Euclid
Euclid
Euclid
Earliest Fragment c. AD 100 Full copy, Vatican, 9th C Pop-up edition, 1500s
4 In fact Euclid attempted to define these: ‘A point is that which has no part,’ and ‘A line has length but no breadth.’
5 In Euclid, an axiom is considered somewhat more general than a postulate. Here the postulates contain the geometry.
8
The first three postulates describe the intuitive ruler and compass constructions. P4 allows Euclid to
compare angles at different locations. P5 is usually known as the parallel postulate.
Euclid’s system doesn’t quite fit the modern standard. Some axioms are vague (what are ‘things’?)
and we’ll consider several more-serious shortcomings later. For now we clarify two issues and intro-
duce some notation.
Segments To Euclid, a line had finite extent—we call such a (line) segment. The segment joining points
A, B is denoted AB. In modern geometry, a line extends as far as is permitted.
Congruence Euclid uses equal where modern mathematicians say congruent. We’ll express, say, con-
gruent angles as ∠ ABC ∼= ∠ DEF rather than ∠ ABC = ∠ DEF.
Theorem 2.1 (I. 1). Problem: to construct an equilateral triangle on a given segment.
9
Parallel Lines: Construction & Existence
Definition 2.2. Lines are parallel if they do not intersect. Segments are parallel if no extensions of
them intersect.
In Euclid, a line is not parallel to itself. The next result is one of the most important in Euclidean
geometry, in that it describes how to create a parallel line through a given point.
Euclid did not quantify angles numerically: δ > α means that α is congruent to some angle inside δ.
The proof in fact constructs a parallel (CE) to AB through C, as the next result shows.
Theorem 2.4 (I. 27). If a line falls on two other lines such that the
alternate angles (α, β) are congruent, then the two lines are parallel. α
β
The alternate angles in the exterior angle theorem are those at A and C: CE really is parallel to AB.
Proof. If the lines were not parallel, they would meet on one A
side. WLOG suppose they meet on the right side at C. α
The angle β at B, being exterior to △ ABC, must be greater than β
the angle α at A (I. 16): contradiction. B C
Euclid combines this with the vertical angles theorem (I. 15) to finish the first half of Book I.
Corollary 2.5 (I. 28). If a line falling on two other lines makes con-
gruent angles, then the two lines are parallel.
Thus far, Euclid uses only postulates P1–P4. In any model in which these hold:
10
Parallel Lines: Uniqueness, Angle-sums & Playfair’s Postulate
Euclid finally invokes the parallel postulate to prove the converse of I. 27, showing that the congruent
alternate angle approach is the only way to have parallel lines.
Theorem 2.6 (I. 29). If a line falls on two parallel lines, then the alternate angles are congruent.
The most well-known result about triangles is now in our grasp, that the interior angles sum to a
straight edge. Euclid words this slightly differently.
Theorem 2.7 (I. 32). If one side of a triangle is extended, the exterior angle is congruent to the sum
of the opposite interior angles.
The parallel postulate is stated in the negative (angles don’t sum to a straight edge, therefore lines are
not parallel). Though we cannot be sure, Euclid possibly chose this formulation in order to facilitate
proofs by contradiction. Unfortunately the effect is to obscure the meaning of the parallel postulate.
Here is a more modern interpretation.
11
In fact the postulates are equivalent.
Theorem 2.9. In the presence of Euclid’s first four postulates, Playfair’s postulate and the parallel
postulate (P5) are equivalent.
(Playfair ⇒ P5) We prove the contrapositive. Assume postulates P1–P4 are true and that P5 is false.
Using quantifiers, and with reference to the picture in I. 29, we restate the parallel postulate:
P5: ∀ pairs of lines ℓ, m and ∀ crossing lines n, β + γ < 180° =⇒ ℓ, m not parallel.
Non-Euclidean Geometry
That Euclid waited so long before invoking the uniqueness of parallels suggests he was trying to
establish as much as he could about triangles and basic geometry in its absence. By contrast, every-
thing from I. 29 onwards relies on the parallel postulate, including the proof that the angle sum in a
triangle is 180°. For centuries, many mathematicians believed, though none could prove it, that such
a fundamental fact about triangles must be true independent of the parallel postulate.
Loosely speaking, a non-Euclidean geometry is a model for which a parallel through an off-line point
either doesn’t exist or is non-unique. It wasn’t until the 17–1800s and the development of hyperbolic
geometry (Chapter 4) that a model was found in which Euclid’s first four postulates hold but for which
the parallel postulate is false.6
We shall eventually see that every triangle in hyperbolic geometry has angle
sum less than 180°, though this will require a lot of work! For a more eas-
ily visualized non-Euclidean geometry consider the sphere. A rubber band
stretched between three points on its surface describes a spherical triangle: an
example with angle sum 270° is drawn. A similar game can be played on a
saddle-shaped surface: as in hyperbolic geometry, ‘triangles’ will have angle
sum less than 180°.
6 Thisshows that the parallel postulate is independent; in fact all Euclid’s postulates are independent. They are also
consistent (the ‘usual’ points and lines in the plane are a model), but incomplete: a sample undecidable is in Exercise 5.
12
Pythagoras’ Theorem
Following his discussion of parallels, Euclid shows that parallelograms with the same base and
height are equal (in area) (I. 33–41), before providing constructions of parallelograms and squares
(I. 42–46). Some of this is in Exercise 2. Immediately afterwards comes the capstone of Book I.
Theorem 2.10 (I. 47 Pythagoras’ Theorem). The square on the hypotenuse of a right triangle equals
(has the same area as) the sum of the squares on the other sides.
Euclid finishes Book I with the converse, which we state without proof. Euclid’s argument is very
sneaky—look it up!
Theorem 2.11 (I. 48). If the (areas of the) squares on two sides of a triangle equal the (area of the)
square on the third side, then the triangle has a right-angle opposite the third side.
The Elements contains thirteen books. Much of the remaining twelve discuss further geometric con-
structions, including in three dimensions. There is also a healthy dose of basic number theory includ-
ing what is now known as the Euclidean algorithm.
While undoubtedly a masterpiece of logical reasoning, Euclid’s presentation has several flaws. Most
problematic is his reliance on pictorial reasoning: for instance, he ‘proves’ the SAS and SSS congru-
ence theorems (I. 4 & 8) by laying one triangle on top of another, a process not justified by his axioms
(look it up online or Byrne). In a modern sense, Euclid’s approach is part axiomatic system and part
model: his reasoning requires a visual/physical representation of lines, circles, etc. Because of these
issues, we now turn to a more modern description of Euclidean geometry, courtesy of David Hilbert.
13
Exercises 2.1. 1. (a) Prove the vertical angle theorem (I. 15): if two lines cut one another, opposite
angles are congruent.
(Hint: This is one place where you will need to use postulate 4 regarding right-angles)
(b) Use part (a) to complete the proof of the exterior angle theorem: i.e., explain why β < δ.
2. To help prove Pythagoras’, Euclid makes use of the following results. Prove them as best as
you can. Full rigor is tricky, but the pictures should help!
D C F D E C
D
C A B
A B A B
Theorem I. 11 Theorem I. 46 Theorem I. 35
3. Consider spherical geometry (page 12), where lines are paths of shortest distance (great circles).
If point P lies inside and Q lies outside a circle α, then the segment PQ intersects α.
By considering the set of rational points in the plane Q2 = {( x, y) : x, y ∈ Q}, and making a
sensible definition of line and circle, show that the line-circle continuity property is undecidable
within Euclid’s system.
6. The standard proof of the converse of Pythagoras’ theorem (I. 48) is, in fact, a corollary of the
original! Look it up and explain the argument as best you can.
14
2.2 Hilbert’s Axioms I: Incidence and Order
The long process of identifying and correcting the errors and omissions in Euclid’s Elements culmi-
nated in the 1899 publication of David Hilbert’s Grundlagen der Geometrie (Foundations of Geometry).
In the next two sections we consider some of the details of Hilbert’s approach, providing a modern
and logically superior description of Euclidean geometry.
Hilbert’s axioms for plane geometry7 are listed on the next page. The undefined terms consist of two
types of object (points and lines), and three relations (between ∗, on ∈ and congruence ∼
=). For brevity
we’ll often use/abuse set notation, viewing a line as a set of points, though this is not necessary. At
various places, definitions and notations are required.
The pictures represent these notions in the usual model of Cartesian geometry.
B C
B B
A A A A B
←
→ −→
Line AB Segment AB Ray AB Triangle △ ABC
A C m
A
B
A
ℓ B ℓ A B ℓ
Same side Opposite sides Angle ∠ BAC Intersection A ∈ ℓ ∩ m
7 Like Euclid, Hilbert also covered 3D geometry—we only give the axioms for plane geometry. With regard to our
desired properties (Definition 1.6), his system is about as good as can be hoped. Essentially one only one model exists,
which is almost the same thing as completeness. In the absence of the continuity axiom, the axioms are consistent; in
line with Gödel’s theorems (1.8), consistency cannot be proved once continuity is included. As stated, the axioms are not
quite independent, though this can be remedied: O-3 does not require existence (follows from Pasch’s axiom), C-1 does
not require uniqueness (follows from uniqueness in C-4) and C-6 can be weakened slightly.
15
Hilbert’s Axioms for Plane Geometry
Undefined terms Axioms of Congruence
1. Points: use capital letters, A, B, C . . . C-1 (Segment transference) Let A, B be distinct
and r a ray based at A′ . Then there exists a
2. Lines: use lower case letters, ℓ, m, n, . . .
unique point B′ ∈ r for which AB ∼ = A′ B′ .
3. On: A ∈ ℓ is read ‘A lies on ℓ’ ∼
Moreover AB = BA.
4. Between: A ∗ B ∗ C is read ‘B lies between C-2 If AB ∼
= EF and CD ∼
= EF, then AB ∼
= CD.
A and C’
C-3 If A ∗ B ∗ C, A′ ∗ B′ ∗ C ′ , AB ∼= A′ B′ and
5. Congruence: ∼= is a binary relation on BC ∼= B′ C ′ , then AC ∼
= A′ C ′ .
segments or angles
Definitions: angle ∠ ABC
Axioms of Incidence
C-4 (Angle transference) Given ∠ BAC and
−−′→′ −−→
I-1 For any distinct A, B there exists a line ℓ A B , there exists a unique ray A′ C ′ on
on which lie A, B. ←−→
a given side of A′ B′ for which ∠ BAC ∼ =
I-2 There is at most one line through distinct ∠ B′ A′ C ′ .
A, B (A and B both on the line). C-5 If ∠ ABC ∼
= ∠GH I and ∠ DEF ∼ = ∠GH I,
←
→ then ∠ ABC ∼
= ∠ DEF. Moreover, ∠ ABC ∼
=
Notation: line AB through A and B
∠CBA.
I-3 On every line there exist at least two dis-
tinct points. There exist at least three C-6 (Side-angle-side) Given triangles △ ABC
points not all on the same line. and △ A′ B′ C ′ , if AB ∼ = A′ B′ , AC ∼
= A′ C ′ ,
∼ ′ ′ ′
and ∠ BAC = ∠ B A C , then the triangles
are congruent.8
Axioms of Order
8 Its sides/angles are congruent in pairs. We extend congruence to other geometric objects similarly.
16
Axioms of Incidence: Finite Geometries
The axioms of incidence describe the relation on. An incidence geometry is any model satisfying axioms
I-1, I-2, I-3. Perhaps surprisingly, there exist incidence geometries with finitely many points!
Lemma 2.14. If distinct lines intersect, then they do so in exactly one point.
Proof. Suppose A, B are distinct points of intersection. By axiom I-2, there is at most one line through
A and B. Contradiction.
Lemma 2.15. Given any point, there exist at least two lines on which it lies.
The proof is an exercise. While incidence geometry is fun, our main goal is to understand Euclidean
geometry, so we move on to the next set of axioms.
Axioms of Order: Sides of a Line, Pasch’s Axiom & the Crossbar Theorem
The axioms of order describe the ternary relation between. Their inclusion in Hilbert’s axioms is due
in no small part to the work of Moritz Pasch, after whom Pasch’s axiom (O-4, c. 1882) is named. This
axiom is very powerful; in particular, it permits us to define the interiors of several geometric objects,
and to see that these are non-empty.
We leave the proof to Exercise 5. By inducting on the Lemma, every segment contains infinitely many
points, whence the above finite geometries are not valid models once the order axioms are included.
17
To get much further, it is necessary to establish that a line has precisely two sides (Definition 2.12). This
concept lies behind several of Euclid’s arguments, without being properly defined in the Elements.
Theorem 2.17 (Plane Separation). A line ℓ separates all points not on ℓ into two half-planes: the two
sides of ℓ. To be explicit, suppose none of the points A, B, C lie on ℓ, then:
1. If A, B lie on the same side of ℓ and B, C lie on the same side, then A, C lie on the same side.
2. If A, B lie on opposite sides and B, C lie on opposite sides, then A, C lie on the same side.
3. If A, B lie on opposite sides and B, C lie on the same side, then A, C lie on opposite sides.
B A A
A ℓ
C ℓ
C ℓ
B
B C
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Interior points permit us to compare angles: if I is interior to ∠ BAC, then ∠ BAI < ∠ BAC has obvious
meaning without resorting to numerical angle measure.
Proof. Given ∠ BAC, consider any interior point I of the segment BC. This plainly lies on the same
←
→ ←→
side of AB as C and on the same side of AC as B.
18
Theorem 2.20 (Crossbar Theorem). Suppose I is interior to ∠ BAC. C
−
→ ℓ
Then AI intersects BC.
In particular, if a line passes through a vertex and an interior point of B
a triangle, then it intersects the side opposite the vertex.
A
← → ← →
Proof. Extend AB to a point D such that A lies between B and D (O-2). Since C is not on BD = AB we
←
→
have a triangle △ BCD. Since AI intersects one edge of △ BCD at A and does not cross any vertices
(think about why. . . ), Pasch says it intersects one of the other edges (BC or CD) at some point M.
←
→ ← → ←→
The result follows from applying plane separation to the lines AB = BD and AC. First observe:
←→ ← → ←→
Since I, M lie on the same side of AB = BD as C, it follows that I M does not intersect AB.
←→
Since A, I, M are collinear and A ∈ AB, it follows that A ∈ / I M.
I M I
M
D A B D A B
correct arrangement9 contradiction
←→
Suppose, for contradiction, that M ∈ CD. Relative to AC:
19
Exercises 2.2. 1. Label the vertices in the Fano plane 1 through 7 (any way you like). As we did in
Example 2.13 for the 3-point geometry, describe each line in terms of its points.
3. Give a model for each of the 5-point incidence geometries. How many are there?
(Hint: remember that order doesn’t matter, so the only issue is how many points lie on each line)
←→
4. Consider the proof of the crossbar theorem. Explain how we know that AI does not contain
any of the vertices of △ BCD.
5. You are given distinct points A, B. Using the axioms of incidence and order and Lemma 2.14
(follows from I-2), show the existence of each of the points C, D, E, F in the picture in alphabetical
order. Hence conclude the existence of a point F lying between A and B (Lemma 2.16).
During your construction, address the following issues: D
←
→
(a) Explain why D does not lie on AB.
C
(b) Explain why E does not lie on △ ABD.
←→ A F B
(c) Explain why E ̸= C (whence CE exists).
(d) Explain why F lies on AB and not on BD. E
6. We complete the proof of the plane separation theorem (2.17).
C
(a) Prove part 3 (it is almost a verbatim application of Pasch’s axiom).
(b) Suppose a line ℓ intersects all three sides of △ ABC but no vertices. D
ℓ
This results in a very strange picture (we’ve labelled the intersec- E
tions D, E, F and WLOG chosen D ∗ E ∗ F).
←→
Apply Pasch’s axiom to △ DBF and AC to obtain a contradiction. A
Hence establish part 2 of the plane separation theorem. F B
20
2.3 Hilbert’s Axioms II: Congruence
Hilbert’s congruence axioms address two primary issues in Euclid.
1. Euclid’s use of equal is confusing. In Hilbert, segments/angles are now equal only when they
are precisely the same (this amounts to the reflexivity part of the next result).
2. Euclid’s frequent and unjustified use of pictorial reasoning. We previously discussed Euclid’s
erroneous approach to the SAS and SSS triangle congruence theorems. It was eventually real-
ized that one of the triangle congruences has to be an axiom: SAS is Hilbert’s C-6.
AB ∼
= A′ B′ and AB ∼
= A′ B′ =⇒ AB ∼
= AB
By O-3, any two segments are comparable: given AB & CD, precisely one of the following holds,
C-3 says that congruence respects the ‘addition’ of adjacent congruent segments. Unique angle trans-
fer, comparison and addition follow similarly from axiom C-4 and Definition 2.18 (interior points).
Neither Hilbert nor Euclid use or require an absolute notion of length/angle-measure: the compari-
son AB < CD does not indicate a relationship between numerical quantities (lengths). Introducing
numerical length requires the inclusion of the real numbers (and thus far more axioms)—for purity
reasons, we postpone this until Section 2.5.
21
The Triangle Congruence Theorems: SAS, ASA, SSS & SAA
Hilbert assumes side-angle-side (SAS) and proceeds to prove the remainder. Here is the first of these;
we’ll cover SSS momentarily and SAA in Exercise 6.
Theorem 2.23 (Angle-Side-Angle/ASA, Euclid I. 26, case I). Suppose △ ABC and △ DEF satisfy
∠ ABC ∼
= ∠ DEF, AB ∼
= DE, ∠ BAC ∼
= ∠EDF
Hilbert’s approach modifies Euclid’s: instead of laying △ ABC on top of △ DEF, he creates a new
triangle △ DEG ∼= △ ABC and proves that G = F.
−
→ C
Proof. Segment transfer provides the unique point G ∈ EF such that EG ∼
= BC.
Theorem 2.24 (Euclid I. 5). An isosceles triangle has congruent base angles.
Isosceles means equal legs: two sides of the triangle are congruent. The remaining side is the base.
Euclid’s argument relies on a famously complicated construction (look it up!). Hilbert does things
more speedily and sneakily, by relabelling the original triangle and applying SAS.
A′ := A, B′ := C, C′ := B
Observe:
• ∠ BAC ∼
= ∠CAB (axiom C-5) =⇒ ∠ BAC ∼
= ∠ B′ A′ C ′ .
• AB ∼
= AC =⇒ AB ∼
= A′ B′ and AC ∼
= A′ C ′ .
SAS says that ∠ ABC ∼
= ∠ A′ B′ C ′ ∼
= ∠ ACB. B = C′ C = B′
22
Dropping a Perpendicular As with the majority of Book I, Euclid accomplishes this using circle
intersections.10 Hilbert instead uses segment/angle transference and the concept of sidedness.
Suppose we are given a line ℓ and a point P not on ℓ. Our goal is to P
construct a point M ∈ ℓ such that PM intersects ℓ in a right-angle.
←
→
Let A, B be distinct points on ℓ (axiom I-3) so that ℓ = AB.
By axioms C-4 and C-1, we may transfer AP to the other side of ℓ at
A, creating a new point Q.
Since P and Q lie on opposite sides of ℓ, the line intersects PQ at some
point M. There are two cases to consider. ℓ
A B M
• In the generic case M ̸= A (pictured), SAS applied to △ MAP
and △ MAQ shows that ∠ AMP ∼ = ∠ AMQ. Since these angles
sum to a straight edge (PQ), they are both right-angles.
A generalization of this construction facilitates a corrected argument for the SSS triangle congruence.
Theorem 2.25 (Side-Side-Side/SSS, Euclid I. 8). Suppose △ ABC and △ DEF have sides congruent
in pairs:
AB ∼
= DE, BC ∼
= EF, AC ∼
= DF
The strategy is similar to the proof of ASA. Hilbert creates a new triangle △ DEG ∼
= △ ABC, though
←→
this time with G on the opposite side of DE to F.
←
→ B
Proof. Transfer ∠ BAC to D on the other side of DE from F to
obtain G (axioms C-4 and C-1).
SAS (AB = ∼ DE, ∠ BAC = ∼ ∠EDG, AC = ∼ DG) shows that
∼ ∼ ∼
EG = BC = EF. Otherwise said, △ DEG = △ ABC. F C
Join FG to produce isosceles triangles △ FDG and △ FEG
with base FG, both with congruent angles at F and G.
Sum angles at F and G and apply SAS (DF = ∼ DG, ∠ DFE ∼
=
∼ ∼ D E A
∠ DGE, EF = EG) to see that △ DEF = △ DEG.
We conclude that △ ABC ∼
= △ DEG ∼
= △ DEF, as required.
To be completely formal, we should also carefully deal with
the situations where the sum is a subtraction or the triangle
is right-angled at A or B. G
23
Exterior Angle Theorem (Thm. 2.3, I. 16) Euclid’s approach uses a bisector which he obtains from
circles. Hilbert does things a little differently.
Proof. Given △ ABC, extend AB to D such that AC ∼ = BD. For clarity, we label angles with Greek let-
ters as in the first picture below. We show that γ < δ by proving that the alternatives are impossible.
C C
γ ϵ η ϵ
α β δ α β δ
A B D A E B D
Step 1: δ ∼
= γ is a contradiction Step 2: δ < γ is a contradiction
Take the vertical angle to δ at B and repeat the argument to see that α < δ.
The proof also shows that the sum of any two angles in a triangle is strictly less than a straight edge:
α + β < δ + β = 180°.
Is Euclid now fixed? Almost! In the exercises we show how the following may be achieved:
• Construction of an isosceles triangle on a segment AB. With this one can construct segment
and angle bisectors (Euclid I. 9+10).
• SAA congruence (Euclid I. 26, case II), the last remaining triangle congruence theorem.
We’ve now recovered almost all of Book I prior to the application of the parallel postulate. Including
Playfair’s axiom completes the remainder, including Pythagoras’, all without circles!
Exercises 2.3. Except for question 8, answer everything without reference to the continuity axiom,
circles, or the uniqueness of parallels (e.g., Playfair’s axiom, (tri)angle sum = 180°).
1. Draw pictures to suggest why you don’t expect Angle-Angle-Angle (AAA) and Side-Side-
Angle (SSA) to be triangle congruence theorems.
2. Use Hilbert’s axioms C-4 and C-5 to prove that congruence of angles is an equivalence relation.
3. (a) Use ASA to prove that if the base angles are congruent then a triangle is isosceles.
(b) Find an alternative argument that relies the exterior angle theorem.
(Hint: this is essentially the same as the proof of Exercise 5 (a))
(c) Explain why the base angles of an isosceles triangle are acute (less than a right-angle).
24
←
→
4. Given AB, axiom I-3 says ∃C ̸∈ AB. C D
If △ ABC is not isosceles, then WLOG assume ∠ ABC < ∠ BAC.
←
→
Transfer ∠ ABC to A to produce D on the same side of AB as C with M
∠ ABC ∼
= ∠ BAD, BC ∼= AD
−→ −→
(a) Explain why rays AD and BC intersect (at some point M).
(b) Why is △ MAB isosceles? A B
(c) Describe how to produce the perpendicular bisector of AB.
(d) Explain how to construct an angle bisector using the above discussion.
25
2.4 Circles and Continuity
Definition 2.26. Let O and R be distinct points. The circle C with center O and R
A
radius OR is the collection of points A such that OA ∼
= OR.
A point P lies inside the circle C if P = O or OP < OR.
A point Q lies outside if OR < OQ.
P O
Since all segments are comparable, any point lies inside, outside or on a given
circle. Q
A major weakness of Euclid is that many of his proofs rely on circle intersections, rather than lines.
To use circles in this manner requires the Axiom of Continuity. This much more technical than the
other axioms. It is likely for this reason that Hilbert barely mentions circles, instead wanting to build
as much geometry as possible using only the simplest axioms.
Here are the facts necessary before Euclid’s approach can be followed.
One shows that Σ1 and Σ2 satisfy the assumptions of the axiom. The C
unique point O then exists and is shown to lie on C itself. Some of this are
in Exercise 6. The circular continuity principle is harder.
What is perhaps more interesting is to consider a geometry in which the axiom of continuity is false.
26
Equilateral triangles We can finally correct Euclid’s proof of the first proposition of the Elements!
Theorem 2.29 (Euclid I.1). An equilateral triangle many be constructed on a given segment AB.
Proof. Following Euclid, take the circles α and β centered at A and B, with radii AB.
Axiom O-2: ∃ D such that A ∗ B ∗ D. P
−→
Axiom C-1: let C ∈ BD be such that BC ∼ = AB.
Circular continuity principle: β contains A (inside α) and
C (outside α) so the circles intersect in two points P, Q. A B C D
Since P lies on both circles (and is therefore distinct from
A and B), we have AB ∼ = AP ∼ = BP whence △ ABC is α β
equilateral. Q
If one allows Playfair’s axiom on unique parallels, Euclid’s result can be proved without using circles
or the continuity axiom (see Exercise 2.3.8). Nevertheless, we are finally able to say that every result
in Book I of Euclid is correct, even if his original axioms and arguments are insufficient!
Since these ideas shouldn’t be new, most of the details are left as exercises.
Theorem 2.31 (III. 20). The central angle is twice the inscribed angle: ∠ AOB = 2∠ APB.
For a sketch proof, join OP, breaking △ ABP into three isosceles triangles and count angle sums.
Corollary 2.32. 1. (III. 21) If inscribed triangles share a side, the opposite angles are congruent.
2. (III. 22) An inscribed quadrilateral has opposite angles supplementary (summing to 180°).
27
A
Theorem 2.33. Any triangle has a unique circumcircle.
C
This is similar to III. 1: construct the perpendicular bisectors of
two sides as in the picture. B
O
Definition 2.34. A line is tangent to a circle if it intersects the circle exactly once.
Theorem 2.35 (III. 18, 19 (part)). A line is tangent to a circle if and only if it is perpendicular to the
radius at an intersection point.
Theorem 2.36. Through a point outside a circle, exactly two lines are tangent to the circle.
28
2.5 Similar Triangles, Length and Trigonometry
In the geometry of Euclid & Hilbert, there are no numerical measures of length or angle. Relative
measure is built in (Definition 2.22), and we’ve denoted right-angles and straight edges by 90° & 180°
purely for convenience. To avoid continued frustration it is time we introduced explicit numerical
measure, though to do so properly requires more axioms!
L2 | AB| = |CD | ⇐⇒ AB ∼
= CD
L3 | AB| < |CD | ⇐⇒ AB < CD (Definition 2.22)
L4 If A ∗ B ∗ C, then | AB| + | BC | = | AC |
A1 To each ∠ ABC corresponds a unique degree measure m∠ ABC, a real number between 0 and 180
Don’t memorize these axioms, just observe how they fit your intuition. Angle measure in Euclidean
geometry has two notable differences from what you might expect:
• (A1) All angles measure strictly between 0° and 180°. A straight edge isn’t an angle, though
such is commonly denoted 180°, and there are no reflex angles (> 180°).
• (A2) Angles are non-oriented, measuring the same in reverse (m∠ ABC = m∠CBA).
The axioms for length and angle follow the same pattern except for us explicitly fixing the scale of
angle measure (A5). To do the same for length requires only a choice of a reference segment of length
1. The following is a consequence of the continuity axiom.
1. Given OP, there is a unique way to assign a length to every segment such that |OP| = 1.
29
Area Measure If we also include Playfair’s axiom, then the discussion at the end of Book I of Euclid
becomes valid, and rectangles can be defined (see e.g., Exercise 2.1.2).
Definition 2.39. The area (measure) of a rectangle is the product of its base and height (measures).
Given a length measure, a square with side length 1 necessarily has area 1. Relative to a base segment,
the height of a triangle is the length of the perpendicular dropped from the vertex.
Since every rectangle is a parallelogram and a triangle half a parallelogram, Eu-
clid’s discussion (Thm. I. 35) amounts to the familiar area formulæ:
1 h
area(parallelogram) = bh, area(triangle) = bh
2
While these expressions are nice to have, they are not necessary. Indeed every-
1
2 bh1 h1
thing that follows depends only on area ratios: e.g., 1 = h2 . b
2 bh2
Lemma 2.40. If triangles have congruent bases, then their areas are in the same ratio as their heights.
The same holds with the roles of heights and bases reversed.
Similarity and the AAA Theorem Similar triangles are the concern of Book VI of the Elements.
| AB| | BC | |CA| Y
| XY |
=
|YZ |
=
| ZX |
X
A
B
Euclid discusses these using non-numerical ratios of segments (e.g., AB : XY = BC : YZ). This is
unnecessarily confusing for modern readers, indeed some of the most difficult parts of the Elements
are where he describes what this should mean, particularly for irrational ratios (Books V & X).
Our primary result comes in two versions, where the second (which we’ll prove) is a special case of
the first.
The picture should convince you that 1 ⇒ 2 follows from the uniqueness of parallels (Playfair’s
axiom, Corollary 2.5 & Theorem 2.6). This reliance is crucial! We should not expect AAA similarity
in non-Euclidean geometry, and indeed shall see later that it is false in hyperbolic geometry (Chapter
4), where AAA is a theorem for congruent triangles! The converse (2 ⇒ 1) is left to Exercise 10.
30
Proof (AAA similarity, part 2). Suppose ℓ intersects △ ABC at A
points D, E as shown. Drop perpendiculars to create distances
h, k, d1 , d2 as indicated. We prove: k
h ℓ
ℓ is parallel to BC ⇐⇒ △ ABC ∼ △ ADE D E
d1 d2
(⇒) Suppose ℓ is parallel to BC. Playfair11
tells us that d1 = d2 . B C
By Lemma 2.40, triangles with the same height have areas
proportional to their bases:
| BD | area( BDE)
= (△ BDE, △ ADE have same height h)
| AD | area( ADE)
|CE| area(CDE)
= (△CDE, △ ADE have same height k)
| AE| area( ADE)
| AE|
= 1 =⇒ | AE| = | AG | =⇒ E = G
| AG |
11 d = d2 ⇐⇒ ℓ parallel to BC is Playfair! Compare Exercise 2.1.2 (Thm I. 46) on the construction of a square. . .
1
31
Applications of Similarity: Trigonometric Functions, Cevians and the Butterfly Theorem
We finish with several applications of similarity which hopefully give an idea of what can be done
without co-ordinates. None of these ideas were known to Euclid.
−
→
Definition 2.43. Given an acute angle ∠ ABC (m∠ ABC < 90°), drop a perpendicular from A to BC
at D so that ∠ ADB is a right-angle. Define
| AD | | BD |
sin ∠ ABC := cos ∠ ABC :=
| AB| | AB|
Early trigonometry dates to a few hundred years after Euclid, though the approach was different.12
Theorem 2.44. Angles have the same sine (cosine) if and only if they are congruent.
After Giovanni Ceva (1647–1734), a cevian is a segment joining a vertex to the opposite side of a
triangle. Here is a beautiful result from the height of Euclidean geometry—good luck trying to prove
it using co-ordinates!
Theorem 2.45 (Ceva’s Theorem). Given △ ABC and cevians AX, BY, CZ,
| BX | |CY | | AZ |
= 1 ⇐⇒ the cevians meet at a common point P
| XC | |YA| | ZB|
12 The ancient forerunners of sine and cosine were defined using chords of circles rather than triangles. The word
32
Theorem 2.46 (Butterfly Theorem). We are given the following data A
B
as in the picture:
M Q
• PQ is a chord of a circle with midpoint M. X Y
P
• AC and BD are chords meeting at M.
This beautiful result dates to 1803-5 and has several proofs. We present an argument relying on
similar triangles.
x2 x1 x2 | AX | | XD | | PX | | XQ| (z − x )(z + x ) z2 − x 2
= = = = =
y2 y1 y2 | BY | |YC | | PY | |YQ| (z + y)(z − y) z2 − y2
=⇒ x2 (z2 − y2 ) = y2 (z2 − x2 )
=⇒ x2 = y2 =⇒ x = y
as required.
Exercises 2.5. 1. Let AD and PQ be chords of a circle which intersect at X. Use similar triangles to
prove that
| AX | | XD | = | PX | | XQ|
13 The denominators are equal by applying the Exercise to the chords BC and PQ.
33
←
→
2. Let △ ABC have a right-angle at C. Drop a perpendicular from C to AB at D.
(a) Prove that D lies between A and B.
C
(b) Prove that you have three similar triangles
| AB| | AC | B
= ⇐⇒ △ ABC ∼ △ AGH C
| AG | | AH |
G
(Hint: construct BJ parallel to GH and appeal to AAA) H
4. By excluding the other possibilities, prove the converse of length axiom L4:
6. Prove the converse of Theorem 2.44: if sin ∠ ABC = sin ∠ A′ B′ C ′ , then ∠ ABC ∼
= ∠ A′ B′ C ′ .
(Hint: create right-triangles and prove they are similar. Label the side lengths o, a, h, etc.)
8. (a) A median of a triangle is a segment from a vertex to the midpoint of the opposite side. Use
Ceva’s Theorem to prove that the medians of a triangle meet at a point (the centroid).
(b) (Hard) Medians split a triangle into six sub-triangles. Prove that all have the same area.
(c) Prove that the centroid is exactly 2/3 of the distance along each median.
34