harmonically, and similarly every line

p in Q is such that Q and its intercept with q separate harmonically the intercepts of p with the
conic. Thus Q and q are harmonic with respect to the conic as expected since q is the cross-axis of
the involution. But E and e are harmonically separated by the conic, that being the case for every
pole/polar pair, so q is defined to be the polar of Q. That enables the polar of a point such as Q
inside the conic to be found despite the fact that it subtends no real tangents. Polarity may thus
instead be defined using the above harmonic property, intimately relating it to involutions. Then for
every point in the plane there is a unique polar line and vice versa, defining a correlation. Note that
a diameter through the centre of the conic (if it has one, a parabola does not) has its pole at infinity
since the tangents to a conic at the extremities of a diameter are parallel, and dually the polar of the
centre is the line at infinity since the join of the poles of two diameters is the line at infinity. If E
lies on the conic then clearly e becomes the tangent at E, for as E moves along the green line
towards the conic in Figure $46 left, the tangent points move closer together, carrying e towards E
until they are incident when E is on the conic. Thus the polars of the points of the conic are its
tangents at those points.
The dual facts are true, that the points on a line have polars forming a flat pencil in its pole, and the
lines in a point P have their poles lying on the polar of P.

The points E and F are examples of conjugate points such that if E lies on the polar of F then F lies
on the polar of E. Dually the polars e and QE are conjugate. Now conjugate pairs on q form an
involution, for given E its polar meets q in F, and given F its polar lies in E, so the relationship is
involutory. Thus the pencil in Q is in perspective with points on q which are projective with their
conjugates, so that pencil is projective with the range of its polars on q.

It is more accurate to construct the polar of a point

using cross-joins as shown rather than tangents.
Through E draw three lines intersecting the conic and
then construct the cross-joins giving the cross-axis e
which is the polar of E since the cross-axis intersects
the conic in the points of contact of the tangents
through E (c.f. Figure $26). Conversely, given e draw
any (green) line intersecting the conic and then two
lines from the intersections, meeting on e. Find their
second points of intersection with the conic and join those points (in another green line) to find E
where it meets the first line.

The polar of a conic is a conic:

Figure $47

In Figure $47 the polar of the blue ellipse is constructed with respect to the red ellipse, which is the
set of blue lines. The poles of the cyan pencil projecting points on the blue conic are constructed as
shown. They all lie on one of the blue lines because the poles of a pencil lie on a line which is the
polar of the centre of the pencil, and hence is a tangent to the polar curve. Similarly the poles of the
magenta pencil lie on another blue line. The cyan and magenta pencils are projective because they
project the same points on the blue ellipse, so the cyan and magenta ranges of their poles are
projective since the range of poles of a pencil is projective with that pencil. Hence the blue lines are
the joins of two projective ranges and so envelope a conic, which is a hyperbola in this case. The
reason it is a hyperbola is that there are two tangents (yellow) to the blue conic through the centre of
the red one each of which has a pole at infinity lying on the polar curve. Had that centre been inside
the blue conic then the blue lines would have enveloped an ellipse, whereas had it been on the blue
conic then a parabola. The directions of the asymptotes of the hyperbola are given by the tangents
to the red ellipse where the yellow lines intersect it, for they are parallel in pairs to give the two
points at infinity.

Any geometric form may of course be transformed in this way. The order and class of a curve to
be transformed by polarity equal the class and order respectively of the transformed curve . That
is because the maximum number of points in which a line meets transform into tangents to ,
while the maximum number of tangents to transform into points on . Thus a conic transforms
into a conic because its order and class are both 2.

Figure $48

Given a pencil of conics in four base points the polars of a point P form a flat pencil in a point P',
see Figure $48. For, a line u through P meets its polars in a range, and similarly for a line v. Now,
the ranges on u and v are projective, for given A on u, P is its harmonic conjugate with respect to the
blue ellipse and then B is the harmonic conjugate of P on v, and vice versa. Similarly for the other
pairs on u and v, so those ranges are one-to-one and projectively constructed and hence are
themselves projective. Since P is self-corresponding they are in perspective and hence the polars of
P form a flat pencil in some point P', which is conjugate to P for all the conics since it lies on the
polars of P.
 Figure $49

The poles of a line (red in Figure $49) with respect to a pencil of conics lie on a conic (red). The
poles are coloured to correspond with the conics generating them. This is proved as shown in
Figure $50.

Figure $50

Two points P and Q have been selected on the red line. As already proved the polars of those two
points form two flat pencils shown dashed in the points P' and Q' conjugate to P and Q respectively.
Taking the green dashed lines u and v which are the polars of Q and P for the conic , each must
contain the pole of PQ since they are polars of P and Q, and hence meet in A which is the pole of
PQ for . Similarly for corresponding pairs of dashed lines for the other conics. The flat pencils
are projective, for given v through P' find the conjugate point A of P on it and then then u=AQ' of
the other pencil, and conversely given u find the conjugate point A of Q on it and then v=AP'. Thus
the flat pencils in P' and Q' are related one-to-one by projective operations and so are themselves
projective. Then the poles of PQ in which corresponding lines meet must lie on a conic. Hence P'
and Q', the conjugates of P and Q, lie on that conic.

The dual theorems for ranges of conics are that the poles of a line lie on a line while the polars of a
point envelope a conic.
To do

Show that (1 i 0) and (1 -i 0) is the Cayley conic in the main text.

Counterspace?
Practical fitting of path curves
Pictures of 3D path curves
Bibliography

Baker, Douglas, A Geometrical Method for Determining Shape of Birds Eggs, American
Ornithologists Union, The Auk, 119(4), 1179-1186, 2002
Least Squares Method for Determining Path Curves, Barry Christian,
Mathematical-Physical Correspondence Number 26, Missoula, Epiphany 1979

V&Y
Mihalek
Cremona
Faulkner
Lockwood
Semple & Kneebone
Struik
Georg Sonder
Lawrence Edwards Projective Geometry
Lawrence Edwards The Vortex of Life
George Adams The Lemniscatory ...
John Blackwood Geometry in Nature
 Appendix #A

The Nature of Projective Geometry

Projective geometry was initially envisaged in the Euclidean plane where angles and lengths are
understood intuitively, and parallel and orthogonal lines are also intuitively understood. The basic
theorems were proved using cross-ratio, as in this book. Using that, apart from Desargue's
Theorem four special theorems were encountered in this order:

Characterisation Theorem
A projectivity between two ranges (pencils) is a perspectivity if and
only if their common point (ray) is self-corresponding.

Fundamental Theorem
There is one and only one projectivity between the ranges ABC and A'B'C'.

Pappus' Theorem
The cross-joins of two ranges of three points are collinear.

Fixed Point Theorem

If a self-transformation has three double-elements it is the identity.

If lengths are undefined, cross-ratio is not initially defined. Then if one of the above four theorems
is accepted as an axiom, the other three can be proved from it and cross-ratio is defined abstractly in
terms of coordinates (Mihalek). The whole of plane projective geometry may then be developed
without recourse to the notion of lengths or angles. That is "pure" projective geometry, where also
infinity does not exist. If a line is singled out as an ideal line at infinity then affine geometry arises
in which only those projective transformations are allowed which leave that line fixed (as a whole,
not pointwise). Then parallel lines exist, lengths may be compared in a given direction and areas in
parallel planes may be compared. Only ratios of lengths and areas are possible, not absolute values.

If the allowable projective transformations are further restricted to leave a conic section invariant
then, as Arthur Cayley showed, metric geometry arises where lengths and angles in any direction
may be compared as they are left invariant by those transformations. The Euclidean metric arises
when that conic is degenerate as a pair of imaginary points on the line at infinity (Appendix #C).

The Euclidean plane has no points or line at infinity. That plane is extended by supposing that
parallel lines meet in ideal points, or points at infinity, lying on an ideal line. In this way the
Euclidean plane is "closed" and becomes the projective plane, the ideal line ceasing to be ideal. An
example of an instance of projective geometry with neither parallel nor ideal elements is given by
the lines and planes in a point as illustrated below.
Any two lines in the bundle centre determine a unique plane while any two planes in that centre
intersect in a unique line. The axioms of projective geometry are satisfied, but clearly no plane or
line is special. If its lines and planes intersect a plane as shown then the lines map onto the points
of while the planes map onto the lines of . Thus it relates one-to-one with the geometry of the
plane. One plane of the bundle is parallel to and meets it in its ideal line.

Peculiar geometries exist where Desargue's Theorem is not true, others where Pappus' Theorem is
not true, yet others where neither is true. They are very contrived and the practical use of projective
geometry is fully secured by the approach in this book based on cross-ratio, where Pappus' Theorem
is provable and Desargue's Theorem is accepted as an axiom. Cremona followed this approach (c.f.
reference). In any case it is possible to accept cross-ratio axiomatically in the light of the metric
version of it, and to proceed from there.
Characterisation Theorem

The following is a proof of the Characterisation Theorem using the Fundamental Theorem instead
of cross-ratio.

This theorem is intuitively obvious and seems the best to accept as an "axiom" in the case of pure
projective geometry. If the joins of corresponding points are concurrent then there is nothing really
to prove. The converse is more interesting and less intuitive i.e. given two projective ranges with a
self-corresponding element, to prove the joins of corresponding points are concurrent. The above
figure shows that it is quite simple if the Fundamental Theorem has been proved. But then the
Characterisation Theorem ceases to be an axiom.
 Appendix #B

Metric Proof of Cross-Ratio Theorem

The diagram shows a range ABCD on the line p projected from S onto the range A'B'C'D' on the
line p'. From similar triangles SAJ and A'SI'
JA I ' S
=
JS I ' A'
From similar triangles SBJ and B'SI'
JB I ' S
=
JS I ' B'
Thus JA.I'A' = JB.I'B' = JS.I'S = k, say.
Similarly JC.I'C' = JD.I'D' = k.
( JAJB )
Hence I ' B ' I ' A ' =k
JA.JB
so
AB
A ' B ' =k
JA.JB
Similarly
AC
A' C ' =k
JA.JC
BC
B' C ' =k
JB.JC
AD
A ' D' =k
JA.JD
BD
B ' D' =k
JB.JD
so
A' C ' A' D' AC AD
=
B' C ' B ' D ' BC BD
which proves the required result. It holds for any sequence as well as (AB, CD).
Note also that if (AB, CD) = (AB, CE) and the points are all distinct, then D and E are the same
point. This follows from the definition:
AC AD AC AE
=
BC BD BC BE
so AD.BE =AE.BD
i.e. ( AB+ BD ) BE=( AB+ BE ) BD
thus BE=BD
 Appendix #C

Projective Definition of Metric Geometry

Given two flat pencils centred on two invariant points of a transformation, the latter induces a
projectivity between those pencils which generates an invariant conic, as a point P on it determines
two lines of the pencils which transform into lines also meeting on the conic.

Figure #C1

Arthur Cayley proposed that a fixed conic be chosen called the absolute conic, and the distance
between two points be related to their cross-ratio with the intercepts with the conic. Thus given A
and B, join them and find where AB intercepts the conic (in I and J, say). If a projective transform
is defined which leaves the conic as a whole fixed then e.g. I on the conic will transform into
another point I' on the it, and then if ABIJ goes to A'B'I'J', I' and J' remain on the conic, and the
cross-ratio (AB,IJ)=(A'B',I'J'). The points A' and B' are then defined to separate each other by the
same length as A and B. That does not appear to be the case here, as the above situation gives a
non-Euclidean geometry. The reason for choosing a fixed conic is that given any two points, a
cross-ratio is automatically available to be related to length by taking I and J as above.

Cayley showed that length may be defined as

i log(cross-ratio)

which for Euclidean geometry, where the conic is degenerate as the absolute circling points (see the
section Imaginary Elements in Two Dimensions), this definition gives the usual definition of length
from Pythagoras' Theorem. The interested reader is referred to Faulkner or Veblen and Young for
the details.

The angle between two lines a and b is similarly handled by taking the cross-ratio of the flat pencil
they subtend in conjunction with the tangents i and j to the absolute conic through their point of
intersection.

In three-dimensional geometry an absolute quadric is defined to serve the same purpose, which also
allows the angle between two planes to be related to the cross-ratio of their axial pencil with the two
tangent planes of that pencil. A manifold is then such that the absolute quadric varies systematically
from point to point giving a curved space. Representing the absolute quadric by a matrix enables a
connection to be made with the metric tensor of Relativity.

This gives some idea of what is implied when length and angle are assumed intuitively and
metrically-defined cross-ratio is used as the basis for developing the subject.