Geometry: A Comprehensive Course

Index

PREFACE

This book is based on a course given for the past few years at the University of Minnesota to junior and senior students, to first-year graduate students and to a Year Academic Institute of College teachers of geometry who had returned to the University for a year to learn more geometry. The main purpose of the course was to increase geometrical, and therefore mathematical understanding, and to help students to enjoy geometry. This is also the purpose of my book.

I believe, and in this I am supported by many reputable mathematicians, that a reasonable knowledge and appreciation of the scope and methods of elementary geometry is desirable for those who wish to study and to relish more abstract and advanced notions.

By ‘elementary geometry’ I mean geometry as it is usually taught up to, but not including, a rigorous theory of algebraic curves. I include projective geometry of two and three dimensions, with some geometry of n dimensions in my definition of elementary geometry. The full scope of my definition can be initially realized by a look at the Table of Contents.

In this book I discuss the algebraic methods available for a study of elementary geometry. I have tried not to be tedious, and on the whole only those theorems of elementary geometry are studied which are of significance for further study. Whenever possible, pointers to this significance are indicated, in the text or in the Exercises, of which there are more than 500. The algebraic approach, although it is the main thread of my discourse, is never over-stressed. If a theorem appears to be more attractive with a geometric proof, this is also given. In any case, geometric insights are stressed all through.

The student reading this book is expected to have completed a course in linear algebra, of the kind indicated in my ‘Geometric Introduction to Linear Algebra’ (Chelsea, New York, 1978). That is, some acquaintance with the ideas of a vector space is assumed, including some theorems on the solution of linear homogeneous equations, and also some matrix theory. But in other algebraic matters the book is self-contained, and there is a Preliminary Chapter 0 with a summary of results the student will need.

The chapters of this book need not necessarily be taken in strict sequence. There is ample material for a year's course, or selections can be made which can be covered in one, two or three quarters. The second half of the book, which deals with the projective space of 2, 3 and n dimensions can be used independently of the first part.

Chapter I, which need not be taken first, shows what kinds of theorem in real Euclidean and affine geometry can be proved by using vectors. The student who has only come across vectors in a few sections of a book on the calculus may be surprised at the scope of the theorems which are amenable to the algebra of vectors. Later in the chapter the exterior algebra of Grassmann is introduced, and developed a little, and the power of the methods then available is demonstrated.

Chapters II and III contain those parts of the theory of circles which are of importance for later developments in geometry. A fairly detailed study of coaxal systems is made. After all, these are the simplest linear systems of curves, after linear systems of lines, and in Chapter IV coaxal systems of circles are mapped onto lines in space of three dimensions, and we therefore need to know something about the systems which have such a simple map. Inversion is also studied, not only for its theoretical importance, but because it never fails to fascinate the student. The idea that geometry is an attractive study is not overlooked in this book.

Chapter IV discusses the representation of circles by points in E3, real Euclidean space of three dimensions, and here the interplay between theorems in space of different dimensions (two and three in this particular case) first becomes clear. The ability to regard theorems from different points of view is probably the hall-mark of a geometer, and in this chapter a student may receive his first training in this desirable art. At the end of the chapter an algebra of circles is introduced. This is a further application of the ideas of Grassmann, and although the use made of the algebra is not new, the explanation is new and, it is hoped, no longer almost metaphysical. As in the preceding chapters, there are numbers of Exercises, not completely trivial, on which the student can test his understanding of the text. Nobody has, as yet, discovered a better way of learning mathematics.

Chapter V deals with mappings of the Euclidean plane, especially isometries. These mappings have already appeared in earlier chapters, but are now considered from the point of view of the algebra of complex numbers. This algebra has many advantages, and some disadvantages, but it is important for the student to become familiar with the field of complex numbers. Wherever proofs using complex numbers are not completely satisfactory, aesthetically speaking, an alternative proof using Euclidean geometry is indicated. Some group theory is used in this chapter. Elementary mappings of the Euclidean plane have, of course, been an important part of elementary geometry for many years. Recently they have become important in the foundations of geometry.

Chapter VI continues the discussion of mappings by considering the Moebius transformations of the inversive plane, and ends with a detailed discussion of the Poincaré model of a hyperbolic non-Euclidean geometry. There is not too much development here, since once the student is convinced that Euclid's parallel axiom can be dispensed with, the rest is not necessary for our purpose, and can be found in other texts. The Appendix lists the Propositions of Euclid, as a useful reference.

Chapter VII introduces projective geometry, the treatment being algebraic. Examples are given in two and three dimensions, some important constructs appearing.

Chapter VIII considers the projective geometry of n dimensions, but only essential topics are discussed. The main theorems of projective geometry are derived, and applied to geometric proofs of theorems treated algebraically in earlier chapters. At the end of the chapter the geometrical interpretation of the Jordan normal form for a projective transformation of Sn is discussed. The algebraic derivation of the normal form must be considered to require more algebra than the readers of this book are expected to have, and so stress is laid on the geometrical meaning of the form when it is presented.

Chapter IX uses the material of the preceding chapters to develop the projective theory of conics and quadrics. This is a powerful and attractive theory, and there is constant interplay between theorems in two and three dimensions. Stereographic projection is one of the methods developed to show this interplay. Once the main theorems are established, the proofs and the thinking are geometrical.

Chapter X, entitled ‘Prelude to Algebraic Geometry’, ventures to the threshold of the theory of algebraic curves, Bezout's Theorem on the number of points of intersection of two plane algebraic curves of given orders. Twisted cubic curves on a quadric are discussed, the curve of intersection of two quadrics is investigated, the theorem on eight associated points is proved, and applications made to theorems encountered much earlier, proved by different methods. The chapter ends with a discussion of oriented circles, and proves some attractive theorems which hold only for oriented circles.

The Appendix lists the Propositions of Euclid and gives a brief account of the Grassmann-Pluecker coordinates of lines in projective space of three dimensions. These coordinates occur in the text, but are not used in the development. There is also a pulling together of various threads of the discourse, with an indication of developments which are beyond the scope of this book.

Bibliography and References list some of the books which have influenced me during the time spent in composing the lectures on which this book is based, and details are also given of books and articles which the student may wish to consult for further information. (Bold-face numerals refer to the Bibliography, p. 442.)

I wish to thank Prof. Erwin Engeler for drawing my attention to Henri Lebesgue's comments, (printed as a Frontispiece to this volume), on those he regarded as mathematical vandals. Readers of Felix Klein's ‘Hoehere Geometrie’ (9) will come across some tart comments there on the curious attitude of some mathematicians towards geometry. Without trying to explain why the teaching of geometry has slumped so badly in the United States during the past thirty years, and far more than in any other country, it is heartening to notice that there are signs of a revival, and I hope that my book may help in this.

I also wish to thank Mr. Wolfgang Nauck, who helped me with some of the drawings, and Prof. W. Wunderlich, who used the resources of his Institut fuer Geometrie in the Technische Hochschule of Vienna to supply other drawings.

Many of the Sections into which this book is divided contain at most one Theorem. If this is the case, the reference to the Theorem is given by the number of the Section containing the Theorem. If the Section contains more than one Theorem, the reference is to Thm p, § q.

D.P.

May, 1970

School of Mathematics,

University of Minnesota,

Minneapolis, Minn. 55455.

O

PRELIMINARY NOTIONS

In this chapter we introduce some of the notions which the reader will need when he begins his study of the main part of this text. We go into rather more detail in some cases than in others, our aim being to proceed fairly informally at first, and to introduce more precise notions as we proceed, and where necessary. Some ideas will therefore be discussed more than once, but if the reader is already familiar with them, he will turn the pages until he comes across something new. The idea of a group, for example, is needed at the beginning of our work, but we do not go into more detail until Chapter V, when we need to know more about groups. Of course, we could assume that the reader is already familiar with all the algebraic concepts which we wish to use, or give references to another book, but we prefer to make this book fairly self-contained, and have inserted sections on algebraic topics where teaching experience has shown that the student needs to be reminded of these topics. This manner of presentation may be less elegant, but we hope it will make this book more useful than a completely stream-lined presentation might be.

0.1The Euclidean plane

This is the familiar plane of ordinary geometry, and we shall investigate it algebraically, using the real number system. The properties of the real numbers which we use are (a) that they form a field, which means that the ordinary processes of arithmetic are possible with real numbers, and (b) that they are ordered.

The points of our Euclidean plane are given by ordered pairs of real numbers (x1, x2), these being coordinates with respect to a pair of orthogonal cartesian axes OX1, OX2 (Fig. 0.1) The distance between a pair of points P = (x1, x2), Q = (y1, y2) is given by the formula

[d(P, Q)]² = (x1 – y1)² + (x2 – y2)².

The lines of our plane are sets of points which satisfy equations of the form

a1X1 + a2X2 + a3 = 0.

We shall use upper-case letters P, Q, A, B, . . . for points and lower-case letters l, m, n, . . . for lines.

We can set up a coordinate system on any given line m, so that if the point A has coordinate xA, the point B has coordinate xB, then

| xB – xA| = d(A, B)

for all points A, B on the line.

Definitions. A point B is between A and C, where A ≠ C if

d(A, B) + d(B, C) = d(A, C)

Fig. 0.1

Fig. 0.2

Note that this definition implies that B lies on the line AC (Fig. 0.2). The points A and C together with all points B between A and B form the segment AC. The half-line m′ with endpoint O is defined by two points O, A in line m (A ≠ O) as the set of all points A′ of m such that O is not between A and A′. A half-line is sometimes called a ray.

If A, B, C are three distinct points the three segments AB, BC and CA are said to form a triangle ABC with sides AB, BC and CA and vertices A, B and C. If A, B and C are on the same line the triangle is said to be degenerate. A non-degenerate triangle is a proper triangle.

If ABC is a proper triangle, the sum of the lengths of any two sides is always greater than the length of the third side, and so we have

This inequality is often referred to as the triangle inequality. In fact, we can say that if A, B, C are any three points,

d(A, B) + d(B, Cd(A, C),

with equality if and only if the point B lies on the line AC between A and C, that is in the segment AC.

An angle is formed by three ordered points A, O, B, where A ≠ O, B ≠ O. The point O is called the vertex of the angle. The half-lines m = OA, n = OB, through any point O can be put into 1:1 correspondence with the real numbers so that if am corresponds to m, an to n, then the measure of AOBAOB, is an – am (mod 2π).

This can be done, for example, by drawing a circle, center O, and putting the half-lines through O into 1:1 correspondence with the points in which half-lines through O intersect the circle (Fig. 0.3).

Fig. 0.3

AOB BOAAOB BOA. We call such angles sensed or oriented angles. We can also call them signed angles.

We know that in Euclidean geometry, for any triangle ABC,

Similar triangles occur frequently in our work. Triangles ABC, A′B′C′ are said to be similar if for some constant k > 0,

d(A′, B′) = kd(A, B),d(B′, C′) = kd(B, C),d(C′, A′) = kd(C, A)

and

when the triangles are said to be directly similar; or corresponding sides are proportional, but corresponding angles are the negatives of each other, when the triangles are said to be indirectly similar.

If in two triangles ABC and A′B′C′ we have d(A′, B′) = kd(A, B), d(A′, C′) = kd(A, CB′A′C′ BAC, then the triangles are either directly or indirectly similar.

If, in the above definition, k = 1, the triangles are congruent.

The theorem that, if in two triangles ABC, A′B′C′ we are given d(A, B) = d(A′, B′), d(A, C) = d(A′, C′BAC B′A′C′ the triangles are congruent, is often referred to as the side-angle-side theorem, or SAS-theorem, for short.

A point O on a given line m is the vertex of two half-lines. We may assign positive coordinates to the points of one half-line, taking O as origin, and negative coordinates to points of the other half-line. If A, B are any two points on m, we define the sensed, or directed segment AB as

, and for any three points A, B, C on m we have

If A, B, P are distinct points on m (collinear points), we define the ratio in which P divides the segment AB . This ratio is independent of the position of the origin of coordinates O on the line, and independent also of which of the two half-lines vertex O is chosen to have positive coordinates. If P lies between A and B the division is said to be internal; otherwise the division is said to be external. We note that for external division the ratio is negativeby r, we note that if P , then –1 < r < 0; if P lies between A and B then 0 < r < ∞. If P then – ∞ < r < –1. If A and B are distinct and P coincides with A. If A and B are distinct and P coincides with B .

We note that for any given r, where – ∞ < r < +∞, the point P is uniquely defined, so that there is a 1:1 correspondence between the positions of P on the line and the real numbers. As P moves along the line in either direction, the position-ratio r tends towards the value –1. This suggests that the line has a unique point at infinity.

Of course points at infinity have no place in Euclidean geometry, but it is very useful to extend our ideas of points so as to embrace this concept.

In Euclidean geometry of the plane a unique line can be drawn to contain two given distinct points, and two distinct lines either intersect in a unique point, or they do not intersect at all, in which case they are said to be parallel. Through a given point which does not lie on a given line there is a unique line parallel to the given line.

We introduce a new kind of point, which we call an ideal point. This is defined to be the set of lines parallel to a given linelies on a given line l if and only if l . If now Q is an ordinary point of the plane, there is a unique line which contains Q , since there is a unique parallel through Q . Two lines now always intersect, either in an ordinary point, or in an ideal point. We say that the set of ideal points lie on an ideal line ω, and we sometimes refer to this as the line at infinity in the plane we are considering. We see that any line l intersects ω , and so it is reasonable to call the set of ideal points an ideal line. These ideas are discussed algebraically in §80.1.

Finally, it is sometimes convenient to assign a sense, or orientation to the areas of triangles lying in the Euclidean plane. A triangle ABC will be considered as positive or negative according as the tracing of the perimeter from A to B to C to A is counter–clockwise or clockwise. Such a signed triangular area is called a sensed or signed , in contrast to the unsigned area ΔABC.

We note that the area of triangle ABC is given by the determinant

where A = (x1, x2), B = (y1, y2) and C = (z1, z2), and this determinant is positive if the sense of rotation from the axis OX1 to the axis OX2 is counterclockwise, that is in the same sense as the tracing of the perimeter of triangle ABC. This determinant is a function of the vertices of a triangle which enables us to compare the orientation of different triangles. It will appear again when we consider geometries as the set of properties unchanged by linear transformations of the plane.

Circles will figure largely in this book, and although we shall prove many of the properties we wish to use, we shall assume the fundamental property that if A, B, C, D are four points in the Euclidean plane, a necessary and sufficient condition that they are concyclic (that is, that they lie on a circle) is the equation

These are directed angles, and the relation is to hold mod π.

0.2The affine plane

We consider a plane in which the points are given by ordered pairs of real numbers (x1, x2), and the line joining the points P = (x1, x2) and Q = (y1, y2) is defined as the set of points R where

and k1, k2 vary over all real values, but k1 + k2 ≠ 0. If we eliminate the ratio k1:k2, we find that the coordinates (X1, X2) of R satisfy a linear equation of the form

a1X1 + a2X2 + a3 = 0.

If we take the values (0, 1) and (1, 0) respectively of (k1, k2) we see that the set of points R contains both P and Q, and the line can be described as the line PQ. Without introducing the idea of distance between a pair of points we can say that the point R is between P and Q if the ratio k1: k2 is positive, and we can also define the ratio of the signed lengths

We do not compare lengths between points in general, that is we have no general formula for the distance between two points. But besides being able to compare signed lengths between pairs of points on the same line, we can also compare them on parallel lines.

The two lines a1X1 + a2X2 + a3 = 0, a1X1 + a2X2 + b3 = 0, where a3 ≠ b3, have no point of intersection, and are said to be parallel. We can show that through a given point P which does not lie on a given line l there is a unique line parallel to l. Suppose that the points, P, Q lie on a line l and the points P′, Q′ lie on a parallel line l′. If the line PP′ is parallel to the line QQare equal. If PP′ intersects QQ′ at the point Vto equal either of these ratios.

We do not define angle–measure in this geometry, which is called affine geometry, but we shall see in §§ 1.1–6.1, where we use vectors to prove theorems, that many theorems true in the Euclidean plane are also true in the affine plane.

We can introduce ideal points into the affine plane exactly as we did for the Euclidean plane, and talk of the line at infinity. The affine plane will appear again (§80.2), considered from another point of view.

Finally, we can compare areas in the affine plane, using the same formula for the area of a triangle ABC that is used in Euclidean geometry (§0.1). This involves the possibility of comparing the orientation of two triangles ABC, A′B′C′, the orientation being the same if the ratio of the corresponding determinants is positive, and opposite if the ratio of the two determinant functions is negative.

0.3Notation

It is, of course, desirable to have a consistent notation, but in geometry this is not always possible. The important thing is that the reader should always understand the notation used at any given moment! We shall refer to the unique line which contains the points A and B as the line AB, but we shall usually shorten d(A, B), which is the distance between the points A and B in the Euclidean plane to |ABimage for the signed length |AB| in the Euclidean plane, and we can compare parallel signed segments in the affine plane. If we refer to the angles of a triangle ABC BCACAB ABC, we shall sometimes, for brevity, refer to them as the angles C, A and B , Â .

We shall denote points by upper-case letters, P, Q, R and so on, and lines by lower-case letters, l, m, n and so on. If AB and CD are two lines which intersect at a point V, we shall write V = AB ∩ CD. In three-dimensional space, Euclidean, affine or projective, we shall denote the plane through the points A, B and C by ABC, or, if it makes reading easier, by (ABC). We shall also do this in space of n dimensions. If we wish to refer to the plane defined by a point P and a line l which does not contain P, we shall write [Pl]. In all cases it is hoped that the text will amplify the notation, so that there is no misunderstanding.

The situation with regard to coordinate axes is made troublesome by the fact that for centuries mathematicians have talked of Ox and Oy-axes, and Ox, Oy and Oz-axes in three dimensions. We shall use both this notation and a more modern one, talking about the OX1 and OX2-axes, or the OX1, OX2 and OX3-axes. We have tried to be consistent in using (X0, X1, . . ., Xn) to denote a variable point, and (x0, x1, . . ., xn) to denote a given point in projective space Sn, but purists will probably be able to detect lapses.

0.4Complex numbers

Associated with every point (a, b) of the Euclidean plane, where the axes are the usual orthogonal cartesian axes, there is a complex number a + ib, where we may regard i as an algebraic symbol which obeys the usual laws of algebra, but in addition the law i² = –1.

This is one approach to complex numbers. We may also introduce complex numbers as ordered pairs (a, b) of real numbers, and say that two complex numbers (a, b) and (c, d) are equal if and only if a = c and b = d. This is sometimes called: ‘equating the real and imaginary parts of the two sides of an equation in complex numbers’. We define addition thus:

(a, b) + (c,d) = (a + c, b + d)

and scalar multiplication k(a, b), where k is real, thus:

k (a, b) = (ka, kb).

We define the multiplication (a, b) . (c, d) of two complex numbers as follows:

(a, b) . (c,d) = (ac – bd, ad + bc).

With these rules, we soon see that the usual laws of algebra, the associative law, the distributive law and the commutative law, hold. There is an obvious zero complex number, the number (0, 0), and we have

(a, b) + (0, 0) = (a, b), and (a, b) . (0, 0) = (0, 0),

so that we can define –(a, b) to be (–a, –b), and

(a, b) – (a, b) = (0, 0).

If (a, b) is not equal to (0, 0), we can find an inverse, that is a number (c, d) such that (a, b) . (c, d) = (1, 0). We choose (1, 0) as our unity because it is clear that (a, b) . (1, 0) = (a, b). The inverse of (a, b) may be calculated as (a/(a² + b²), –b/(a² + b²)), and it is immediately verified that this is indeed the inverse.

If we consider the special complex numbers (a, 0), we see that since

(a, 0 ) + (c, 0 ) = (a + c, 0 ) and (a, 0 ). (c, 0 ) = (ac, 0 ),