DOCSLIB.ORG

Projective Geometry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Projective Geometry Degree project Projective Geometry Author: Wu Wei Supervisor: Hans Frisk Examiner: Per Anders Svensson Course Code: 2MA41E Subject: Mathematics Level: Bachelor Department Of Mathematics Projective Geometry Wei Wu June 13, 2019 Abstract Projective geometry is a branch of mathematics which is founda- tionally based on an axiomatic system. In this thesis, six axioms for two-dimensional projective geometry are chosen to build the structure for proving some further results like Pappus' and Pascal's theorems. This work is mainly in synthetic geometry. Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Informal description of projective geometry . 5 1.2 What is projective geometry? . 6 1.3 History . 6 1.4 What you will find in this thesis . 7 2 The axiomatic system and duality 8 2.1 First five axioms for the projective plane . 9 2.2 Duality . 11 2.3 An infinite model for projective plane . 13 3 Harmonic sets 15 3.1 Construction of the fourth point of a harmonic set . 16 3.2 Construction of the fourth line of a harmonic set . 19 4 Perspectivities and Projectivities 21 4.1 Perspectivities . 22 4.2 Projectivities . 23 4.3 Construction of a projectivity between pencils of points . 26 5 Point and line conics 31 6 Conclusion 36 2 List of Figures 1 Vanishing line BC and points B; C. .............. 5 2 Finite model with 13 points. 8 3 A triangle. 9 4 The diagonal points E, F , G from a complete quadrangle ABCD. .............................. 10 5 Illustration of Desargues' theorem in 3D projective space. 11 6 The diagonal lines EF , BC, AD of a complete quadrilateral abcd................................. 13 7 4ABC and 4A0B0C0 are perspective from the line l. Points AC · A0C0 = R, BC · B0C0 = Q, AB · A0B0 = P all lie on line l. 14 8 A projective plane model in 3D. 14 9 Harmonic set H(AB; CD). 15 10 Five collinear points form a quadrangular set (AA0)(BB)(CD). 16 11 Six collinear points form a quadrangular set (AA0)(BB0)(CD). 16 12 Unique point D for harmonic set H(AB; CD). 17 13 H(AB; CD) , H(CD; AB). 18 14 H(ab; cd).............................. 19 15 Pencil of lines. 21 16 Pencil of points. 21 17 Perspectivity between pencils of points. 22 18 Perspectivity between pencils of lines. 23 19 Perspectivity between a pencil of points and a pencil of lines. 23 20 A perspectivity between pencils of points. 24 21 A projectivity between pencils of points. 24 22 ABC ^ A00B00C00.......................... 24 23 abc ^ a00b00c00. ........................... 24 24 abc ^ A00B00C00. .......................... 25 25 Axis of projectivity h for ABC ^ A0B0C0. 27 26 A hexagon P1P2P3P4P5P6..................... 28 27 ABC ^ BCA ........................... 29 28 Invariant points C; F . ...................... 29 29 Only one invariant point C.................... 30 30 Five points U; U 0; A; B and C generate a point conic. 32 31 Lines from S and R are projectively related. 32 32 The Pascal's line is outside of the ellipse. 33 33 Construction of a parabola. 34 34 Construction of a hyperbola. 34 35 Five lines u; u0; a; b; and c generate a line conic. 34 36 The Brianchon's point B is inside of the ellipse. 35 37 The Brianchon's point B is outside of the ellipse. 35 3 List of Tables 1 Point and line conic. 31 4 1 Introduction 1.1 Informal description of projective geometry Projective geometry is a subject which originates from visual arts: using figures to record the shape by observation. The transformation that maps objects onto the plane is an example of a projective transformation. We have a lot of projective transformations in our daily life. One example is that if we see a cylinder from above, it is a circle; but if we observe it from the side, it will be a rectangle. We are all familiar with Euclidean geometry that has one character- istic of pairs of lines: parallel lines never meet. However, an exception is discovered by our eyes. The railway should be a pair of parallel lines but when we see the end of the railway it looks like they will meet somewhere in the end. If the parallel lines will meet at infinity the space is transformed into a new type of geometric object, the projective space. Projective space can thus be defined as an extension of Euclidean space in which two lines always meet in an infinite point. In some way, Euclidean geometry is about the object itself while projective geometry is about investigating the object under observation. Take as an example the sides of a cube (see figure 1). Point B is the infinite point of lines AB and DB. We call those infinite points the vanishing points and the line which goes through the vanishing points is the vanishing line [4]. Figure 1: Vanishing line BC and points B; C. 5 1.2 What is projective geometry? Let us now turn to projective geometry as a branch of mathematics. The plane geometry of Euclid's Elements is the same as the geometry of lines and circles: the tools are the ruler (the straight-edge or unmarked ruler) and the compass. A Danish geometer Georg Mohr (1640-1697) and an Italian Lorenzo Mascheroni (1750-1800) have independently discovered that in the geometrical constructions nothing is lost by only using the compass. For example for four points A, B, C, and D. We can find the intersection point of lines AB and CD only by using compass although the actual process is quite complicated. However, what's going on if we only use rulers in geometry? It looks unacceptable since we can not even complete Euclid's first proposition (To construct an equilateral triangle on a given finite straight line) by only using a ruler. Can we only use a ruler to develop a geometry which is not including circles, distance, angles, betweenness and parallelism? The answer is yes; this is projective geometry. It has not so much structure but anyhow full of beauty. Here, the basic concepts of projective geometry are listed here [2]. • P oint, line and incident are taken as undefined terms • Collinear: Any number of points that are incident with the same line are said to be collinear. • Concurrent: Any number of lines incident with a point are said to be concurrent. 1.3 History As previously stated in section 1.1, projective geometry is a sub- ject which originates from visual and it begins with work of an architect. In 1425, an Italian architect Brunelleschi started to discuss the geometri- cal theory of perspective which was summarized in a treatise by Alberti a few years later. Although Menaechmus, Euclid, Archimedes and Apol- lonius studied conics in the fourth and third centuries B.C., the earliest projective theorems were discovered by Pappus of Alexandria in the third century A.D. The French mathematician, J. V. Poncelet (1788-1867), was the first to prove such theorems by purely projective reasoning. The Ger- man astronomer Johann Kepler (1571-1630) and the French architect Girard Desargues (1591-1661) introduced however the concept of a point at infinity much earlier. 6 Poncelet could then construct a projective space from ordinary space by introducing a line at infinity consisting of all the points at infinity. In 1871, Felix Klein provided an algebraic foundation for projective geometry in terms of "homogeneous coordinates". This means projective geometry could be analyzed with coordinates. However, in this thesis, we will not focus on analytic projective geometry [1]. 1.4 What you will find in this thesis In this thesis, we select Judith N. Cederberg's book as our main material and take its six axioms. All definitions and theorems are built on the six axioms. Also, this thesis will using GeoGebra for visualization to help us understand the projective geometry. The paper will first introduce axiomatic system then find a particular set of points and lines, next talk about the relationships between the particular set of points and lines, finally describe the constructions which on the projective plane. In section 2 the axioms are introduced and in section 3 a special set of four points, the harmonic set, is constructed. This relation between four points is invariant under the projective transformations which is the topic of section 4. Finally, in section 5 the point and line conics are studied. 7 2 The axiomatic system and duality The statements that are accepted without proofs are known as ax- ioms. Other statements which can be proved by using the axioms are called theorems. Mathematically, an axiomatic system is a collection of axioms, and one or all of the axioms can be used to prove theorems logically. A mathematical theory consists of an axiomatic system and theorems which are derived by the axiomatic system. In this thesis, we take the six axioms from our key material [1] to develop the axiomatic system for the projective plane. In this thesis only models with an infinite number of points will be considered. Finite models have also been studied [1], they use Axiom 1-3 below but have another fourth axiom. Our first four axioms guarantee that there are at least four points on each line and in total 13 point (see figure 2). The infinite model is presented at the end of this section. If one includes axioms including the third dimension, like in [2], it is possible to prove our Axiom 5 (Desargues' theorem). This thesis is only about 2D and then we have to take it as an axiom, see however figure 5 in page 11 for a visualization in 3D. Figure 2: Finite model with 13 points.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Projective Geometry: a Short Introduction
    Projective Geometry: A Short Introduction Lecture Notes Edmond Boyer Master MOSIG Introduction to Projective Geometry Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Objective . .2 1.2 Historical Background . .3 1.3 Bibliography . .4 2 Projective Spaces 5 2.1 Definitions . .5 2.2 Properties . .8 2.3 The hyperplane at infinity . 12 3 The projective line 13 3.1 Introduction . 13 3.2 Projective transformation of P1 ................... 14 3.3 The cross-ratio . 14 4 The projective plane 17 4.1 Points and lines . 17 4.2 Line at infinity . 18 4.3 Homographies . 19 4.4 Conics . 20 4.5 Affine transformations . 22 4.6 Euclidean transformations . 22 4.7 Particular transformations . 24 4.8 Transformation hierarchy . 25 Grenoble Universities 1 Master MOSIG Introduction to Projective Geometry Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Objective The objective of this course is to give basic notions and intuitions on projective geometry. The interest of projective geometry arises in several visual comput- ing domains, in particular computer vision modelling and computer graphics. It provides a mathematical formalism to describe the geometry of cameras and the associated transformations, hence enabling the design of computational ap- proaches that manipulates 2D projections of 3D objects. In that respect, a fundamental aspect is the fact that objects at infinity can be represented and manipulated with projective geometry and this in contrast to the Euclidean geometry. This allows perspective deformations to be represented as projective transformations. Figure 1.1: Example of perspective deformation or 2D projective transforma- tion. Another argument is that Euclidean geometry is sometimes difficult to use in algorithms, with particular cases arising from non-generic situations (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Definition Concurrent Lines Are Lines That Intersect in a Single Point. 1. Theorem 128: the Perpendicular Bisectors of the Sides
    14.3 Notes Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:49 PM Definition 1. Concurrent lines are lines that intersect in a single point. j k m Theorem 128: The perpendicular bisectors of the sides of a triangle are concurrent at a point that is equidistant from the vertices of the triangle. This point is called the circumcenter of the triangle. D E F Theorem 129: The bisectors of the angles of a triangle are concurrent at a point that is equidistant from the sides of the triangle. This point is called the incenter of the triangle. A B Notes Page 1 C A B C Theorem 130: The lines containing the altitudes of a triangle are concurrent. This point is called the orthocenter of the triangle. A B C Theorem 131: The medians of a triangle are concurrent at a point that is 2/3 of the way from any vertex of the triangle to the midpoint of the opposite side. This point is called the centroid of the of the triangle. Example 1: Construct the incenter of ABC A B C Notes Page 2 14.4 Notes Friday, April 24, 2009 1:10 PM Examples 1-3 on page 670 1. Construct an angle whose measure is equal to 2A - B. A B 2. Construct the tangent to circle P at point A. P A 3. Construct a tangent to circle O from point P. Notes Page 3 3. Construct a tangent to circle O from point P. O P Notes Page 4 14.5 notes Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:26 AM Constructions 9, 10, 11 Geometric mean Notes Page 5 14.6 Notes Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:54 AM Construct: ABC, given {a, ha, B} a Ha B A b c B C a Notes Page 6 14.1 Notes Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:01 AM Definition: A locus is a set consisting of all points, and only the points, that satisfy specific conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Can One Design a Geometry Engine? on the (Un) Decidability of Affine
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Can one design a geometry engine? On the (un)decidability of certain affine Euclidean geometries Johann A. Makowsky Received: June 4, 2018/ Accepted: date Abstract We survey the status of decidabilty of the consequence relation in various ax- iomatizations of Euclidean geometry. We draw attention to a widely overlooked result by Martin Ziegler from 1980, which proves Tarski’s conjecture on the undecidability of finitely axiomatizable theories of fields. We elaborate on how to use Ziegler’s theorem to show that the consequence relations for the first order theory of the Hilbert plane and the Euclidean plane are undecidable. As new results we add: (A) The first order consequence relations for Wu’s orthogonal and metric geometries (Wen- Ts¨un Wu, 1984), and for the axiomatization of Origami geometry (J. Justin 1986, H. Huzita 1991) are undecidable. It was already known that the universal theory of Hilbert planes and Wu’s orthogonal geom- etry is decidable. We show here using elementary model theoretic tools that (B) the universal first order consequences of any geometric theory T of Pappian planes which is consistent with the analytic geometry of the reals is decidable. The techniques used were all known to experts in mathematical logic and geometry in the past but no detailed proofs are easily accessible for practitioners of symbolic computation or automated theorem proving. Keywords Euclidean Geometry · Automated Theorem Proving · Undecidability arXiv:1712.07474v3 [cs.SC] 1 Jun 2018 J.A. Makowsky Faculty of Computer Science, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel E-mail: [email protected] 2 J.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Finite Projective Geometries 243
    FINITE PROJECTÎVEGEOMETRIES* BY OSWALD VEBLEN and W. H. BUSSEY By means of such a generalized conception of geometry as is inevitably suggested by the recent and wide-spread researches in the foundations of that science, there is given in § 1 a definition of a class of tactical configurations which includes many well known configurations as well as many new ones. In § 2 there is developed a method for the construction of these configurations which is proved to furnish all configurations that satisfy the definition. In §§ 4-8 the configurations are shown to have a geometrical theory identical in most of its general theorems with ordinary projective geometry and thus to afford a treatment of finite linear group theory analogous to the ordinary theory of collineations. In § 9 reference is made to other definitions of some of the configurations included in the class defined in § 1. § 1. Synthetic definition. By a finite projective geometry is meant a set of elements which, for sugges- tiveness, are called points, subject to the following five conditions : I. The set contains a finite number ( > 2 ) of points. It contains subsets called lines, each of which contains at least three points. II. If A and B are distinct points, there is one and only one line that contains A and B. HI. If A, B, C are non-collinear points and if a line I contains a point D of the line AB and a point E of the line BC, but does not contain A, B, or C, then the line I contains a point F of the line CA (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Geometry: Euclid and Beyond, by Robin Hartshorne, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000, Xi+526 Pp., $49.95, ISBN 0-387-98650-2
    BULLETIN (New Series) OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 39, Number 4, Pages 563{571 S 0273-0979(02)00949-7 Article electronically published on July 9, 2002 Geometry: Euclid and beyond, by Robin Hartshorne, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000, xi+526 pp., $49.95, ISBN 0-387-98650-2 1. Introduction The first geometers were men and women who reflected on their experiences while doing such activities as building small shelters and bridges, making pots, weaving cloth, building altars, designing decorations, or gazing into the heavens for portentous signs or navigational aides. Main aspects of geometry emerged from three strands of early human activity that seem to have occurred in most cultures: art/patterns, navigation/stargazing, and building structures. These strands developed more or less independently into varying studies and practices that eventually were woven into what we now call geometry. Art/Patterns: To produce decorations for their weaving, pottery, and other objects, early artists experimented with symmetries and repeating patterns. Later the study of symmetries of patterns led to tilings, group theory, crystallography, finite geometries, and in modern times to security codes and digital picture com- pactifications. Early artists also explored various methods of representing existing objects and living things. These explorations led to the study of perspective and then projective geometry and descriptive geometry, and (in the 20th century) to computer-aided graphics, the study of computer vision in robotics, and computer- generated movies (for example, Toy Story ). Navigation/Stargazing: For astrological, religious, agricultural, and other purposes, ancient humans attempted to understand the movement of heavenly bod- ies (stars, planets, Sun, and Moon) in the apparently hemispherical sky.
    [Show full text]
  • Geometry: Neutral MATH 3120, Spring 2016 Many Theorems of Geometry Are True Regardless of Which Parallel Postulate Is Used
    Geometry: Neutral MATH 3120, Spring 2016 Many theorems of geometry are true regardless of which parallel postulate is used. A neutral geom- etry is one in which no parallel postulate exists, and the theorems of a netural geometry are true for Euclidean and (most) non-Euclidean geomteries. Spherical geometry is a special case of Non-Euclidean geometries where the great circles on the sphere are lines. This leads to spherical trigonometry where triangles have angle measure sums greater than 180◦. While this is a non-Euclidean geometry, spherical geometry develops along a separate path where the axioms and theorems of neutral geometry do not typically apply. The axioms and theorems of netural geometry apply to Euclidean and hyperbolic geometries. The theorems below can be proven using the SMSG axioms 1 through 15. In the SMSG axiom list, Axiom 16 is the Euclidean parallel postulate. A neutral geometry assumes only the first 15 axioms of the SMSG set. Notes on notation: The SMSG axioms refer to the length or measure of line segments and the measure of angles. Thus, we will use the notation AB to describe a line segment and AB to denote its length −−! −! or measure. We refer to the angle formed by AB and AC as \BAC (with vertex A) and denote its measure as m\BAC. 1 Lines and Angles Definitions: Congruence • Segments and Angles. Two segments (or angles) are congruent if and only if their measures are equal. • Polygons. Two polygons are congruent if and only if there exists a one-to-one correspondence between their vertices such that all their corresponding sides (line sgements) and all their corre- sponding angles are congruent.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dual Theorem Concerning Aubert Line
    The Dual Theorem concerning Aubert Line Professor Ion Patrascu, National College "Buzeşti Brothers" Craiova - Romania Professor Florentin Smarandache, University of New Mexico, Gallup, USA In this article we introduce the concept of Bobillier transversal of a triangle with respect to a point in its plan; we prove the Aubert Theorem about the collinearity of the orthocenters in the triangles determined by the sides and the diagonals of a complete quadrilateral, and we obtain the Dual Theorem of this Theorem. Theorem 1 (E. Bobillier) Let 퐴퐵퐶 be a triangle and 푀 a point in the plane of the triangle so that the perpendiculars taken in 푀, and 푀퐴, 푀퐵, 푀퐶 respectively, intersect the sides 퐵퐶, 퐶퐴 and 퐴퐵 at 퐴푚, 퐵푚 and 퐶푚. Then the points 퐴푚, 퐵푚 and 퐶푚 are collinear. 퐴푚퐵 Proof We note that = 퐴푚퐶 aria (퐵푀퐴푚) (see Fig. 1). aria (퐶푀퐴푚) 1 Area (퐵푀퐴푚) = ∙ 퐵푀 ∙ 푀퐴푚 ∙ 2 sin(퐵푀퐴푚̂ ). 1 Area (퐶푀퐴푚) = ∙ 퐶푀 ∙ 푀퐴푚 ∙ 2 sin(퐶푀퐴푚̂ ). Since 1 3휋 푚(퐶푀퐴푚̂ ) = − 푚(퐴푀퐶̂ ), 2 it explains that sin(퐶푀퐴푚̂ ) = − cos(퐴푀퐶̂ ); 휋 sin(퐵푀퐴푚̂ ) = sin (퐴푀퐵̂ − ) = − cos(퐴푀퐵̂ ). 2 Therefore: 퐴푚퐵 푀퐵 ∙ cos(퐴푀퐵̂ ) = (1). 퐴푚퐶 푀퐶 ∙ cos(퐴푀퐶̂ ) In the same way, we find that: 퐵푚퐶 푀퐶 cos(퐵푀퐶̂ ) = ∙ (2); 퐵푚퐴 푀퐴 cos(퐴푀퐵̂ ) 퐶푚퐴 푀퐴 cos(퐴푀퐶̂ ) = ∙ (3). 퐶푚퐵 푀퐵 cos(퐵푀퐶̂ ) The relations (1), (2), (3), and the reciprocal Theorem of Menelaus lead to the collinearity of points 퐴푚, 퐵푚, 퐶푚. Note Bobillier's Theorem can be obtained – by converting the duality with respect to a circle – from the theorem relative to the concurrency of the heights of a triangle.
    [Show full text]
  • Desargues' Theorem and Perspectivities
    Desargues' theorem and perspectivities A file of the Geometrikon gallery by Paris Pamfilos The joy of suddenly learning a former secret and the joy of suddenly discovering a hitherto unknown truth are the same to me - both have the flash of enlightenment, the almost incredibly enhanced vision, and the ecstasy and euphoria of released tension. Paul Halmos, I Want to be a Mathematician, p.3 Contents 1 Desargues’ theorem1 2 Perspective triangles3 3 Desargues’ theorem, special cases4 4 Sides passing through collinear points5 5 A case handled with projective coordinates6 6 Space perspectivity7 7 Perspectivity as a projective transformation9 8 The case of the trilinear polar 11 9 The case of conjugate triangles 13 1 Desargues’ theorem The theorem of Desargues represents the geometric foundation of “photography” and “per- spectivity”, used by painters and designers in order to represent in paper objects of the space. Two triangles are called “perspective relative to a point” or “point perspective”, when we can label them ABC and A0B0C0 in such a way, that lines fAA0; BB0;CC0g pass through a 1 Desargues’ theorem 2 common point P: Points fA; A0g are then called “homologous” and similarly points fB; B0g and fC;C0g. The point P is then called “perspectivity center” of the two triangles. The A'' B'' C' C A' P A B B' C'' Figure 1: “Desargues’ configuration”: Theorem of Desargues two triangles are called “perspective relative to a line” or “line perspective” when we can label them ABC and A0B0C0 , in such a way (See Figure 1), that the points of intersection of their sides C00 = ¹AB; A0B0º; A00 = ¹BC; B0C0º and B00 = ¹CA;C0 A0º are contained in the same line ": Sides AB and A0B0 are then called “homologous”, and similarly the side pairs ¹BC; B0C0º and ¹CA;C0 A0º: Line " is called “perspectivity axis” of the two triangles.
    [Show full text]
  • Precise Image Registration and Occlusion Detection
    Precise Image Registration and Occlusion Detection A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Vinod Khare, B. Tech. Graduate Program in Civil Engineering The Ohio State University 2011 Master's Examination Committee: Asst. Prof. Alper Yilmaz, Advisor Prof. Ron Li Prof. Carolyn Merry c Copyright by Vinod Khare 2011 Abstract Image registration and mosaicking is a fundamental problem in computer vision. The large number of approaches developed to achieve this end can be largely divided into two categories - direct methods and feature-based methods. Direct methods work by shifting or warping the images relative to each other and looking at how much the pixels agree. Feature based methods work by estimating parametric transformation between two images using point correspondences. In this work, we extend the standard feature-based approach to multiple images and adopt the photogrammetric process to improve the accuracy of registration. In particular, we use a multi-head camera mount providing multiple non-overlapping images per time epoch and use multiple epochs, which increases the number of images to be considered during the estimation process. The existence of a dominant scene plane in 3-space, visible in all the images acquired from the multi-head platform formulated in a bundle block adjustment framework in the image space, provides precise registration between the images. We also develop an appearance-based method for detecting potential occluders in the scene. Our method builds upon existing appearance-based approaches and extends it to multiple views.
    [Show full text]
  • Relativistic Spacetime Structure
    Relativistic Spacetime Structure Samuel C. Fletcher∗ Department of Philosophy University of Minnesota, Twin Cities & Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich August 12, 2019 Abstract I survey from a modern perspective what spacetime structure there is according to the general theory of relativity, and what of it determines what else. I describe in some detail both the “standard” and various alternative answers to these questions. Besides bringing many underexplored topics to the attention of philosophers of physics and of science, metaphysicians of science, and foundationally minded physicists, I also aim to cast other, more familiar ones in a new light. 1 Introduction and Scope In the broadest sense, spacetime structure consists in the totality of relations between events and processes described in a spacetime theory, including distance, duration, motion, and (more gener- ally) change. A spacetime theory can attribute more or less such structure, and some parts of that structure may determine other parts. The nature of these structures and their relations of determi- nation bear on the interpretation of the theory—what the world would be like if the theory were true (North, 2009). For example, the structures of spacetime might be taken as its ontological or conceptual posits, and the determination relations might indicate which of these structures is more fundamental (North, 2018). Different perspectives on these questions might also reveal structural similarities with other spacetime theories, providing the resources to articulate how the picture of the world that that theory provides is different (if at all) from what came before, and might be different from what is yet to come.1 ∗Juliusz Doboszewski, Laurenz Hudetz, Eleanor Knox, J.
    [Show full text]
  • Set Theory. • Sets Have Elements, Written X ∈ X, and Subsets, Written a ⊆ X. • the Empty Set ∅ Has No Elements
    Set theory. • Sets have elements, written x 2 X, and subsets, written A ⊆ X. • The empty set ? has no elements. • A function f : X ! Y takes an element x 2 X and returns an element f(x) 2 Y . The set X is its domain, and Y is its codomain. Every set X has an identity function idX defined by idX (x) = x. • The composite of functions f : X ! Y and g : Y ! Z is the function g ◦ f defined by (g ◦ f)(x) = g(f(x)). • The function f : X ! Y is a injective or an injection if, for every y 2 Y , there is at most one x 2 X such that f(x) = y (resp. surjective, surjection, at least; bijective, bijection, exactly). In other words, f is a bijection if and only if it is both injective and surjective. Being bijective is equivalent to the existence of an inverse function f −1 such −1 −1 that f ◦ f = idY and f ◦ f = idX . • An equivalence relation on a set X is a relation ∼ such that { (reflexivity) for every x 2 X, x ∼ x; { (symmetry) for every x; y 2 X, if x ∼ y, then y ∼ x; and { (transitivity) for every x; y; z 2 X, if x ∼ y and y ∼ z, then x ∼ z. The equivalence class of x 2 X under the equivalence relation ∼ is [x] = fy 2 X : x ∼ yg: The distinct equivalence classes form a partition of X, i.e., every element of X is con- tained in a unique equivalence class. Incidence geometry.
    [Show full text]
  • Read to the Infinite and Back Again
    TO THE INFINITE AND BACK AGAIN Part I Henrike Holdrege A Workbook in Projective Geometry To the Infinite and Back Again A Workbook in Projective Geometry Part I HENRIKE HOLDREGE EVOLVING SCIENCE ASSOCIATION ————————————————— A collaboration of The Nature Institute and The Myrin Institute 2019 Copyright 2019 Henrike Holdrege All rights reserved. Second printing, 2019 Published by the Evolving Science Association, a collaboration of The Nature Institute and The Myrin Institute The Nature Institute: 20 May Hill Road, Ghent, NY 12075 natureinstitute.org The Myrin Institute: 187 Main Street, Great Barrington, MA 01230 myrin.org ISBN 978-0-9744906-5-6 Cover painting by Angelo Andes, Desargues 10 Lines 10 Points This book, and other Nature Institute publications, can be purchased from The Nature Institute’s online bookstore: natureinstitute.org/store or contact The Nature Institute: [email protected] or 518-672-0116. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 PREPARATIONS 4 TEN BASIC ENTITIES 6 PRELUDE Form and Forming 7 CHAPTER 1 The Harmonic Net and the Harmonic Four Points 11 INTERLUDE The Infinitely Distant Point of a Line 23 CHAPTER 2 The Theorem of Pappus 27 INTERLUDE A Triangle Transformation 36 CHAPTER 3 Sections of the Point Field 38 INTERLUDE The Projective versus the Euclidean Point Field 47 CHAPTER 4 The Theorem of Desargues 49 INTERLUDE The Line at Infinity 61 CHAPTER 5 Desargues’ Theorem in Three-dimensional Space 64 CHAPTER 6 Shadows, Projections, and Linear Perspective 78 CHAPTER 7 Homologies 89 INTERLUDE The Plane at Infinity 96 CLOSING 99 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 101 BIBLIOGRAPHY 103 I n t r o d u c t i o n My intent in this book is to allow you, the reader, to engage with the fundamental concepts of projective geometry.
    [Show full text]