Using the axiom system provided by Carsten Augat in [1], it is shown that the only 6-variable statement among the axioms of the axiom system for plane hyperbolic geometry (in Tarski's language L B =), we had provided in [3], is superfluous. The resulting axiom system is the simplest possible one, in the sense that each axiom is a statement in prenex form about at most 5 points, and there is no axiom system consisting entirely of at most (...) 4-variable statements. (shrink)

In this paper we provide quantifier-free, constructive axiomatizations for several fragments of plane Euclidean geometry over Euclidean fields, such that each axiom contains at most 4 variables. The languages in which they are expressed contain only at most ternary operations. In some precisely defined sense these axiomatizations are the simplest possible.

We provide a quantifier-free axiom system for plane hyperbolic geometry in a language containing only absolute geometrically meaningful ternary operations (in the sense that they have the same interpretation in Euclidean geometry as well). Each axiom contains at most 4 variables. It is known that there is no axiom system for plane hyperbolic consisting of only prenex 3-variable axioms. Changing one of the axioms, one obtains an axiom system for plane Euclidean geometry, (...) expressed in the same language, all of whose axioms are also at most 4-variable universal sentences. We also provide an axiom system for plane hyperbolic geometry in Tarski's language L B which might be the simplest possible one in that language. (shrink)

This paper continues the investigations begun in [6] and continued in [7] about quantifier-free axiomatizations of plane Euclidean geometry using ternary operations. We show that plane Euclidean geometry over Archimedean ordered Euclidean fields can be axiomatized using only two ternary operations if one allows axioms that are not first-order but universal Lw1,w sentences. The operations are: the transport of a segment on a halfline that starts at one of the endpoints of the given (...) segment, and the operation which produces one of the intersection points of a perpendicular on a diameter of a circle with that circle. MSC: 03F65, 51M05, 51M15. (shrink)

In this paper we provide a quantifier-free, constructive axiomatization of metric-Euclidean and of rectangular planes . The languages in which the axiom systems are expressed contain three individual constants and two ternary operations. We also provide an axiom system in algorithmic logic for finite Euclidean planes, and for several minimal metric-Euclidean planes. The axiom systems proposed will be used in a sequel to this paper to provide ‘the simplest possible’ axiom systems for several fragments of plane (...) Euclidean geometry. (shrink)

In this paper we provide quantifier-free, constructive axiomatizations for 2-dimensional absolute, Euclidean, and hyperbolic geometry. The main novelty consists in the first-order languages in which the axiom systems are formulated.

H. Tietze has proved algebraically that the geometry of uniquely determined ruler and compass constructions coincides with the geometry of ruler and set square constructions. We provide a new proof of this result via new universal axiom systems for Euclidean planes of characteristic ≠ 2 in languages containing only operation symbols.

Euclidean geometry, as presented by Euclid, consists of straightedge-and-compass constructions and rigorous reasoning about the results of those constructions. We show that Euclidean geometry can be developed using only intuitionistic logic. This involves finding “uniform” constructions where normally a case distinction is used. For example, in finding a perpendicular to line L through point p, one usually uses two different constructions, “erecting” a perpendicular when p is on L, and “dropping” a perpendicular when p is not (...) on L, but in constructive geometry, it must be done without a case distinction. Classically, the models of Euclidean 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 different versions of the parallel postulate.We consider three versions of Euclid’s parallel postulate. The two most important are Euclid’s own formulation in his Postulate 5, which says that under certain conditions two lines meet, and Playfair’s axiom, which says there cannot be two distinct parallels to line L through the same point p. These differ in that Euclid 5 makes an existence assertion, while Playfair’s axiom does not. The third variant, which we call the strong parallel postulate, isolates the existence assertion from the geometry: it amounts to Playfair’s axiom plus the principle that two distinct lines that are not parallel do intersect. The first main result of this paper is that Euclid 5 suffices to define coordinates, addition, multiplication, and square roots geometrically.We completely settle the questions about implications between the three versions of the parallel postulate. The strong parallel postulate easily implies Euclid 5, and Euclid 5 also implies the strong parallel postulate, as a corollary of coordinatization and definability of arithmetic. 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 independence proofs use Kripke models of Euclidean field theories based on carefully constructed rings of real-valued functions. “Field elements” in these models are real-valued functions. (shrink)

In this paper we provide a quantifier-free constructive axiomatization for Euclidean planes in a first-order language with only ternary operation symbols and three constant symbols . We also determine the algorithmic theories of some ‘naturally occurring’ plane geometries.

Klein’s Erlangen program contains the postulate to study thegroup of automorphisms instead of a structure itself. This postulate, takenliterally, sometimes means a substantial loss of information. For example, thegroup of automorphisms of the field of rational numbers is trivial. Howeverin the case of Euclidean plane geometry the situation is different. We shallprove that the plane Euclidean geometry is mutually interpretable with theelementary theory of the group of authomorphisms of its standard model.Thus both theories differ (...) practically in the language only. (shrink)

We present the basic concepts of space and time, the Galilean and pseudo-Euclidean geometry. We use an elementary geometric framework of affine spaces and groups of affine transformations to illustrate the natural relationship between classical mechanics and theory of relativity, which is quite often hidden, despite its fundamental importance. We have emphasized a passage from the group of Galilean motions to the group of Poincaré transformations of a plane. In particular, a 1-parametric family of natural deformations of (...) the Poincaré group is described. We also visualized the underlying groups of Galilean, Euclidean, and pseudo-Euclidean rotations within the special linear group. (shrink)

We describe a first order axiom set which yields the classical first order Euclidean geometry of Tarski when used with classical logic, and yields an intuitionistic Euclidean geometry when used with intuitionistic logic. The first order language has a single six place atomic predicate and no function symbols. The intuitionistic system has a computational interpretation in recursive function theory, that is, a realizability interpretation analogous to those given by Kleene for intuitionistic arithmetic and analysis. This interpretation (...) shows the unprovability in the intuitionistic theory of certain “nonconstructive” theorems of the classical geometry. (shrink)

For many centuries, philosophers and scientists have pondered the origins and nature of human intuitions about the properties of points, lines, and figures on the Euclidean plane, with most hypothesizing that a system of Euclidean concepts either is innate or is assembled by general learning processes. Recent research from cognitive and developmental psychology, cognitive anthropology, animal cognition, and cognitive neuroscience suggests a different view. Knowledge of geometry may be founded on at least two distinct, evolutionarily ancient, (...) core cognitive systems for representing the shapes of large-scale, navigable surface layouts and of small-scale, movable forms and objects. Each of these systems applies to some but not all perceptible arrays and captures some but not all of the three fundamental Euclidean relationships of distance (or length), angle, and direction (or sense). Like natural number (Carey, 2009), Euclidean geometry may be constructed through the productive combination of representations from these core systems, through the use of uniquely human symbolic systems. (shrink)

This chapter gives a detailed study of diagram-based reasoning in Euclidean plane geometry (Books I, III), as well as an exploration how to characterise a geometric practice. First, an account is given of diagram attribution: basic geometrical claims are classified as exact (equalities, proportionalities) or co-exact (containments, contiguities); exact claims may only be inferred from prior entries in the demonstration text, but co-exact claims may be asserted based on what is seen in the diagram. Diagram control by (...) constructions is necessary for this to work. Case-branching occurs when a construction renders a diagram un-representative. The roles of diagrams in reductio arguments, and of objection in probing a demonstration, are discussed. (shrink)

This paper provides a detailed study of David Hilbert’s axiomatization of the theory of plane area, in the classical monograph Foundation of Geometry. On the one hand, we offer a precise contextualization of this theory by considering it against its nineteenth-century geometrical background. Specifically, we examine some crucial steps in the emergence of the modern theory of geometrical equivalence. On the other hand, we analyze from a more conceptual perspective the significance of Hilbert’s theory of area for the (...) foundational program pursued in Foundations. We argue that this theory played a fundamental role in the general attempt to provide a new independent basis for Euclidean geometry. Furthermore, we contend that our examination proves relevant for understanding the requirement of “purity of the method” in the tradition of modern synthetic geometry. (shrink)

Thomas Reid (1710–1796) presented a two-dimensional geometry of the visual field in his Inquiry into the human mind (1764), whose axioms are different from those of Euclidean plane geometry. Reid’s ‘geometry of visibles’ is the same as the geometry of the surface of the sphere, described without reference to points and lines outside the surface itself. Interpreters of Reid seem to be divided in evaluating the significance of his geometry of visibles in the (...) history of the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries. The question will be reexamined with particular attention given to his unpublished manuscripts. These include comments on Saccheri’s work and Reid’s repeated attempts to derive Euclid’s parallel postulate from the axioms of incidence. (shrink)

Theoria, Volume 88, Issue 3, Page 629-652, June 2022.

Kant's theory of space includes the idea that straight lines and planes can be defined in Euclidean geometry by a concept which nowadays has been revived in the field of fractal geometry: the concept of self-similarity. Absolute self-similarity of straight lines and planes distinguishes Euclidean space from any other geometrical space. Einstein missed this fact in his attempt to refute Kant's theory of space in his article ‘Geometrie und Erfahrung’. Following Hilbert and Schlick he took it (...) for granted, mistakenly, that purely geometrical definitions of the concepts of straight line and plane are not feasible, except as “implicit definitions”. Therefore Einstein's criticism is not persuasive. (shrink)

In this paper I concentrate on Euclidean diagrams, namely on those diagrams that are licensed by the rules of Euclid’s plane geometry. I shall overview some philosophical stances that have recently been proposed in philosophy of mathematics to account for the role of such diagrams in mathematics, and more particularly in Euclid’s Elements. Furthermore, I shall provide an original analysis of the epistemic role that Euclidean diagrams may have in empirical sciences, more specifically in physics. I (...) shall claim that, although the world we live in is not Euclidean, Euclidean diagrams permit to obtain knowledge of the world through a specific mechanism of inference I shall call inheritance. (shrink)

We prove completeness of preferential conditional logic with respect to convexity over finite sets of points in the Euclidean plane. A conditional is defined to be true in a finite set of points if all extreme points of the set interpreting the antecedent satisfy the consequent. Equivalently, a conditional is true if the antecedent is contained in the convex hull of the points that satisfy both the antecedent and consequent. Our result is then that every consistent formula without (...) nested conditionals is satisfiable in a model based on a finite set of points in the plane. The proof relies on a result by Richter and Rogers showing that every finite abstract convex geometry can be represented by convex polygons in the plane. (shrink)

An argument is given that Euclidean geometry is a priori in the same way that numbers are a priori, the result of modeling, not the world, but our activities in the world.

E. Beltrami in 1868 did not intend to prove the consistency of non-euclidean plane geometry nor the independence of the euclidean parallel postulate. His approach would have been unsuccessful if so intended. J. Hoüel in 1870 described the relevance of Beltrami's work to the issue of the independence of the euclidean parallel postulate. Hoüel's method is different from the independence proofs using reinterpretation of terms deployed by Peano about 1890, chiefly in using a fixed interpretation (...) for non-logical terms. Comparing the work of Beltrami and Hoüel with the treatment of non-euclidean geometry after the development of the axiomatic method in the 1890s indicates an important shift in mathematicians? attitudes towards mathematical theories. (shrink)

Thomas Reid presented a two-dimensional geometry of the visual field in his Inquiry into the Human Mind (1764). The axioms of this geometry are different from those of Euclidean plane geometry. The ‘geometry of visibles’ is the same as the geometry of the surface of the sphere, described without reference to points and lines outside the surface itself. In a recent article, James Van Cleve has argued that Reid can secure a non-Euclidean (...) geometry of visibles only at the cost of abandoning his direct realist theory of perception, and reintroducing sense-data. The question will be reexamined by considering two aspects of Reid’s theory of vision: the claim that we do not directly perceive distance by sight and Reid’s characterization of visible figure as a partial notion of an external object. (shrink)

Some ancient Greek coins from the island state of Aegina depict peculiar geometric designs. Hitherto they have been interpreted as anticipations of some Euclidean propositions. But this paper proposes geometrical constructions which establish connections to pre-Euclidean treatments of incommensurability. The earlier Aeginetan coin design from about 500 bc onwards appears as an attempt not only to deal with incommensurability but also to conceal it. It might be related to Plato’s dialogue Timaeus. The newer design from 404 bc onwards (...) reveals incommensurability, namely in the context of ‘doubling the square’. It thereby covers the same topic but a different geometry as passages in Plato’s dialogue Meno (385 bc). This coin design incorporates important elements of ancient Greek geometrical analysis of the fifth century bc like the gnomon, Hippocrates’ squaring of the lunule (ca. 430 bc), and a geometrical version of monetary equivalence. Through this venue, the design’s conceptual lineage might be traced as far back as Heraclitus’ cosmology of about 500 bc. (shrink)

A reply to Risjord's defense of the view that there is no conflict between non-Euclidean geometry and Kant's philosophy of geometry because, while the form of intuition restricts which systems of concepts may be accepted as a geometry, it does not do so uniquely ("Stud Hist Phil Sci, 21", 1990). I argue that under these circumstances it is difficult to sustain the synthetic "a priori" status of geometrical propositions. Two broad ways of attempting to do so (...) are considered and criticized. (shrink)

This paper assumes the success of arguments against the view that informal mathematical proofs secure rational conviction in virtue of their relations with corresponding formal derivations. This assumption entails a need for an alternative account of the logic of informal mathematical proofs. Following examination of case studies by Manders, De Toffoli and Giardino, Leitgeb, Feferman and others, this paper proposes a framework for analysing those informal proofs that appeal to the perception or modification of diagrams or to the inspection or (...) imaginative manipulation of mental models of mathematical phenomena. Proofs relying on diagrams can be rigorous if it is easy to draw a diagram that shares or otherwise indicates the structure of the mathematical object, the information thus displayed is not metrical and it is possible to put the inferences into systematic mathematical relation with other mathematical inferential practices. Proofs that appeal to mental models can be rigorous if the mental models can be externalised as diagrammatic practice that satisfies these three conditions. (shrink)

We provide a universal axiom system for plane hyperbolic geometry in a firstorder language with two sorts of individual variables, ‘points’ and ‘lines’ , containing three individual constants, A0, A1, A2, standing for three non-collinear points, two binary operation symbols, φ and ι, with φ = l to be interpreted as ‘[MATHEMATICAL SCRIPT SMALL L] is the line joining A and B’ , and ι = P to be interpreted as [MATHEMATICAL SCRIPT SMALL L]P is the point of (...) intersection of g and h , and two binary operation symbols, π1 and —2, with πi = g to be interpreted as ‘g is one of the two limiting paralle lines from P to [MATHEMATICAL SCRIPT SMALL L]. (shrink)

Kant argued that Euclidean geometry is synthesized on the basis of an a priori intuition of space. This proposal inspired much behavioral research probing whether spatial navigation in humans and animals conforms to the predictions of Euclidean geometry. However, Euclidean geometry also includes concepts that transcend the perceptible, such as objects that are infinitely small or infinitely large, or statements of necessity and impossibility. We tested the hypothesis that certain aspects of nonperceptible Euclidian (...) class='Hi'>geometry map onto intuitions of space that are present in all humans, even in the absence of formal mathematical education. Our tests probed intuitions of points, lines, and surfaces in participants from an indigene group in the Amazon, the Mundurucu, as well as adults and age-matched children controls from the United States and France and younger US children without education in geometry. The responses of Mundurucu adults and children converged with that of mathematically educated adults and children and revealed an intuitive understanding of essential properties of Euclidean geometry. For instance, on a surface described to them as perfectly planar, the Mundurucu's estimations of the internal angles of triangles added up to ∼180 degrees, and when asked explicitly, they stated that there exists one single parallel line to any given line through a given point. These intuitions were also partially in place in the group of younger US participants. We conclude that, during childhood, humans develop geometrical intuitions that spontaneously accord with the principles of Euclidean geometry, even in the absence of training in mathematics. (shrink)

Open Court began publishingThe Monistin 1890 as a journal“devotedto the philosophy of science”that regularly included mathematics. The audiencewas understood to be“cultured people who have not a technical mathematicaltraining”but nevertheless“have a mathematical penchant.”With these constraints,the mathematical content varied from recreations to logical foundations, but every-one had something to say about non-Euclidean geometry, in debates that rangedfrom psychology to semantics. The focus in this essay is on the contested value ofmathematical expertise in legitimating what should be considered as mathematics.While some (...) mathematicians urgedThe Monistto uphold disciplinary standards ofgeometrical reasoning, authors opposed tonon-Euclidean geometry aligned theirreasoning with practical applications, universal know-how, and nonhierarchicaldemocracy. As one contributorinquired,“How isthe professional expert betterfit-ted to see more lucidly in dealing with the elements of geometry than any otherperson of good geometric faculty?”. (shrink)

We show the algorithmic unsolvability of a number of decision procedures in ordinary two dimensional Euclidean geometry, involving lines and integer points. We also consider formulations involving integral domains of characteristic 0, and ordered rings. The main tool is the solution to Hilbert's Tenth Problem. The limited number of facts used from recursion theory are isolated at the beginning.

Geometry defines entities that can be physically realized in space, and our knowledge of abstract geometry may therefore stem from our representations of the physical world. Here, we focus on Euclidean geometry, the geometry historically regarded as “natural”. We examine whether humans possess representations describing visual forms in the same way as Euclidean geometry – i.e., in terms of their shape and size. One hundred and twelve participants from the U.S. (age 3–34 years), (...) and 25 participants from the Amazon (age 5–67 years) were asked to locate geometric deviants in panels of 6 forms of variable orientation. Participants of all ages and from both cultures detected deviant forms defined in terms of shape or size, while only U.S. adults drew distinctions between mirror images (i.e. forms differing in “sense”). Moreover, irrelevant variations of sense did not disrupt the detection of a shape or size deviant, while irrelevant variations of shape or size did. At all ages and in both cultures, participants thus retained the same properties as Euclidean geometry in their analysis of visual forms, even in the absence of formal instruction in geometry. These findings show that representations of planar visual forms provide core intuitions on which humans’ knowledge in Euclidean geometry could possibly be grounded. (shrink)

나는 이 글에서 기하학에 관한 프레게의 견해를 재구성한다. 이를 바탕으로 다음 세 논제를 입증하고자 한다. (1) 프레게의 수학철학은 산수의 논리학으로의 환원과 더불어 비직관적 기하학 이론의 유클리드 기하학으로의 환원 두 종류의 인식론적 환원 프로그램을 포함한다. (2) 유클리드 이론으로의 환원 방식은 두 종류가 있는데, 하나는 사영기하학 및 공간량 이론의 경우처럼 그 이론의 인식적 본성을 보존하기 위해 논리적 추상화 원리에 의존하는 환원이다. 그리고 (3) 다른 하나의 환원 방안은 이론들 사이의 구조적 동형성에 근거하는 환원으로서, 「기하학의 기초 II」(1906)에서 그가 제안한 참인 사고 내용들 사이의 상호 (...) 독립성 논증 방안은 비유클리드 기하학을 논리적 구조의 동형성에 의존해서 유클리드 기하학으로 환원하는 방안을 일반화한 것이다. (shrink)

It has been argued that Hume's denial of infinite divisibility entails the falsity of most of the familiar theorems of Euclidean geometry, including the Pythagorean theorem and the bisection theorem. I argue that Hume's thesis that there are indivisibles is not incompatible with the Pythagorean theorem and other central theorems of Euclidean geometry, but only with those theorems that deal with matters of minuteness. The key to understanding Hume's view of geometry is the distinction he (...) draws between a precise and an imprecise standard of equality in extension. Hume's project is different from the attempt made by Berkeley in some of his later writings to save Euclidean geometry. Unlike Berkeley, who interprets the theorems of Euclidean geometry as false albeit useful approximations of geometrical facts, Hume is able to save most of the central theorems as true. (shrink)

Girolamo Saccheri (1667--1733) was an Italian Jesuit priest, scholastic philosopher, and mathematician. He earned a permanent place in the history of mathematics by discovering and rigorously deducing an elaborate chain of consequences of an axiom-set for what is now known as hyperbolic (or Lobachevskian) plane geometry. Reviewer's remarks: (1) On two pages of this book Saccheri refers to his previous and equally original book Logica demonstrativa (Turin, 1697) to which 14 of the 16 pages of the editor's "Introduction" (...) are devoted. At the time of the first edition, 1920, the editor was apparently not acquainted with the secondary literature on Logica demonstrativa which continued to grow in the period preceding the second edition \ref[see D. J. Struik, in Dictionary of scientific biography, Vol. 12, 55--57, Scribner's, New York, 1975]. Of special interest in this connection is a series of three articles by A. F. Emch [Scripta Math. 3 (1935), 51--60; Zbl 10, 386; ibid. 3 (1935), 143--152; Zbl 11, 193; ibid. 3 (1935), 221--333; Zbl 12, 98]. (2) It seems curious that modern writers believe that demonstration of the "nondeducibility" of the parallel postulate vindicates Euclid whereas at first Saccheri seems to have thought that demonstration of its "deducibility" is what would vindicate Euclid. Saccheri is perfectly clear in his commitment to the ancient (and now discredited) view that it is wrong to take as an "axiom" a proposition which is not a "primal verity", which is not "known through itself". So it would seem that Saccheri should think that he was convicting Euclid of error by deducing the parallel postulate. The resolution of this confusion is that Saccheri thought that he had proved, not merely that the parallel postulate was true, but that it was a "primal verity" and, thus, that Euclid was correct in taking it as an "axiom". As implausible as this claim about Saccheri may seem, the passage on p. 237, lines 3--15, seems to admit of no other interpretation. Indeed, Emch takes it this way. (3) As has been noted by many others, Saccheri was fascinated, if not obsessed, by what may be called "reflexive indirect deductions", indirect deductions which show that a conclusion follows from given premises by a chain of reasoning beginning with the given premises augmented by the denial of the desired conclusion and ending with the conclusion itself. It is obvious, of course, that this is simply a species of ordinary indirect deduction; a conclusion follows from given premises if a contradiction is deducible from those given premises augmented by the denial of the conclusion---and it is immaterial whether the contradiction involves one of the premises, the denial of the conclusion, or even, as often happens, intermediate propositions distinct from the given premises and the denial of the conclusion. Saccheri seemed to think that a proposition proved in this way was deduced from its own denial and, thus, that its denial was self-contradictory (p. 207). Inference from this mistake to the idea that propositions proved in this way are "primal verities" would involve yet another confusion. The reviewer gratefully acknowledges extensive communication with his former doctoral students J. Gasser and M. Scanlan. ADDED 14 March 14, 2015: (1) Wikipedia reports that many of Saccheri's ideas have a precedent in the 11th Century Persian polymath Omar Khayyám's Discussion of Difficulties in Euclid, a fact ignored in most Western sources until recently. It is unclear whether Saccheri had access to this work in translation, or developed his ideas independently. (2) This book is another exemplification of the huge difference between indirect deduction and indirect reduction. Indirect deduction requires making an assumption that is inconsistent with the premises previously adopted. This means that the reasoner must perform a certain mental act of assuming a certain proposition. It case the premises are all known truths, indirect deduction—which would then be indirect proof—requires the reasoner to assume a falsehood. This fact has been noted by several prominent mathematicians including Hardy, Hilbert, and Tarski. Indirect reduction requires no new assumption. Indirect reduction is simply a transformation of an argument in one form into another argument in a different form. In an indirect reduction one proposition in the old premise set is replaced by the contradictory opposite of the old conclusion and the new conclusion becomes the contradictory opposite of the replaced premise. Roughly and schematically, P,Q/R becomes P,~R/~Q or ~R, Q/~P. Saccheri’s work involved indirect deduction not indirect reduction. (3) The distinction between indirect deduction and indirect reduction has largely slipped through the cracks, the cracks between medieval-oriented logic and modern-oriented logic. The medievalists have a heavy investment in reduction and, though they have heard of deduction, they think that deduction is a form of reduction, or vice versa, or in some cases they think that the word ‘deduction’ is the modern way of referring to reduction. The modernists have no interest in reduction, i.e. in the process of transforming one argument into another having exactly the same number of premises. Modern logicians, like Aristotle, are concerned with deducing a single proposition from a set of propositions. Some focus on deducing a single proposition from the null set—something difficult to relate to reduction. (shrink)

It is occasionally claimed that the important work of philosophers, physicists, and mathematicians in the nineteenth and in the early twentieth centuries made Kant’s critical philosophy of geometry look somewhat unattractive. Indeed, from the wider perspective of the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries, the replacement of Newtonian physics with Einstein’s theories of relativity, and the rise of quantificational logic, Kant’s philosophy seems “quaint at best and silly at worst”.1 While there is no doubt that Kant’s transcendental project involves his (...) own conceptions of Newtonian physics, Euclidean geometry and Aristotelian logic, the issue at stake is whether the replacement of these conceptions collapses Kant’s philosophy into an unfortunate embarrassment.2 Thus, in evaluating the debate over the contemporary relevance of Kant’s philosophical project one is faced with the following two questions: (1) Are there any contradictions between the scientific developments of our era and Kant’s philosophy? (2) What is left from the Kantian legacy in light of our modern conceptions of logic, geometry and physics? Within this broad context, this paper aims to evaluate the Kantian project vis à vis the discovery and application of non-Euclidean geometries. Many important philosophers have evaluated Kant’s philosophy of geometry throughout the last century,3 but opinions with regard to the impact of non-Euclidean geometries on it diverge. In the beginning of the century there was a consensus that the Euclidean character of space should be considered as a consequence of the Kantian project, i.e., of the metaphysical view of space and of the synthetic a priori character of geometry. The impact of non-Euclidean geometries was then thought as undermining the Kantian project since it implied, according to positivists such.. (shrink)

John Corcoran and George Boger. Aristotelian logic and Euclidean geometry. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. 20 (2014) 131. -/- By an Aristotelian logic we mean any system of direct and indirect deductions, chains of reasoning linking conclusions to premises—complete syllogisms, to use Aristotle’s phrase—1) intended to show that their conclusions follow logically from their respective premises and 2) resembling those in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. Such systems presuppose existence of cases where it is not obvious that the conclusion follows from (...) the premises: there must be something deductions can show. Corcoran calls a proposition that follows from given premises a hidden consequence of those premises if it is not obvious that the proposition follows from those premises. By a Euclidean geometry we mean an extended discourse beginning with basic premises—axioms, postulates, definitions—1) treating a universe of geometrical figures and 2) resembling Euclid’s Elements. There were Euclidean geometries before Euclid (fl. 300 BCE), even before Aristotle (384–322 BCE). Bochenski, Lukasiewicz, Patzig and others never new this or if they did they found it inconvenient to mention. Euclid shows no awareness of Aristotle. It is obvious today—as it should have been obvious in Euclid’s time, if anyone knew both—that Aristotle’s logic was insufficient for Euclid’s geometry: few if any geometrical theorems can be deduced from Euclid’s premises by means of Aristotle’s deductions. Aristotle’s writings don’t say whether his logic is sufficient for Euclidean geometry. But, there is not even one fully-presented example. However, Aristotle’s writings do make clear that he endorsed the goal of a sufficient system. Nevertheless, incredible as this is today, many logicians after Aristotle claimed that Aristotelian logics are sufficient for Euclidean geometries. This paper reviews and analyses such claims by Mill, Boole, De Morgan, Russell, Poincaré, and others. It also examines early contrary statements by Hintikka, Mueller, Smith, and others. Special attention is given to the argumentations pro or con and especially to their logical, epistemic, and ontological presuppositions. What methodology is necessary or sufficient to show that a given logic is adequate or inadequate to serve as the underlying logi of a given science. (shrink)

In this paper we extend the NeutroAlgebra & AntiAlgebra to the geometric spaces, by founding the NeutroGeometry & AntiGeometry. While the Non-Euclidean Geometries resulted from the total negation of one specific axiom (Euclid’s Fifth Postulate), the AntiGeometry results from the total negation of any axiom or even of more axioms from any geometric axiomatic system (Euclid’s, Hilbert’s, etc.) and from any type of geometry such as (Euclidean, Projective, Finite, Affine, Differential, Algebraic, Complex, Discrete, Computational, Molecular, Convex, etc.) (...) Geometry, and the NeutroGeometry results from the partial negation of one or more axioms [and no total negation of no axiom] from any geometric axiomatic system and from any type of geometry. Generally, instead of a classical geometric Axiom, one may take any classical geometric Theorem from any axiomatic system and from any type of geometry, and transform it by NeutroSophication or AntiSophication into a NeutroTheorem or AntiTheorem respectively in order to construct a NeutroGeometry or AntiGeometry. Therefore, the NeutroGeometry and AntiGeometry are respectively alternatives and generalizations of the Non-Euclidean Geometries. In the second part, we recall the evolution from Paradoxism to Neutrosophy, then to NeutroAlgebra & AntiAlgebra, afterwards to NeutroGeometry & AntiGeometry, and in general to NeutroStructure & AntiStructure that naturally arise in any field of knowledge. At the end, we present applications of many NeutroStructures in our real world. (shrink)

According to Kant’s philosophy of geometry, Euclidean geometry is synthetic _a priori_. The advent of non-Euclidean geometries proved this position at least problematic, if not obsolete. However, based on Nash’s embedding theorems we show that a weaker notion of _preeminence_ supports the view that Euclidean geometry, even though not strictly _a priori_, enjoys a more fundamental status than non-Euclidean geometries.

The mathematical developments of the 19th century seemed to undermine Kant’s philosophy. Non-Euclidean geometries challenged Kant’s view that there is a spatial intuition rich enough to yield the truth of Euclidean geometry. Similarly, advancements in algebra challenged the view that temporal intuition provides a foundation for both it and arithmetic. Mathematics seemed increasingly detached from experience as well as its form; moreover, with advances in symbolic logic, mathematical inference also seemed independent of intuition. This paper considers various (...) philosophical responses to these changes, focusing on the idea of modifying Kant’s conception of intuition in order to accommodate the increasing abstractness of mathematics. It is argued that far from clinging to an outdated paradigm, programs based on new conceptions of intuition should be seen as motivated by important philosophical desiderata, such as the truth, apriority, distinctiveness and autonomy of mathematics. (shrink)

In this article I develop an elementary system of axioms for Euclidean geometry. On one hand, the system is based on the symmetry principles which express our a priori ignorant approach to space: all places are the same to us, all directions are the same to us and all units of length we use to create geometric figures are the same to us. On the other hand, through the process of algebraic simplification, this system of axioms directly provides (...) the Weyl’s system of axioms for Euclidean geometry. The system of axioms, together with its a priori interpretation, offers new views to philosophy and pedagogy of mathematics: it supports the thesis that Euclidean geometry is a priori, it supports the thesis that in modern mathematics the Weyl’s system of axioms is dominant to the Euclid’s system because it reflects the a priori underlying symmetries, it gives a new and promising approach to learn geometry which, through the Weyl’s system of axioms, leads from the essential geometric symmetry principles of the mathematical nature directly to modern mathematics. (shrink)

Kant's arguments for the synthetic a priori status of geometry are generally taken to have been refuted by the development of non-Euclidean geometries. Recently, however, some philosophers have argued that, on the contrary, the development of non-Euclidean geometry has confirmed Kant's views, for since a demonstration of the consistency of non-Euclidean geometry depends on a demonstration of its equi-consistency with Euclidean geometry, one need only show that the axioms of Euclidean (...) class='Hi'>geometry have 'intuitive content' in order to show that both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry are bodies of synthetic a priori truths. Michael Friedman has argued that this defence presumes a polyadic conception of logic that was foreign to Kant. According to Friedman, Kant held that geometrical reasoning itself relies essentially on intuition, and that this precludes the very possibility of non-Euclidean geometry. While Friedman's characterization of Kant's views on geometrical reasoning is correct, I argue that Friedman's conclusion that non-Euclidean geometries are logically impossible for Kant is not. I argue that Kant is best understood as a proto-constructivist and that modern constructive axiomatizations (unlike Hilbert-style axiomatizations) of both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry capture Kant's views on the essentially constructive nature of geometrical reasoning well. (shrink)