114 research outputs found
Proof-checking Euclid
We used computer proof-checking methods to verify the correctness of our
proofs of the propositions in Euclid Book I. We used axioms as close as
possible to those of Euclid, in a language closely related to that used in
Tarski's formal geometry. We used proofs as close as possible to those given by
Euclid, but filling Euclid's gaps and correcting errors. Euclid Book I has 48
propositions, we proved 235 theorems. The extras were partly "Book Zero",
preliminaries of a very fundamental nature, partly propositions that Euclid
omitted but were used implicitly, partly advanced theorems that we found
necessary to fill Euclid's gaps, and partly just variants of Euclid's
propositions. We wrote these proofs in a simple fragment of first-order logic
corresponding to Euclid's logic, debugged them using a custom software tool,
and then checked them in the well-known and trusted proof checkers HOL Light
and Coq.Comment: 53 page
Cauchy, infinitesimals and ghosts of departed quantifiers
Procedures relying on infinitesimals in Leibniz, Euler and Cauchy have been
interpreted in both a Weierstrassian and Robinson's frameworks. The latter
provides closer proxies for the procedures of the classical masters. Thus,
Leibniz's distinction between assignable and inassignable numbers finds a proxy
in the distinction between standard and nonstandard numbers in Robinson's
framework, while Leibniz's law of homogeneity with the implied notion of
equality up to negligible terms finds a mathematical formalisation in terms of
standard part. It is hard to provide parallel formalisations in a
Weierstrassian framework but scholars since Ishiguro have engaged in a quest
for ghosts of departed quantifiers to provide a Weierstrassian account for
Leibniz's infinitesimals. Euler similarly had notions of equality up to
negligible terms, of which he distinguished two types: geometric and
arithmetic. Euler routinely used product decompositions into a specific
infinite number of factors, and used the binomial formula with an infinite
exponent. Such procedures have immediate hyperfinite analogues in Robinson's
framework, while in a Weierstrassian framework they can only be reinterpreted
by means of paraphrases departing significantly from Euler's own presentation.
Cauchy gives lucid definitions of continuity in terms of infinitesimals that
find ready formalisations in Robinson's framework but scholars working in a
Weierstrassian framework bend over backwards either to claim that Cauchy was
vague or to engage in a quest for ghosts of departed quantifiers in his work.
Cauchy's procedures in the context of his 1853 sum theorem (for series of
continuous functions) are more readily understood from the viewpoint of
Robinson's framework, where one can exploit tools such as the pointwise
definition of the concept of uniform convergence.
Keywords: historiography; infinitesimal; Latin model; butterfly modelComment: 45 pages, published in Mat. Stu
Constructive Geometry and the Parallel Postulate
Euclidean geometry consists of straightedge-and-compass constructions and
reasoning about the results of those constructions. We show that Euclidean
geometry can be developed using only intuitionistic logic. We consider three
versions of Euclid's parallel postulate: Euclid's own formulation in his
Postulate 5; Playfair's 1795 version, and a new version we call the strong
parallel postulate. These differ in that Euclid's version and the new version
both assert the existence of a point where two lines meet, while Playfair's
version makes no existence assertion. Classically, the models of Euclidean
(straightedge-and-compass) geometry are planes over Euclidean fields. We prove
a similar theorem for constructive Euclidean geometry, by showing how to define
addition and multiplication without a case distinction about the sign of the
arguments. With intuitionistic logic, there are two possible definitions of
Euclidean fields, which turn out to correspond to the different versions of the
parallel axiom. In this paper, we completely settle the questions about
implications between the three versions of the parallel postulate: the strong
parallel postulate easily implies Euclid 5, and in fact Euclid 5 also implies
the strong parallel postulate, although the proof is lengthy, depending on the
verification that Euclid 5 suffices to define multiplication geometrically. We
show that Playfair does not imply Euclid 5, and we also give some other
independence results. Our independence proofs are given without discussing the
exact choice of the other axioms of geometry; all we need is that one can
interpret the geometric axioms in Euclidean field theory. The proofs use Kripke
models of Euclidean field theories based on carefully constructed rings of
real-valued functions.Comment: 114 pages, 39 figure
Hilbert's Synthesis on Foundation of Geometry
The relationships between intuition, axiomatic method and formalism in Hilbert's foundational studies has been discussed several times, but geometrical ones still have unclear sides and there is not a commonly held opinion.In this article we try to frame Hilbert’s geometrical works within a historical context. The aim is to show that intuition and nature of the axioms in \emph{Grundlagen der Geometrie} do not derive from a mature philosophical awareness of the author, but from the development of a historical path of the idea of geometry and of its foundations. The path begins with the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry and finds in Hilbert’s work its final and definitive synthesis for Euclidean geometry
On the relationship between plane and solid geometry
Traditional geometry concerns itself with planimetric and stereometric considerations, which are at the root of the division between plane and solid geometry. To raise the issue of the relation between these two areas brings with it a host of different problems that pertain to mathematical practice, epistemology, semantics, ontology, methodology, and logic. In addition, issues of psychology and pedagogy are also important here. To our knowledge there is no single contribution that studies in detail even one of the aforementioned area
Formalising Geometric Axioms for Minkowski Spacetime and Without-Loss-of-Generality Theorems
This contribution reports on the continued formalisation of an axiomatic
system for Minkowski spacetime (as used in the study of Special Relativity)
which is closer in spirit to Hilbert's axiomatic approach to Euclidean geometry
than to the vector space approach employed by Minkowski. We present a brief
overview of the axioms as well as of a formalisation of theorems relating to
linear order. Proofs and excerpts of Isabelle/Isar scripts are discussed, with
a focus on the use of symmetry and reasoning "without loss of generality".Comment: In Proceedings ADG 2021, arXiv:2112.1477
- …