DOCSLIB.ORG

CONGRUENCE AXIOMS FCR ABSOLUTE GEOMETRY J. F. Rigby

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CONGRUENCE AXIOMS FCR ABSOLUTE GEOMETRY J. F. Rigby (communicated by H. G. Forder, 1 March, 1974) Introducti on The modem axiomatic foundations of Euclidean geometry were laid by Pasch (1882), Peano (18S9), Hilbert (1899), Veblen (1904), Moore (1908), etc, There are four groups of axioms: axioms of order, axioms of congruence, the axiom of continuity, and the Euclidean parallel axiom [5], (Hilbert’s extra axioms of incidence can be deduced from properly formulated axioms of order.) If we omit the parallel axiom, the remaining axioms give either Euclidean or hyperbolic geometry. Many important theorems can be proved using only the axioms of order and congruence, and the name absolute geometry is given to geometry in which we assume only these axioms. Over the years, some of the original modem axioms of congruence have been shown to be unnecessary, and other axioms have been weakened (see §3). Between 1967 and 1969, I wrote two papers in which the process of weakening was continued [12, 13] and two others giving counterexamples necessary for the discussion of the independence of the axioms [14, 15]. More recently I have realized that the slightly unsatisfactory concept of isometric points [12,§1] can be replaced by a more natural concept of related points, and as a result I have succeeded in replacing axiom C3* [12] by a special case of the axiom; I have discarded part of axiom C5a [12] which was purely negative in the sense that it applied only to a geometrical configuration which was later shown not to exist; also I have found an elementary way of proving thatevery segment has a mid-point, using only the weak axioms (§8); this new proof replaces my proof in 12[ ,§6], which used rather more sophisticated concepts and theorems from Bachmann's account of metric planes [l]. (I was previously unable to find a simple proof of this theorem even assuming Math. Chronicle 4(1975), 13-44 axiom Cl instead of Cl* [12].) I have incorporated these new developments in the present paper, which consists of a self-contained account of the proofs of the basic theorems of absolute geometry starting from the weak axioms of congruence Cl1, C2', C3', C4', C4a , C5‘, C5", which are stated below. We shall also consider the construction of congruent segments, perpendiculars and mid-points, using weak methods of construction. Some of the proofs from [12, 13] are repeated here for the sake of completeness with occasional modifications and improvements, and a few other parts of the text of [12, 13] are used here verbatim; other proofs, and the order of presentation of certain theorems, have had to be changed. We shall assume without comment various results of ordered geometry. For the axioms and theorems of ordered geometry see [5]. The symbol 1 [.ABC]' means ' 3 and C lie in the geometrical order ABC ' . 1. Initial axioms of congruence An absolute space is an ordered space [5, Chapter 2] together with a relation of congruence satisfying certain axioms of congruence. Congruence is a relation between ordered pairs of distinct points. (The term 'ordered pair' is used in its set-theoretical sense, and has no connection with geometrical order.) Intuitively, two segments are congruent if one can be picked up and placed exactly on the other, and the axioms of congruence are based on this idea; it is more con­ venient to use ordered pairs rather than segments in the axioms, but we must then bear in mind that 04>B) is not the same as (BjA). Euclid's use of 'equal' where we now use 'congruent' confuses the significance of his postulates and common notions', in m o d e m terminology two ordered pairs 04,3) and (C>D) are equal if and only if A coincides with C and B with D, so two ordered pairs can be congruent without being equal. If 04,3) is congruent to (CSD) we shall write AB CD. As we introduce the axioms to be used in the present paper, we shall compare them with my previous axioms [12], Forder's axioms [5] and Euclid’s postulates and common notions [7]. 14 Euclid's Postulate 3 states that 'a circle can be drawn with any centre and distance1 [7, pp. 154, 199], In other words, we can draw a circle with centre A and any radius AB . He does not assume that we can draw a circle with centre and radius congruent to a given segment OC ; this is a consequence of his Proposition 2: To place at a given point (as an extremity) a straight line equal to a given straight line [7, p. 244]. To prove Proposition 2 he assumes that certain circles intersect. Modern geometers have preferred not to mention circles or their properties in the axioms, so they have taken Proposition 2 as an axiom. Thus we have Forder’s axiom Cl: If A , B are distinct points and 0 is any point, then on any ray from 0 (i.e. any ray with origin ) 0 there exists just one point C such that AB -*■ OC . We shall assume a weaker axiom Cl 1 [see 12, Cl*], similar to Postulate 3. Cl'. If A ,B are distinct points, then on any ray from A there exists just one point C such that AB -> AC , From an intuitive point of view we can regard postulate 3 as providing a means of physically constructing the circle with centre A and radius AB , The physical implement with which we do this has been described as ’collapsing compasses': we cannot place the point of these compasses on 0 and the pencil on C , then transfer the point to A , as they will then collapse. In Cl' we use these collapsing compasses; but not to draw a circle, only to mark off C on the given ray such that A3 -> AC . The subsequent axioms, defini­ tions and proofs in this section and the next are based on an intuitive investigation of what we can construct by using the collapsing compasses in this restricted way and also using a straight edge to join any two given points. We shall discuss later what constructibility means in abstract geometry C§4). Our axiom C2' is the same as Forder's C2 and corresponds to Euclid’s Common notion 1: Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another [7, p. 155]. 15 C 2 '. If AB + CD and CD + EF then AB + EF Forder's axiom C3 is: If [ABC] and [A'B'C'] } and if AB -*■ A'B' , BC -»•B'C' , then AC -*■ A'C' . This corresponds to Euclid's Common notion 2: If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal [7, p. 155]. In [12] I used C3*, which, with slight variation, stated: If B ., C lie on a ray from A , if B ' , C' lie on a ray from A' , and if [ABC] , AB •+ A'B' , AC A'C' , then [A'B'C'] and BC -* B'C' . This corresponds to Euclid's Common notion 3: If equals be subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal. The extra conclusion 1[A'B'C'] ' does not appear to be explicitly stated by Euclid, but if it had been it might have appeared in Heath's translation as: That which is equal to the greater is greater than that which is equal to the less. Here we shall use only a special case of C3*, in which A = A' . C3* (Figure 1A). If [ABC] , if B' , C' lie on a ray from A t and if AB + AB' , AC + AC' , then [AB'C'] and BC -* B'C' . These three axioms will suffice for the present. The usual proof of our first result below requires Forder's axiom C4: AB -> BA . Our C 4 1 (§3) would be of no use here. 1.1 [12, 1.2]. If A * B , then AB -* AB . Proof. On ray AB , there exist B' and B~ such that AB -> AB' and AB' -*■ AB" (Cl'). Hence AB AB~ (C2‘). Since AB + AB' also, we have B' = B~ (Cl1). Suppose B f B' and [ABB'] . Since AB + AB' and AB' + AB' , we have [AB'B'] (C31), a contradiction. Similarly if B t B' and [AB'B] . Hence B = B' , so AB -*■ AB . 1.2. If B , B' lie on the same ray from A and if AB + AB' then B = B' . (Use 1.1 and the uniqueness in Cl'.) 1.3. If AB + AC then AC AB . ifi. Proof. There exists B' € ray AB such that AC -»■AB' (Cl1); then AB -> AB' (C21). Hence B = B' (1.2), so AC + AB . 2. Related points We now define related -points inductively. The term 'related points’ was suggested to me by Professor Forder as a preferable alternative to my 'isometric points' in 12[ ]; I have used it here in a similar but somewhat different sense. Definition. If there exists a point P such that PA PB , then A is 1-related to B ; if A is n-related to C and C is 1-related to B , then A is (n+1)-related to B ; A is 0-related to A ; if A is n-related to B for some integer n > 0 , then A is related to B and we write A ~ B . Note that it is possible for A to be both m-related and n-related to B for m f n \ for instance A is 2-related to A . 2.1. (i) If A is m-related to C and C is n-related to B , then A is (m+n)-related to C .
Recommended publications
  • Five-Dimensional Design

    Five-Dimensional Design

    PERIODICA POLYTECHNICA SER. CIV. ENG. VOL. 50, NO. 1, PP. 35–41 (2006) FIVE-DIMENSIONAL DESIGN Elek TÓTH Department of Building Constructions Budapest University of Technology and Economics H–1521 Budapest, POB. 91. Hungary Received: April 3 2006 Abstract The method architectural and engineering design and construction apply for two-dimensional rep- resentation is geometry, the axioms of which were first outlined by Euclid. The proposition of his 5th postulate started on its course a problem of geometry that provoked perhaps the most mistaken demonstrations and that remained unresolved for two thousand years, the question if the axiom of parallels can be proved. The quest for the solution of this problem led Bolyai János to revolutionary conclusions in the wake of which he began to lay the foundations of a new (absolute) geometry in the system of which planes bend and become hyperbolic. It was Einstein’s relativity theory that eventually created the possibility of the recognition of new dimensions by discussing space as well as a curved, non-linear entity. Architectural creations exist in what Kant termed the dual form of intuition, that is in time and space, thus in four dimensions. In this context the fourth dimension is to be interpreted as the current time that may be actively experienced. On the other hand there has been a dichotomy in the concept of time since ancient times. The introduction of a time-concept into the activity of the architectural designer that comprises duration, the passage of time and cyclic time opens up a so-far unknown new direction, a fifth dimension, the perfection of which may be achieved through the comprehension and the synthesis of the coded messages of building diagnostics and building reconstruction.
  • Relevant Implication and Ordered Geometry

    Relevant Implication and Ordered Geometry

    Australasian Journal of Logic Relevant Implication and Ordered Geometry Alasdair Urquhart Abstract This paper shows that model structures for R+, the system of positive relevant implication, can be constructed from ordered geometries. This ex- tends earlier results building such model structures from projective spaces. A final section shows how such models can be extended to models for the full system R. 1 Introduction This paper is a sequel to an earlier paper by the author [6] showing how to construct models for the logic KR from projective spaces. In that article, the logical relation Rabc is an extension of the relation Cabc, where a; b; c are points in a projective space and Cabc is read as \a; b; c are distinct and collinear." In the case of the projective construction, the relation Rabc is totally sym- metric. This is of course not the case in general in R models, where the first two points a and b can be permuted, but not the third. For the third point, we have only the implication Rabc ) Rac∗b∗. On the other hand, if we read Rabc as \c is between a and b", where we are operating in an ordered geometry, then we can permute a and b, but not b and c, just as in the case of R. Hence, these models are more natural than the ones constructed from projective spaces, from the point of view of relevance logic. In the remainder of the paper, we carry out the plan outlined here, by constructing models for R+ from ordered geometries.
  • Lecture 3: Geometry

    Lecture 3: Geometry

    E-320: Teaching Math with a Historical Perspective Oliver Knill, 2010-2015 Lecture 3: Geometry Geometry is the science of shape, size and symmetry. While arithmetic dealt with numerical structures, geometry deals with metric structures. Geometry is one of the oldest mathemati- cal disciplines and early geometry has relations with arithmetics: we have seen that that the implementation of a commutative multiplication on the natural numbers is rooted from an inter- pretation of n × m as an area of a shape that is invariant under rotational symmetry. Number systems built upon the natural numbers inherit this. Identities like the Pythagorean triples 32 +42 = 52 were interpreted geometrically. The right angle is the most "symmetric" angle apart from 0. Symmetry manifests itself in quantities which are invariant. Invariants are one the most central aspects of geometry. Felix Klein's Erlanger program uses symmetry to classify geome- tries depending on how large the symmetries of the shapes are. In this lecture, we look at a few results which can all be stated in terms of invariants. In the presentation as well as the worksheet part of this lecture, we will work us through smaller miracles like special points in triangles as well as a couple of gems: Pythagoras, Thales,Hippocrates, Feuerbach, Pappus, Morley, Butterfly which illustrate the importance of symmetry. Much of geometry is based on our ability to measure length, the distance between two points. A modern way to measure distance is to determine how long light needs to get from one point to the other. This geodesic distance generalizes to curved spaces like the sphere and is also a practical way to measure distances, for example with lasers.
  • Feb 23 Notes: Definition: Two Lines L and M Are Parallel If They Lie in The

    Feb 23 Notes: Definition: Two Lines L and M Are Parallel If They Lie in The

    Feb 23 Notes: Definition: Two lines l and m are parallel if they lie in the same plane and do not intersect. Terminology: When one line intersects each of two given lines, we call that line a transversal. We define alternate interior angles, corresponding angles, alternate exterior angles, and interior angles on the same side of the transversal using various betweeness and half-plane notions. Suppose line l intersects lines m and n at points B and E, respectively, with points A and C on line m and points D and F on line n such that A-B-C and D-E-F, with A and D on the same side of l. Suppose also that G and H are points such that H-E-B- G. Then pABE and pBEF are alternate interior angles, as are pCBE and pDEB. pABG and pFEH are alternate exterior angles, as are pCBG and pDEH. pGBC and pBEF are a pair of corresponding angles, as are pGBA & pBED, pCBE & pFEH, and pABE & pDEH. pCBE and pFEB are interior angles on the same side of the transversal, as are pABE and pDEB. Our Last Theorem in Absolute Geometry: If two lines in the same plane are cut by a transversal so that a pair of alternate interior angles are congruent, the lines are parallel. Proof: Let l intersect lines m and n at points A and B respectively. Let p1 p2. Suppose m and n meet at point C. Then either p1 is exterior to ªABC, or p2 is exterior to ªABC. In the first case, the exterior angle inequality gives p1 > p2; in the second, it gives p2 > p1.
  • A Survey of the Development of Geometry up to 1870

    A Survey of the Development of Geometry up to 1870

    A Survey of the Development of Geometry up to 1870∗ Eldar Straume Department of mathematical sciences Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) N-9471 Trondheim, Norway September 4, 2014 Abstract This is an expository treatise on the development of the classical ge- ometries, starting from the origins of Euclidean geometry a few centuries BC up to around 1870. At this time classical differential geometry came to an end, and the Riemannian geometric approach started to be developed. Moreover, the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry, about 40 years earlier, had just been demonstrated to be a ”true” geometry on the same footing as Euclidean geometry. These were radically new ideas, but henceforth the importance of the topic became gradually realized. As a consequence, the conventional attitude to the basic geometric questions, including the possible geometric structure of the physical space, was challenged, and foundational problems became an important issue during the following decades. Such a basic understanding of the status of geometry around 1870 enables one to study the geometric works of Sophus Lie and Felix Klein at the beginning of their career in the appropriate historical perspective. arXiv:1409.1140v1 [math.HO] 3 Sep 2014 Contents 1 Euclideangeometry,thesourceofallgeometries 3 1.1 Earlygeometryandtheroleoftherealnumbers . 4 1.1.1 Geometric algebra, constructivism, and the real numbers 7 1.1.2 Thedownfalloftheancientgeometry . 8 ∗This monograph was written up in 2008-2009, as a preparation to the further study of the early geometrical works of Sophus Lie and Felix Klein at the beginning of their career around 1870. The author apologizes for possible historiographic shortcomings, errors, and perhaps lack of updated information on certain topics from the history of mathematics.
  • Geometry in a Nutshell Notes for Math 3063

    Geometry in a Nutshell Notes for Math 3063

    GEOMETRY IN A NUTSHELL NOTES FOR MATH 3063 B. R. MONSON DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS & STATISTICS UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK Copyright °c Barry Monson February 7, 2005 One morning an acorn awoke beneath its mother and declared, \Gee, I'm a tree". Anon. (deservedly) 2 THE TREE OF EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY 3 INTRODUCTION Mathematics is a vast, rich and strange subject. Indeed, it is so varied that it is considerably more di±cult to de¯ne than say chemistry, economics or psychology. Every individual of that strange species mathematician has a favorite description for his or her craft. Mine is that mathematics is the search for the patterns hidden in the ideas of space and number . This description is particularly apt for that rich and beautiful branch of mathematics called geometry. In fact, geometrical ideas and ways of thinking are crucial in many other branches of mathematics. One of the goals of these notes is to convince you that this search for pattern is continuing and thriving all the time, that mathematics is in some sense a living thing. At this very moment, mathematicians all over the world1 are discovering new and enchanting things, exploring new realms of the imagination. This thought is easily forgotten in the dreary routine of attending classes. Like other mathematical creatures, geometry has many faces. Let's look at some of these and, along the way, consider some advice about doing mathematics in general. Geometry is learned by doing: Ultimately, no one can really teach you mathe- matics | you must learn by doing it yourself. Naturally, your professor will show the way, give guidance (and also set a blistering pace).
  • Absolute Geometry

    Absolute Geometry

    Absolute geometry 1.1 Axiom system We will follow the axiom system of Hilbert, given in 1899. The base of it are primitive terms and primitive relations. We will divide the axioms into five parts: 1. Incidence 2. Order 3. Congruence 4. Continuity 5. Parallels 1.1.1 Incidence Primitive terms: point, line, plane Primitive relation: "lies on"(containment) Axiom I1 For every two points there exists exactly one line that contains them both. Axiom I2 For every three points, not lying on the same line, there exists exactly one plane that contains all of them. Axiom I3 If two points of a line lie in a plane, then every point of the line lies in the plane. Axiom I4 If two planes have a point in common, then they have another point in com- mon. Axiom I5 There exists four points not lying in a plane. Remark 1.1 The incidence structure does not imply that we have infinitely many points. We may consider 4 points {A, B, C, D}. Then, the lines can be the two-element subsets and the planes the three-element subsets. 1 1.1.2 Order Primitive relation: "betweeness" Notion: If A, B, C are points of a line then (ABC) := B means the "B is between A and C". Axiom O1 If (ABC) then (CBA). Axiom O2 If A and B are two points of a line, there exists at least one point C on the line AB such that (ABC). Axiom O3 Of any three points situated on a line, there is no more than one which lies between the other two.
  • Information to Users

    Information to Users

    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscrit has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The qnali^ of this reproduction is dependent upon the qnali^ of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins^ and inqnoper alignment can adversefy afreet reproductioiL In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beghming at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photogrsphs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quali^ 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for aiy photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313.'761-4700 800/521-0600 ARISTOHE ON MATHEMATICAL INFINITY DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Theokritos Kouremenos, B.A., M.A ***** The Ohio State University 1995 Dissertation Committee; Approved by D.E.
  • The Axiomatics of Ordered Geometry I

    The Axiomatics of Ordered Geometry I

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Expositiones Mathematicae 29 (2011) 24–66 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Expositiones Mathematicae journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/exmath The axiomatics of ordered geometry I. Ordered incidence spaces Victor Pambuccian Division of Mathematical and Natural Sciences, Arizona State University - West Campus, P. O. Box 37100, Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100, USA article info a b s t r a c t Article history: We present a survey of the rich theory of betweenness and Received 7 September 2009 separation, from its beginning with Pasch's 1882 Vorlesungen über Received in revised form neuere Geometrie to the present. 17 July 2010 ' 2010 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ordered geometry Axiom system Half-ordered geometry Somewhere there is some knowledge; under the stone A message perhaps; or hidden by strange signs In places only the stupid visit. Malcolm Lowry. Ein Zeichen sind wir, deutungslos, Schmerzlos sind wir und haben fast Die Sprache in der Fremde verloren. Friedrich Hölderlin, Mnemosyne. 1. Introduction Unlike most concepts of elementary geometry, whose origin is shrouded in the ineluctable fog of all cultural beginnings, the history of the notion of betweenness can be traced back to one person, one book, and one year: Moritz Pasch,1 Vorlesungen über neuere Geometrie, and 1882. The aim of this pioneering book was to provide a solid foundation, very much in the spirit of synthetic geometry, for 1 For a view of one of Pasch's contemporaries on his life and his work's significance for the axiomatics of geometry, see [325].
  • Von Staudt and His Influence

    Von Staudt and His Influence

    A Von Staudt and his Influence A.1 Von Staudt The fundamental criticism of the work of Chasles and M¨obius is that in it cross- ratio is defined as a product of two ratios, and so as an expression involving four lengths. This makes projective geometry, in their formulation, dependent on Euclidean geometry, and yet projective geometry is claimed to be more fundamental, because it does not involve the concept of distance at all. The way out of this apparent contradiction was pioneered by von Staudt, taken up by Felix Klein, and gradually made its way into the mainstream, culminating in the axiomatic treatments of projective geometry between 1890 and 1914. That a contradiction was perceived is apparent from remarks Klein quotes in his Zur nicht-Euklidischen Geometrie [138] from Cayley and Ball.1 Thus, from Cayley: “It must however be admitted that, in applying this theory of v. Staudt’s to the theory of distance, there is at least the appearance of arguing in a circle.” And from Ball: “In that theory [the non-Euclidean geometry] it seems as if we try to replace our ordinary notion of distance between two points by the logarithm of a certain anharmonic ratio. But this ratio itself involves the notion of distance measured in the ordinary way. How then can we supersede the old notion of distance by the non-Euclidean one, inasmuch as the very definition of the latter involves the former?” The way forward was to define projective concepts entirely independently of Euclidean geometry. The way this was done was inevitably confused at first, 1 In Klein, Gesammelte mathematische Abhandlungen,I[137, pp.
  • Chapter 4 Euclidean Geometry

    Chapter 4 Euclidean Geometry

    Chapter 4 Euclidean Geometry Based on previous 15 axioms, The parallel postulate for Euclidean geometry is added in this chapter. 4.1 Euclidean Parallelism, Existence of Rectangles De¯nition 4.1 Two distinct lines ` and m are said to be parallel ( and we write `km) i® they lie in the same plane and do not meet. Terminologies: 1. Transversal: a line intersecting two other lines. 2. Alternate interior angles 3. Corresponding angles 4. Interior angles on the same side of transversal 56 Yi Wang Chapter 4. Euclidean Geometry 57 Theorem 4.2 (Parallelism in absolute geometry) If two lines in the same plane are cut by a transversal to that a pair of alternate interior angles are congruent, the lines are parallel. Remark: Although this theorem involves parallel lines, it does not use the parallel postulate and is valid in absolute geometry. Proof: Assume to the contrary that the two lines meet, then use Exterior Angle Inequality to draw a contradiction. 2 The converse of above theorem is the Euclidean Parallel Postulate. Euclid's Fifth Postulate of Parallels If two lines in the same plane are cut by a transversal so that the sum of the measures of a pair of interior angles on the same side of the transversal is less than 180, the lines will meet on that side of the transversal. In e®ect, this says If m\1 + m\2 6= 180; then ` is not parallel to m Yi Wang Chapter 4. Euclidean Geometry 58 It's contrapositive is If `km; then m\1 + m\2 = 180( or m\2 = m\3): Three possible notions of parallelism Consider in a single ¯xed plane a line ` and a point P not on it.
  • Chapter 3 Foundations of Geometry 2

    Chapter 3 Foundations of Geometry 2

    Chapter 3 Foundations of Geometry 2 3.1 Triangles, Congruence Relations, SAS Hypothesis De¯nition 3.1 A triangle is the union of three segments ( called its side), whose end points (called its vertices) are taken, in pairs, from a set of three noncollinear points. Thus, if the vertices of a triangle are A; B; and C, then its sides are AB; BC; AC, and the triangle is then the set de¯ned by AB [ BC [ AC, denoted by ¢ABC. The angles of ¢ABC are \A ´ \BAC, \B ´ \ABC, and \C ´ \ACB. Equality and Congruence Equal(=): identically the same as. For examples, 1) Two points are equal, as in A = B, we mean they coincide. 2) AB = CD only if the set of points AB is the exact same set of points denoted by CD. Congruence(»=): is an equivalence relation. (to be de¯ned later). Congruence for Segments and angles 25 Yi Wang Chapter 3. Foundations of Geometry 2 26 AB »= XY i® AB = XY \ABC »= \XYZ i® m\ABC = m\XYZ Congruence for triangles Notation: correspondence between two triangles Given ¢ABC and ¢XYZ, write ABC $ XYZ to mean the correspondence between vertices, sides and angles in the order written. Note: There are possible six ways for one triangle to correspond to another. ABC $ XY Z ABC $ XZY ABC $ YXZ ABC $ Y ZX ABC $ ZXY ABC $ ZYX De¯nition 3.2 (Congruence for triangles) If, under some correspondence between the vertices of two triangles, corresponding sides and corresponding angles are congruent, the triangles are said to be congruent. Thus we write ¢ABC »= ¢XYZ whenever AB »= XY; BC »= YZ; AC »= XZ; \A »= \X; \B »= \Y; \C »= \Z Notation: CPCF: Corresponding parts of congruent ¯gures (are congruent).