COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

Bachelor of Secondary Education

Major in Mathematics
Second Year

Module 2
First Semester
School Year 2021-2022

Course Number: M 105

Course Title: Modern Geometry
Instructor: Ms. Arlene L. Lu-ib

MODERN GEOMETRY

Introduction
Math encompasses far more than the study of numbers. At its heart, it is the
application of logic in the search for order in the world around us. A fundamental
question in this search is how to divide up, or describe, space. The study of this
problem, geometry, has been of importance for thousands of years. The geometers
of ancient Egypt established geometric concepts and rules that form the basis of a
discussion that has continued into the modern age.
The Egyptians were concerned with a variety of everyday geometric
challenges, from how to divide up lands that had been flooded, to the construction
of pyramids. In fact, the need to measure and divide up land help bring the word
“geometry” into existence- “geo” meaning “earth” and “meter” meaning “to
measure”. The meanings of both of these roots have been expanded throughout the
centuries so that now, the “earth” aspect can be thought of as encompassing all of
space in general, and the “measure” element can be thought of as “divide into
regular sections.” Thus, a more useful, modern-day definition of geometry is the
“study of how to break space up into regular sections.”
As with other mathematical ideas, the geometric concepts of the Egyptians
did not stay confined to North Africa, but rather spread across the Mediterranean.
Points, lines, circles, and planes formed the vocabulary of a new kind of thinking,
one that was tied to empirical observations, and yet could exist without them. The
Greeks latched onto this notion of conceptual mathematics, and soon complicated
geometric ideas were being constructed with only the most basic of theoretical tools.

1
Much of this knowledge, accumulated over centuries, was collected and expanded
upon by the great mathematician Euclid of Alexandria around 300 BC. His
comprehensive collection of geometric knowledge, entitled The Elements, went on
to become the authoritative math book throughout the world, with over a thousand
editions since its initial printing in 1482.
Of central importance to Euclid were his postulates. These were statements
that could not be proven and had agreed upon as a starting point. His five
postulates described a world of straight lines and flat planes. The shapes he
focused on were idealized versions of shapes found in nature. The geometric world
Euclid described was, and still is, a wondrous achievement of logical construction.
It is a world that behaves self-consistently, lending credence to the idea that it is a
model of the “real” world. This idea, that statements about the real world can be
made on the basis of reason alone, has guided much of Western thought for
centuries.
Euclid saw only part of the picture, however, still, his geometry (which will be
referred to as “Euclidean Geometry”) withstood centuries of scrutiny by the best
minds of the day. It was not until the 1800s the Euclid’s view of the world was shown
to be inadequate as a model of the real world. The insights that have come to form
the basis of the modern study of geometry do not conform to Euclid’s postulates-
they do, however, lead to logical ways to describe the world as we know it, and
space in general. We are no longer challenged with questions of how to divide plots
of land; instead, our new tools enable us to ask, and answer, bigger questions. In
fact, we can use the techniques of modern, non-Euclidean, geometry to understand
the very fabric of reality.
We will see how Euclid elegantly combined the mathematical knowledge of
his day into a logically self-consistent system. We will then examine how the close
scrutiny of one of his fundamental assumptions led to an entirely new kind of
geometric thinking. From there we will explore this modern view of geometry to see
how one can replace Euclid’s straight lines with curves and what that means for our
understanding of the universe.

Euclidean Geometry
Euclid of Alexandria: Euclid is perhaps the most influential figure in the history of
mathematics, so it is somewhat surprising that almost nothing is known about his
life. The little that is known is mainly about his work as a teacher in Alexandria
during the reign of Ptolemy I, which dates to around 300 BC. This was some while
after the creation of Euclid’s most famous work, The Elements. Euclid broke new
ground in his organization of the foundational mathematical knowledge of the day.
Euclid himself was known primarily for his skills as a teacher rather than for his
theorizing and contributions to research. Indeed, much of the content of the thirteen

2
volumes that make up The Elements is not original, nor is it a complete overview of
the mathematics of Euclid’s time. Rather, this text was intended to serve as an
introduction to the mathematical concepts of the day. It’s great triumph was in
presenting concepts in logical order, beginning with the most basic of assumptions
and using them to build a series of propositions and conclusions of increasing
complexity.

Axiomatic Systems: Axiomatic systems re a way of creating logical order. Axioms

are agreed- upon first principles, which are then used to generate other statements,
known as “theorems,” using logical principles. Systems can be internally consistent
or not, depending on whether or not their axioms admit contradictions. The system
that Euclid used in The Elements- beginning with the most basic assumptions and
making only logically allowed steps in order to come up with propositions or
theorems- is what is known today as axiomatic system.
Euclid used five common notions and five postulates in The Elements. The
fifth postulate, also known as the “parallel postulate” is somehow not like the others.
When Euclid laid the foundation for The Elements, he had to be careful to start with
statements that would be both self-consistent and basic enough to be assumed true.
He divided his initial assumptions into five postulates and five common notions.
They are as follows:

Common Notions
1. Things that are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.
2. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal.
3. If equals be subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal.
4. Things that coincide with one another are equal to one another.
5. The whole is greater than the part.

Postulates
1. Any two points can be joined by a straight line.
2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.
3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment
as radius and one endpoint as a center.
4. All right angles are congruent.
5. If two lines intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on
one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must
intersect each other on that side is extended far enough.
That fifth postulates is a mouthful; fortunately, it can be rephrased. In the fifth
century, the philosopher Proclus re-stated Euclid’s fifth postulate in the following
form, which has become known as the parallel postulate: Exactly one line parallel
to a given line can be drawn through any point not on the given line.

3
 This postulate is somehow not like the other four. The first four seem to be
simple and self-evident in that it seems things could be no other way, but the fifth is
more complicated. Euclid, himself, likely noticed this discrepancy, as he did not use
the parallel postulate until the 29th proposition (theorem) of The Elements.
Euclid system has been incredibly long-lasting, and it is still standard fare in
high school geometry classes to this day. It represents an achievement in
organization and logical thought that remains as relevant today as it was 2000
years ago. That bothersome fifth postulate, however, showed a small crack in the
foundation of the system. This crack was ignored for centuries until mathematicians
of the 1800s, with further exploration, found it to be a doorway into the world of
broader understanding.
Many modern sets of axioms for Euclidean geometry have been introduced
to remedy the defects in Euclid. In general, these newer sets of axioms are more
comprehensive than that of Euclid, and for this reason they appear more complex.
It has been difficult to incorporate them into the beginning high school geometry
course without introducing more axioms in order to avoid proving very difficult
theorems at the beginning of the course.
One of the first modern sets of axioms for Euclidean geometry was devised
by Moritz Pasch in 1882. He is given credit for what is called Pasch’s axiom: A line
entering a triangle at a vertex intersects the opposite side, and a line that intersects
one side of a triangle at a point other than the vertex also intersects a second side.
Guiseppi Peano provided another new approach in 1889. Probably the most
famous set of axioms for Euclidean geometry, however, was given by David Hilbert
and was published in English in 1902. Since the time of Hilbert, there have been
many other sets of modern postulates for Euclidean geometry.

The Axiomatic Method

The Axiomatic Method is a procedure by which we prove that the results
discovered by experimentation, observation, trial and error or even intuition are
indeed correct. The proof of a result of a sequence of statements, each of which
follows logically from the ones before and leads from a statement that is known to
be true to the statement which is to be proven.
The axiomatic method consists of:
1. A set of technical terms that are chosen as undefined are subject to the
interpretation of the reader.
2. All other technical terms are defined by means of the underlined terms.
These are the definitions of the system.
3. A set of statements dealing with undefined terms and definitions that are
chosen to remain unproven. These are the axioms of the system.

4
 4. All other statements of the system must be logical consequences of the
axioms. These are the theorems of the system.
By giving each undefined term in the system a particular meaning, we create
an interpretation of the system. If for a given interpretation of a system, all of the
axioms are “correct” statements we call the interpretation a model.
1. Concrete models have interpretations of the undefined terms adapted
from the real world.
2. Abstract models have interpretations of the undefined terms taken from
some other axiomatic system such as the real number system.

Properties of Axiomatic Systems

1. Consistency. A set of axioms is consistent if it is impossible to deduce from the
axioms a theorem that contradicts any axiom or previously proven theorem.
Equivalently, an axiomatic system is inconsistent if it implies a contradiction,
that is, if it is possible to prove in it that some statement is both true and false.

Example: The following axiomatic system is inconsistent: (Any one of the axioms
can be proven false using the other axioms.)
A1. There are exactly 2 boys.
A2. There are exactly 3 girls.
A3. Each boy likes exactly 2 girls.
A4. No two boys like the same girl.
To establish the absolute consistency of a set of axioms you need to produce
a concrete model.
Example: The following axiomatic system is consistent:
A1. There are at least two houses
A2. For any two distinct houses, there is exactly one street connecting to them.
A3. No street connects all houses.
A4. Given any street S and any house H not on S, there is exactly one street on
which H lies, but none of the houses on S lie on this street.
Producing a concrete model to establish absolute consistency is not always
possible. Alternatively, we can establish the relative consistency by producing an
abstract model.
2. Independence: An axiom is independent if it cannot be logically deduced from
the other axioms in the system. The entire set of axioms is independent if each
axiom is independent. To show that an axiom is independent you produce model
in which that axiom is incorrect and the rest of the axioms are correct. Remember
from logic that only correct statements must be logically deduced from correct
statements.

5
3. Completeness: An axiomatic system is complete if it is impossible to add an
additional consistent and independent axiom without adding additional
undefined terms. It is often quite difficult to prove that a set of axioms is complete.
An easier approach is to prove that the set of axioms is categorical which means
that each of its models is isomorphic to every other model. It is a proven result,
that if a system of axioms is categorical, then it is complete. Recall that, two
models are isomorphic if there is a 1-1 correspondence between the elements of
the models which preserves all relations existing in either model.

EXERCISE: Show that the following system is not categorical. (Hint: show that the
system has two completely different models)
A1. There exist five points
A2. Each line is a subset of those five points
A3. There exist two lines
A4. Each line contain at least two points.

EXERCISE: Show that the following system is categorical. (Hint: Show that the
system has exactly one model)
A1. There exist exactly three distinct points.
A2. Any two distinct points have exactly one line on them.
A3. Not all points are on the same line.
A4. Any two distinct lines have at least one point in common.

EXERCISE: Consider a set of undefined elements, S, and the undefined relation R

which satisfies the following axioms:
A1. If A∈S the aRa.
A2. If a, b∈S and aRb then bRa.
A3. If a, b, c∈S, aRb, and bRc, then aRc.
1. Devise a concrete model for the system
2. Devise an abstract model for the system.
3. Are the axioms independent?
Solution:
1. Let S be the set of students on the campus. Let R be the relation “has the same
color of the skin “ or “has the same weight”.
2. Let S be the set of triangles. Let R be the relation “is congruent to” or “is similar
to”.
3. To show that the axioms are independent, consider the following:
A1 is independent: Let S = {x,y,z} and R = {(x,x),(y,y),(x,y),(y,x)}. Clearly, the
relation R on S satisfies axioms A2 and A3 but not A1. A second example could
be: Let S ={Jim, Amy, Mary} and R = {(Jim,Jim), (Amy, Amy), (Amy, Jim), (Jim,
Amy)} where (x,y) means: “x likes y”.

6
A2 is independent: Let S be the set of real numbers, and let R be the relation “is
less than or equal to”.
A3 is independent: Let S be the set of students on the campus and let R be the
relation “is an acquaintance of”.