5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry

< 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica

GEOMETRY, the general term for the branch of mathematics which has for its
province the study of the properties of space. From experience, or possibly intuitively,
we characterize existent space by certain fundamental qualities, termed axioms, which
are insusceptible of proof; and these axioms, in conjunction with the mathematical
entities of the point, straight line, curve, surface and solid, appropriately defined, are the
premises from which the geometer draws conclusions. The geometrical axioms are
merely conventions; on the one hand, the system may be based upon inductions from
experience, in which case the deduced geometry may be regarded as a branch of physical
science; or, on the other hand, the system may be formed by purely logical methods, in
which case the geometry is a phase of pure mathematics. Obviously the geometry with
which we are most familiar is that of existent space—the three-dimensional space of
experience; this geometry may be termed Euclidean, after its most famous expositor.
But other geometries exist, for it is possible to frame systems of axioms which definitely
characterize some other kind of space, and from these axioms to deduce a series of non-
contradictory propositions; such geometries are called non-Euclidean.

It is convenient to discuss the subject-matter of geometry under the following headings:

I. Euclidean Geometry: a discussion of the axioms of existent space and of the

geometrical entities, followed by a synoptical account of Euclid’s Elements.
II. Projective Geometry: primarily Euclidean, but differing from I. in employing the notion
of geometrical continuity (q.v.)—points and lines at infinity.
III. Descriptive Geometry: the methods for representing upon planes figures placed in
space of three dimensions.
IV. Analytical Geometry: the representation of geometrical figures and their relations by
algebraic equations.
V. Line Geometry: an analytical treatment of the line regarded as the space element.
VI. Non-Euclidean Geometry: a discussion of geometries other than that of the space of
experience.
VII. Axioms of Geometry: a critical analysis of the foundations of geometry.
Special subjects are treated under their own headings: e.g. Projection, Perspective;
Curve, Surface; Circle, Conic Section; Triangle, Polygon, Polyhedron; there are
also articles on special curves and figures, e.g. Ellipse, Parabola, Hyperbola;
Tetrahedron, Cube, Octahedron, Dodecahedron, Icosahedron; Cardioid,
Catenary, Cissoid, Conchoid, Cycloid, Epicycloid, Limaçon, Oval, Quadratrix,
Spiral, &c.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 1/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

History.—The origin of geometry (Gr. γῆ, earth, μέτρον, a measure) is, according to
Herodotus, to be found in the etymology of the word. Its birthplace was Egypt, and it
arose from the need of surveying the lands inundated by the Nile floods. In its infancy it
therefore consisted of a few rules, very rough and approximate, for computing the areas
of triangles and quadrilaterals; and, with the Egyptians, it proceeded no further, the
geometrical entities—the point, line, surface and solid—being only discussed in so far as
they were involved in practical affairs. The point was realized as a mark or position, a
straight line as a stretched string or the tracing of a pole, a surface as an area; but these
units were not abstracted; and for the Egyptians geometry was only an art—an auxiliary
to surveying.[1] The first step towards its elevation to the rank of a science was made by
Thales (q.v.) of Miletus, who transplanted the elementary Egyptian mensuration to
Greece. Thales clearly abstracted the notions of points and lines, founding the geometry
of the latter unit, and discovering per saltum many propositions concerning areas, the
circle, &c. The empirical rules of the Egyptians were corrected and developed by the
Ionic School which he founded, especially by Anaximander and Anaxagoras, and in the
6th century B.C. passed into the care of the Pythagoreans. From this time geometry
exercised a powerful influence on Greek thought. Pythagoras (q.v.), seeking the key of
the universe in arithmetic and geometry, investigated logically the principles underlying
the known propositions; and this resulted in the formulation of definitions, axioms and
postulates which, in addition to founding a science of geometry, permitted a
crystallization, fractional, it is true, of the amorphous collection of material at hand.
Pythagorean geometry was essentially a geometry of areas and solids; its goal was the
regular solids—the tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron—
which symbolized the five elements of Greek cosmology. The geometry of the circle,
previously studied in Egypt and much more seriously by Thales, was somewhat
neglected, although this curve was regarded as the most perfect of all plane figures and
the sphere the most perfect of all solids. The circle, however, was taken up by the
Sophists, who made most of their discoveries in attempts to solve the classical problems
of squaring the circle, doubling the cube and trisecting an angle. These problems,
besides stimulating pure geometry, i.e. the geometry of constructions made by the ruler
and compasses, exercised considerable influence in other directions. The first problem
led to the discovery of the method of exhaustion for determining areas. Antiphon
inscribed a square in a circle, and on each side an isosceles triangle having its vertex on
the circle; on the sides of the octagon so obtained, isosceles triangles were again
constructed, the process leading to inscribed polygons of 8, 16 and 32 sides; and the
areas of these polygons, which are easily determined, are successive approximations to
the area of the circle. Bryson of Heraclea took an important step when he circumscribed,
in addition to inscribing, polygons to a circle, but he committed an error in treating the
circle as the mean of the two polygons. The method of Antiphon, in assuming that by
continued division a polygon can be constructed coincident with the circle, demanded
that magnitudes are not infinitely divisible. Much controversy ranged about this point;
Aristotle supported the doctrine of infinite divisibility; Zeno attempted to show its
absurdity. The mechanical tracing of loci, a principle initiated by Archytas of Tarentum
to solve the last two problems, was a frequent subject for study, and several mechanical
curves were thus discovered at subsequent dates (cissoid, conchoid, quadratrix).

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 2/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Mention may be made of Hippocrates, who, besides developing the known methods,
made a study of similar figures, and, as a consequence, of proportion. This step is
important as bringing into line discontinuous number and continuous magnitude.

A fresh stimulus was given by the succeeding Platonists, who, accepting in part the
Pythagorean cosmology, made the study of geometry preliminary to that of philosophy.
The many discoveries made by this school were facilitated in no small measure by the
clarification of the axioms and definitions, the logical sequence of propositions which
was adopted, and, more especially, by the formulation of the analytic method, i.e. of
assuming the truth of a proposition and then reasoning to a known truth. The main
strength of the Platonist geometers lies in stereometry or the geometry of solids. The
Pythagoreans had dealt with the sphere and regular solids, but the pyramid, prism, cone
and cylinder were but little known until the Platonists took them in hand. Eudoxus
established their mensuration, proving the pyramid and cone to have one-third the
content of a prism and cylinder on the same base and of the same height, and was
probably the discoverer of a proof that the volumes of spheres are as the cubes of their
radii. The discussion of sections of the cone and cylinder led to the discovery of the three
curves named the parabola, ellipse and hyperbola (see Conic Section); it is difficult to
over-estimate the importance of this discovery; its investigation marks the crowning
achievement of Greek geometry, and led in later years to the fundamental theorems and
methods of modern geometry.

The presentation of the subject-matter of geometry as a connected and logical series of

propositions, prefaced by Ὅροι or foundations, had been attempted by many; but it is to
Euclid that we owe a complete exposition. Little indeed in the Elements is probably
original except the arrangement; but in this Euclid surpassed such predecessors as
Hippocrates, Leon, pupil of Neocleides, and Theudius of Magnesia, devising an apt
logical model, although when scrutinized in the light of modern mathematical
conceptions the proofs are riddled with fallacies. According to the commentator Proclus,
the Elements were written with a twofold object, first, to introduce the novice to
geometry, and secondly, to lead him to the regular solids; conic sections found no place
therein. What Euclid did for the line and circle, Apollonius did for the conic sections, but
there we have a discoverer as well as editor. These two works, which contain the greatest
contributions to ancient geometry, are treated in detail in Section I. Euclidean
Geometry and the articles Euclid; Conic Section; Apollonius. Between Euclid and
Apollonius there flourished the illustrious Archimedes, whose geometrical discoveries
are mainly concerned with the mensuration of the circle and conic sections, and of the
sphere, cone and cylinder, and whose greatest contribution to geometrical method is the
elevation of the method of exhaustion to the dignity of an instrument of research.
Apollonius was followed by Nicomedes, the inventor of the conchoid; Diocles, the
inventor of the cissoid; Zenodorus, the founder of the study of isoperimetrical figures;
Hipparchus, the founder of trigonometry; and Heron the elder, who wrote after the
manner of the Egyptians, and primarily directed attention to problems of practical
surveying.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 3/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Of the many isolated discoveries made by the later Alexandrian mathematicians, those
of Menelaus are of importance. He showed how to treat spherical triangles, establishing
their properties and determining their congruence; his theorem on the products of the
segments in which the sides of a triangle are cut by a line was the foundation on which
Carnot erected his theory of transversals. These propositions, and also those of
Hipparchus, were utilized and developed by Ptolemy (q.v.), the expositor of
trigonometry and discoverer of many isolated propositions. Mention may be made of the
commentator Pappus, whose Mathematical Collections is valuable for its wealth of
historical matter; of Theon, an editor of Euclid’s Elements and commentator of
Ptolemy’s Almagest; of Proclus, a commentator of Euclid; and of Eutocius, a
commentator of Apollonius and Archimedes.

The Romans, essentially practical and having no inclination to study science qua
science, only had a geometry which sufficed for surveying; and even here there were
abundant inaccuracies, the empirical rules employed being akin to those of the
Egyptians and Heron. The Hindus, likewise, gave more attention to computation, and
their geometry was either of Greek origin or in the form presented in trigonometry,
more particularly connected with arithmetic. It had no logical foundations; each
proposition stood alone; and the results were empirical. The Arabs more closely
followed the Greeks, a plan adopted as a sequel to the translation of the works of Euclid,
Apollonius, Archimedes and many others into Arabic. Their chief contribution to
geometry is exhibited in their solution of algebraic equations by intersecting conics, a
step already taken by the Greeks in isolated cases, but only elevated into a method by
Omar al Hayyami, who flourished in the 11th century. During the middle ages little was
added to Greek and Arabic geometry. Leonardo of Pisa wrote a Practica geometriae
(1220), wherein Euclidean methods are employed; but it was not until the 14th century
that geometry, generally Euclid’s Elements, became an essential item in university
curricula. There was, however, no sign of original development, other branches of
mathematics, mainly algebra and trigonometry, exercising a greater fascination until the
16th century, when the subject again came into favour.

The extraordinary mathematical talent which came into being in the 16th and 17th
centuries reacted on geometry and gave rise to all those characters which distinguish
modern from ancient geometry. The first innovation of moment was the formulation of
the principle of geometrical continuity by Kepler. The notion of infinity which it involved
permitted generalizations and systematizations hitherto unthought of (see Geometrical
Continuity); and the method of indefinite division applied to rectification, and
quadrature and cubature problems avoided the cumbrous method of exhaustion and
provided more accurate results. Further progress was made by Bonaventura Cavalieri,
who, in his Geometria indivisibilibus continuorum (1620), devised a method
intermediate between that of exhaustion and the infinitesimal calculus of Leibnitz and
Newton. The logical basis of his system was corrected by Roberval and Pascal; and their
discoveries, taken in conjunction with those of Leibnitz, Newton, and many others in the
fluxional calculus, culminated in the branch of our subject known as differential
geometry (see Infinitesimal Calculus; Curve; Surface).

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 4/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

A second important advance followed the recognition that conics could be regarded as
projections of a circle, a conception which led at the hands of Desargues and Pascal to
modern projective geometry and perspective. A third, and perhaps the most important,
advance attended the application of algebra to geometry by Descartes, who thereby
founded analytical geometry. The new fields thus opened up were diligently explored,
but the calculus exercised the greatest attraction and relatively little progress was made
in geometry until the beginning of the 19th century, when a new era opened.

Gaspard Monge was the first important contributor, stimulating analytical and
differential geometry and founding descriptive geometry in a series of papers and
especially in his lectures at the École polytechnique. Projective geometry, founded by
Desargues, Pascal, Monge and L. N. M. Carnot, was crystallized by J. V. Poncelet, the
creator of the modern methods. In his Traité des propriétés des figures (1822) the line
and circular points at infinity, imaginaries, polar reciprocation, homology, cross-ratio
and projection are systematically employed. In Germany, A. F. Möbius, J. Plücker and J.
Steiner were making far-reaching contributions. Möbius, in his Barycentrische Calcul
(1827), introduced homogeneous co-ordinates, and also the powerful notion of
geometrical transformation, including the special cases of collineation and duality;
Plücker, in his Analytisch-geometrische Entwickelungen (1828–1831), and his System
der analytischen Geometrie (1835), introduced the abridged notation, line and plane co-
ordinates, and the conception of generalized space elements; while Steiner, besides
enriching geometry in numerous directions, was the first to systematically generate
figures by projective pencils. We may also notice M. Chasles, whose Aperçu historique
(1837) is a classic. Synthetic geometry, characterized by its fruitfulness and beauty,
attracted most attention, and it so happened that its originally weak logical foundations
became replaced by a more substantial set of axioms. These were found in the
anharmonic ratio, a device leading to the liberation of synthetic geometry from metrical
relations, and in involution, which yielded rigorous definitions of imaginaries. These
innovations were made by K. J. C. von Staudt. Analytical geometry was stimulated by
the algebra of invariants, a subject much developed by A. Cayley, G. Salmon, S. H.
Aronhold, L. O. Hesse, and more particularly by R. F. A. Clebsch.

The introduction of the line as a space element, initiated by H. Grassmann (1844) and
Cayley (1859), yielded at the hands of Plücker a new geometry, termed line geometry, a
subject developed more notably by F. Klein, Clebsch, C. T. Reye and F. O. R. Sturm (see
Section V., Line Geometry).

Non-euclidean geometries, having primarily their origin in the discussion of Euclidean

parallels, and treated by Wallis, Saccheri and Lambert, have been especially developed
during the 19th century. Four lines of investigation may be distinguished:—the naïve-
synthetic, associated with Lobatschewski, Bolyai, Gauss; the metric differential, studied
by Riemann, Helmholtz, Beltrami; the projective, developed by Cayley, Klein, Clifford;
and the critical-synthetic, promoted chiefly by the Italian mathematicians Peano,
Veronese, Burali-Forte, Levi Civittà, and the Germans Pasch and Hilbert. (C. E.*)

I. Euclidean Geometry

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 5/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

This branch of the science of geometry is so named since its methods and arrangement
are those laid down in Euclid’s Elements.

§ 1. Axioms.—The object of geometry is to investigate the properties of space. The first

step must consist in establishing those fundamental properties from which all others
follow by processes of deductive reasoning. They are laid down in the Axioms, and these
ought to form such a system that nothing need be added to them in order fully to
characterize space, and that nothing may be omitted without making the system
incomplete. They must, in fact, completely “define” space.

§ 2. Definitions.—The axioms of Euclidean Geometry are obtained from inspection of

existent space and of solids in existent space,—hence from experience. The same source
gives us the notions of the geometrical entities to which the axioms relate, viz. solids,
surfaces, lines or curves, and points. A solid is directly given by experience; we have only
to abstract all material from it in order to gain the notion of a geometrical solid. This has
shape, size, position, and may be moved. Its boundary or boundaries are called surfaces.
They separate one part of space from another, and are said to have no thickness. Their
boundaries are curves or lines, and these have length only. Their boundaries, again, are
points, which have no magnitude but only position. We thus come in three steps from
solids to points which have no magnitude; in each step we lose one extension. Hence we
say a solid has three dimensions, a surface two, a line one, and a point none. Space itself,
of which a solid forms only a part, is also said to be of three dimensions. The same thing
is intended to be expressed by saying that a solid has length, breadth and thickness, a
surface length and breadth, a line length only, and a point no extension whatsoever.

Euclid gives the essence of these statements as definitions:—

Def. 1, I. A point is that which has no parts, or which has no magnitude.

Def. 2, I. A line is length without breadth.
Def. 5, I. A superficies is that which has only length and breadth.
Def. 1, XI. A solid is that which has length, breadth and thickness.
It is to be noted that the synthetic method is adopted by Euclid; the analytical derivation
of the successive ideas of “surface,” “line,” and “point” from the experimental realization
of a “solid” does not find a place in his system, although possessing more advantages.

If we allow motion in geometry, we may generate these entities by moving a point, a line,
or a surface, thus:—

The path of a moving point is a line.

The path of a moving line is, in general, a surface.
The path of a moving surface is, in general, a solid.
And we may then assume that the lines, surfaces and solids, as defined before, can all be
generated in this manner. From this generation of the entities it follows again that the
boundaries—the first and last position of the moving element—of a line are points, and
so on; and thus we come back to the considerations with which we started.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 6/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Euclid points this out in his definitions,—Def. 3, I., Def. 6, I., and Def. 2, XI. He does
not, however, show the connexion which these definitions have with those mentioned
before. When points and lines have been defined, a statement like Def. 3, I., “The
extremities of a line are points,” is a proposition which either has to be proved, and then
it is a theorem, or which has to be taken for granted, in which case it is an axiom. And so
with Def. 6, I., and Def. 2, XI.

§ 3. Euclid’s definitions mentioned above are attempts to describe, in a few words,

notions which we have obtained by inspection of and abstraction from solids. A few
more notions have to be added to these, principally those of the simplest line—the
straight line, and of the simplest surface—the flat surface or plane. These notions we
possess, but to define them accurately is difficult. Euclid’s Definition 4, I., “A straight
line is that which lies evenly between its extreme points,” must be meaningless to any
one who has not the notion of straightness in his mind. Neither does it state a property
of the straight line which can be used in any further investigation. Such a property is
given in Axiom 10, I. It is really this axiom, together with Postulates 2 and 3, which
characterizes the straight line.

Whilst for the straight line the verbal definition and axiom are kept apart, Euclid mixes
them up in the case of the plane. Here the Definition 7, I., includes an axiom. It defines a
plane as a surface which has the property that every straight line which joins any two
points in it lies altogether in the surface. But if we take a straight line and a point in such
a surface, and draw all straight lines which join the latter to all points in the first line,
the surface will be fully determined. This construction is therefore sufficient as a
definition. That every other straight line which joins any two points in this surface lies
altogether in it is a further property, and to assume it gives another axiom.

Thus a number of Euclid’s axioms are hidden among his first definitions. A still greater
confusion exists in the present editions of Euclid between the postulates and axioms so
called, but this is due to later editors and not to Euclid himself. The latter had the last
three axioms put together with the postulates (αἰτήματα), so that these were meant to
include all assumptions relating to space. The remaining assumptions, which relate to
magnitudes in general, viz. the first eight “axioms” in modern editions, were called
“common notions” (κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι). Of the latter a few may be said to be definitions.
Thus the eighth might be taken as a definition of “equal,” and the seventh of “halves.” If
we wish to collect the axioms used in Euclid’s Elements, we have therefore to take the
three postulates, the last three axioms as generally given, a few axioms hidden in the
definitions, and an axiom used by Euclid in the proof of Prop. 4, I, and on a few other
occasions, viz. that figures may be moved in space without change of shape or size.

§ 4. Postulates.—The assumptions actually made by Euclid may be stated as follows:—

(1) Straight lines exist which have the property that any one of them may be produced
both ways without limit, that through any two points in space such a line may be drawn,
and that any two of them coincide throughout their indefinite extensions as soon as two
points in the one coincide with two points in the other. (This gives the contents of Def. 4,
part of Def. 35, the first two Postulates, and Axiom 10.)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 7/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

(2) Plane surfaces or planes exist having the property laid down in Def. 7, that every
straight line joining any two points in such a surface lies altogether in it.

(3) Right angles, as defined in Def. 10, are possible, and all right angles are equal; that is
to say, wherever in space we take a plane, and wherever in that plane we construct a
right angle, all angles thus constructed will be equal, so that any one of them may be
made to coincide with any other. (Axiom 11.)

(4) The 12th Axiom of Euclid. This we shall not state now, but only introduce it when we
cannot proceed any further without it.

(5) Figures maybe freely moved in space without change of shape or size. This is
assumed by Euclid, but not stated as an axiom.

(6) In any plane a circle may be described, having any point in that plane as centre, and
its distance from any other point in that plane as radius. (Postulate 3.)
The definitions which have not been mentioned are all “nominal definitions,” that is to
say, they fix a name for a thing described. Many of them overdetermine a figure.

§ 5. Euclid’s Elements (see Euclid) are contained in thirteen books. Of these the first
four and the sixth are devoted to “plane geometry,” as the investigation of figures in a
plane is generally called. The 5th book contains the theory of proportion which is used in
Book VI. The 7th, 8th and 9th books are purely arithmetical, whilst the 10th contains a
most ingenious treatment of geometrical irrational quantities. These four books will be
excluded from our survey. The remaining three books relate to figures in space, or, as it
is generally called, to “solid geometry.” The 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th and part of the 11th
and 12th books are now generally omitted from the school editions of the Elements. In
the first four and in the 6th book it is to be understood that all figures are drawn in a
plane.

Book I. of Euclid’s “Elements.”

§ 6. According to the third postulate it is possible to draw in any plane a circle which has
its centre at any given point, and its radius equal to the distance of this point from any
other point given in the plane. This makes it possible (Prop. 1) to construct on a given
line AB an equilateral triangle, by drawing first a circle with A as centre and AB as
radius, and then a circle with B as centre and BA as radius. The point where these circles
intersect—that they intersect Euclid quietly assumes—is the vertex of the required
triangle. Euclid does not suppose, however, that a circle may be drawn which has its
radius equal to the distance between any two points unless one of the points be the
centre. This implies also that we are not supposed to be able to make any straight line
equal to any other straight line, or to carry a distance about in space. Euclid therefore
next solves the problem: It is required along a given straight line from a point in it to set
off a distance equal to the length of another straight line given anywhere in the plane.
This is done in two steps. It is shown in Prop. 2 how a straight line may be drawn from a
given point equal in length to another given straight line not drawn from that point. And
then the problem itself is solved in Prop. 3, by drawing first through the given point
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 8/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

some straight line of the required length, and then about the same point as centre a
circle having this length as radius. This circle will cut off from the given straight line a
length equal to the required one. Nowadays, instead of going through this long process,
we take a pair of compasses and set off the given length by its aid. This assumes that we
may move a length about without changing it. But Euclid has not assumed it, and this
proceeding would be fully justified by his desire not to take for granted more than was
necessary, if he were not obliged at his very next step actually to make this assumption,
though without stating it.

§ 7. We now come (in Prop. 4) to the first theorem. It is the fundamental theorem of
Euclid’s whole system, there being only a very few propositions (like Props. 13, 14, 15, I.),
except those in the 5th book and the first half of the 11th, which do not depend upon it.
It is stated very accurately, though somewhat clumsily, as follows:—

If two triangles have two sides of the one equal to two sides of the other, each to each,
and have also the angles contained by those sides equal to one another, they shall also
have their bases or third sides equal; and the two triangles shall be equal; and their
other angles shall be equal, each to each, namely, those to which the equal sides are
opposite.

That is to say, the triangles are “identically” equal, and one may be considered as a copy
of the other. The proof is very simple. The first triangle is taken up and placed on the
second, so that the parts of the triangles which are known to be equal fall upon each
other. It is then easily seen that also the remaining parts of one coincide with those of
the other, and that they are therefore equal. This process of applying one figure to
another Euclid scarcely uses again, though many proofs would be simplified by doing so.
The process introduces motion into geometry, and includes, as already stated, the axiom
that figures may be moved without change of shape or size.

If the last proposition be applied to an isosceles triangle, which has two sides equal, we
obtain the theorem (Prop. 5), if two sides of a triangle are equal, then the angles
opposite these sides are equal.

Euclid’s proof is somewhat complicated, and a stumbling-block to many schoolboys. The

proof becomes much simpler if we consider the isosceles triangle ABC (AB = AC) twice
over, once as a triangle BAC, and once as a triangle CAB; and now remember that AB,
AC in the first are equal respectively to AC, AB in the second, and the angles included by
these sides are equal. Hence the triangles are equal, and the angles in the one are equal
to those in the other, viz. those which are opposite equal sides, i.e. angle ABC in the first
equals angle ACB in the second, as they are opposite the equal sides AC and AB in the
two triangles.

There follows the converse theorem (Prop. 6). If two angles in a triangle are equal, then
the sides opposite them are equal,—i.e. the triangle is isosceles. The proof given consists
in what is called a reductio ad absurdum, a kind of proof often used by Euclid, and
principally in proving the converse of a previous theorem. It assumes that the theorem
to be proved is wrong, and then shows that this assumption leads to an absurdity, i.e. to
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 9/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

a conclusion which is in contradiction to a proposition proved before—that therefore the

assumption made cannot be true, and hence that the theorem is true. It is often stated
that Euclid invented this kind of proof, but the method is most likely much older.

§ 8. It is next proved that two triangles which have the three sides of the one equal
respectively to those of the other are identically equal, hence that the angles of the one
are equal respectively to those of the other, those being equal which are opposite equal
sides. This is Prop. 8, Prop. 7 containing only a first step towards its proof.

These theorems allow now of the solution of a number of problems, viz.:—

To bisect a given angle (Prop. 9).

To bisect a given finite straight line (Prop. 10).

To draw a straight line perpendicularly to a given straight line through a given point
in it (Prop. 11), and also through a given point not in it (Prop. 12).

The solutions all depend upon properties of isosceles triangles.

§ 9. The next three theorems relate to angles only, and might have been proved before
Prop. 4, or even at the very beginning. The first (Prop. 13) says, The angles which one
straight line makes with another straight line on one side of it either are two right
angles or are together equal to two right angles. This theorem would have been
unnecessary if Euclid had admitted the notion of an angle such that its two limits are in
the same straight line, and had besides defined the sum of two angles.

Its converse (Prop. 14) is of great use, inasmuch as it enables us in many cases to prove
that two straight lines drawn from the same point are one the continuation of the other.
So also is

Prop. 15. If two straight lines cut one another, the vertical or opposite angles shall be
equal.

§ 10. Euclid returns now to properties of triangles. Of great importance for the next steps
(though afterwards superseded by a more complete theorem) is

Prop. 16. If one side of a triangle be produced, the exterior angle shall be greater than
either of the interior opposite angles.

Prop. 17. Any two angles of a triangle are together less than two right angles, is an
immediate consequence of it. By the aid of these two, the following fundamental
properties of triangles are easily proved:—

Prop. 18. The greater side of every triangle has the greater angle opposite to it;

Its converse, Prop. 19. The greater angle of every triangle is subtended by the greater
side, or has the greater side opposite to it;

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 10/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Prop. 20. Any two sides of a triangle are together greater than the third side;

And also Prop. 21. If from the ends of the side of a triangle there be drawn two straight
lines to a point within the triangle, these shall be less than the other two sides of the
triangle, but shall contain a greater angle.

§ 11. Having solved two problems (Props. 22, 23), he returns to two triangles which have
two sides of the one equal respectively to two sides of the other. It is known (Prop. 4)
that if the included angles are equal then the third sides are equal; and conversely (Prop.
8), if the third sides are equal, then the angles included by the first sides are equal. From
this it follows that if the included angles are not equal, the third sides are not equal; and
conversely, that if the third sides are not equal, the included angles are not equal. Euclid
now completes this knowledge by proving, that “if the included angles are not equal,
then the third side in that triangle is the greater which contains the greater angle”; and
conversely, that “if the third sides are unequal, that triangle contains the greater angle
which contains the greater side.” These are Prop. 24 and Prop. 25.

§ 12. The next theorem (Prop. 26) says that if two triangles have one side and two
angles of the one equal respectively to one side and two angles of the other, viz. in both
triangles either the angles adjacent to the equal side, or one angle adjacent and one
angle opposite it, then the two triangles are identically equal.

This theorem belongs to a group with Prop. 4 and Prop. 8. Its first case might have been
given immediately after Prop. 4, but the second case requires Prop. 16 for its proof.

§ 13. We come now to the investigation of parallel straight lines, i.e. of straight lines
which lie in the same plane, and cannot be made to meet however far they be produced
either way. The investigation which starts from Prop. 16, will become clearer if a few
names be explained which are not all used by Euclid. If two straight lines be cut by a
third, the latter is now generally called a “transversal” of the figure. It forms at the two
points where it cuts the given lines four angles with each. Those of the angles which lie
between the given lines are called interior angles, and of these, again, any two which lie
on opposite sides of the transversal but one at each of the two points are called
“alternate angles.”

We may now state Prop. 16 thus:—If two straight lines which meet are cut by a
transversal, their alternate angles are unequal. For the lines will form a triangle, and
one of the alternate angles will be an exterior angle to the triangle, the other interior and
opposite to it.

From this follows at once the theorem contained in Prop. 27. If two straight lines which
are cut by a transversal make alternate angles equal, the lines cannot meet, however
far they be produced, hence they are parallel. This proves the existence of parallel lines.

Prop. 28 states the same fact in different forms. If a straight line, falling on two other
straight lines, make the exterior angle equal to the interior and opposite angle on the
same side of the line, or make the interior angles on the same side together equal to

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 11/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

two right angles, the two straight lines shall be parallel to one another.

Hence we know that, “if two straight lines which are cut by a transversal meet, their
alternate angles are not equal”; and hence that, “if alternate angles are equal, then the
lines are parallel.”

The question now arises, Are the propositions converse to these true or not? That is to
say, “If alternate angles are unequal, do the lines meet?” And “if the lines are parallel,
are alternate angles necessarily equal?”

The answer to either of these two questions implies the answer to the other. But it has
been found impossible to prove that the negation or the affirmation of either is true.

The difficulty which thus arises is overcome by Euclid assuming that the first question
has to be answered in the affirmative. This gives his last axiom (12), which we quote in
his own words.

Axiom 12.—If a straight line meet two straight lines, so as to make the two interior
angles on the same side of it taken together less than two right angles, these straight
lines, being continually produced, shall at length meet on that side on which are the
angles which are less than two right angles.

The answer to the second of the above questions follows from this, and gives the
theorem Prop. 29:—If a straight line fall on two parallel straight lines, it makes the
alternate angles equal to one another, and the exterior angle equal to the interior and
opposite angle on the same side, and also the two interior angles on the same side
together equal to two right angles.

§ 14. With this a new part of elementary geometry begins. The earlier propositions are
independent of this axiom, and would be true even if a wrong assumption had been
made in it. They all relate to figures in a plane. But a plane is only one among an infinite
number of conceivable surfaces. We may draw figures on any one of them and study
their properties. We may, for instance, take a sphere instead of the plane, and obtain
“spherical” in the place of “plane” geometry. If on one of these surfaces lines and figures
could be drawn, answering to all the definitions of our plane figures, and if the axioms
with the exception of the last all hold, then all propositions up to the 28th will be true for
these figures. This is the case in spherical geometry if we substitute “shortest line” or
“great circle” for “straight line,” “small circle” for “circle,” and if, besides, we limit all
figures to a part of the sphere which is less than a hemisphere, so that two points on it
cannot be opposite ends of a diameter, and therefore determine always one and only one
great circle.

For spherical triangles, therefore, all the important propositions 4, 8, 26; 5 and 6; and
18, 19 and 20 will hold good.

This remark will be sufficient to show the impossibility of proving Euclid’s last axiom,
which would mean proving that this axiom is a consequence of the others, and hence
that the theory of parallels would hold on a spherical surface, where the other axioms do
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 12/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

hold, whilst parallels do not even exist.

It follows that the axiom in question states an inherent difference between the plane and
other surfaces, and that the plane is only fully characterized when this axiom is added to
the other assumptions.

§ 15. The introduction of the new axiom and of parallel lines leads to a new class of
propositions.

After proving (Prop. 30) that “two lines which are each parallel to a third are parallel
to each other,” we obtain the new properties of triangles contained in Prop. 32. Of these
the second part is the most important, viz. the theorem, The three interior angles of
every triangle are together equal to two right angles.

As easy deductions not given by Euclid but added by Simson follow the propositions
about the angles in polygons, they are given in English editions as corollaries to Prop.
32.

These theorems do not hold for spherical figures. The sum of the interior angles of a
spherical triangle is always greater than two right angles, and increases with the area.

§ 16. The theory of parallels as such may be said to be finished with Props. 33 and 34,
which state properties of the parallelogram, i.e. of a quadrilateral formed by two pairs of
parallels. They are—

Prop. 33. The straight lines which join the extremities of two equal and parallel
straight lines towards the same parts are themselves equal and parallel; and

Prop. 34. The opposite sides and angles of a parallelogram are equal to one another,
and the diameter (diagonal) bisects the parallelogram, that is, divides it into two equal
parts.

§ 17. The rest of the first book relates to areas of figures.

The theory is made to depend upon the theorems—

Prop. 35. Parallelograms on the same base and between the same parallels are equal to
one another; and

Prop. 36. Parallelograms on equal bases and between the same parallels are equal to
one another.

As each parallelogram is bisected by a diagonal, the last theorems hold also if the word
parallelogram be replaced by “triangle,” as is done in Props. 37 and 38.

It is to be remarked that Euclid proves these propositions only in the case when the
parallelograms or triangles have their bases in the same straight line.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 13/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

The theorems converse to the last form the contents of the next three propositions, viz.:
Props, 40 and 41.—Equal triangles, on the same or on equal bases, in the same straight
line, and on the same side of it, are between the same parallels.

That the two cases here stated are given by Euclid in two separate propositions proved
separately is characteristic of his method.

§ 18. To compare areas of other figures, Euclid shows first, in Prop. 42, how to draw a
parallelogram which is equal in area to a given triangle, and has one of its angles
equal to a given angle. If the given angle is right, then the problem is solved to draw a
“rectangle&rrdquo; equal in area to a given triangle.

Next this parallelogram is transformed into another parallelogram, which has one of its
sides equal to a given straight line, whilst its angles remain unaltered. This may be done
by aid of the theorem in

Prop. 43. The complements of the parallelograms which are about the diameter of any
parallelogram are equal to one another.

Thus the problem (Prop. 44) is solved to construct a parallelogram on a given line,
which is equal in area to a given triangle, and which has one angle equal to a given
angle (generally a right angle).

As every polygon can be divided into a number of triangles, we can now construct a
parallelogram having a given angle, say a right angle, and being equal in area to a given
polygon. For each of the triangles into which the polygon has been divided, a
parallelogram may be constructed, having one side equal to a given straight line and one
angle equal to a given angle. If these parallelograms be placed side by side, they may be
added together to form a single parallelogram, having still one side of the given length.
This is done in Prop. 45.

Herewith a means is found to compare areas of different polygons. We need only

construct two rectangles equal in area to the given polygons, and having each one side of
given length. By comparing the unequal sides we are enabled to judge whether the areas
are equal, or which is the greater. Euclid does not state this consequence, but the
problem is taken up again at the end of the second book, where it is shown how to
construct a square equal in area to a given polygon.

Prop. 46 is: To describe a square on a given straight line.

§ 19. The first book concludes with one of the most important theorems in the whole of
geometry, and one which has been celebrated since the earliest times. It is stated, but on
doubtful authority, that Pythagoras discovered it, and it has been called by his name. If
we call that side in a right-angled triangle which is opposite the right angle the
hypotenuse, we may state it as follows:—

Theorem of Pythagoras (Prop. 47).—In every right-angled triangle the square on the
hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other sides.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 14/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

And conversely—

Prop. 48. If the square described on one of the sides of a triangle be equal to the
squares described on the other sides, then the angle contained by these two sides is a
right angle.

On this theorem (Prop. 47) almost all geometrical measurement depends, which cannot
be directly obtained.

Book II.

§ 20. The propositions in the second book are very different in character from those in
the first; they all relate to areas of rectangles and squares. Their true significance is best
seen by stating them in an algebraic form. This is often done by expressing the lengths of
lines by aid of numbers, which tell how many times a chosen unit is contained in the
lines. If there is a unit to be found which is contained an exact number of times in each
side of a rectangle, it is easily seen, and generally shown in the teaching of arithmetic,
that the rectangle contains a number of unit squares equal to the product of the
numbers which measure the sides, a unit square being the square on the unit line. If,
however, no such unit can be found, this process requires that connexion between lines
and numbers which is only established by aid of ratios of lines, and which is therefore at
this stage altogether inadmissible. But there exists another way of connecting these
propositions with algebra, based on modern notions which seem destined greatly to
change and to simplify mathematics. We shall introduce here as much of it as is required
for our present purpose.

At the beginning of the second book we find a definition according to which “a rectangle
is said to be ‘contained’ by the two sides which contain one of its right angles”; in the
text this phraseology is extended by speaking of rectangles contained by any two straight
lines, meaning the rectangle which has two adjacent sides equal to the two straight lines.

We shall denote a finite straight line by a single small letter, a, b, c, . . . x, and the area of
the rectangle contained by two lines a and b by ab, and this we shall call the product of
the two lines a and b. It will be understood that this definition has nothing to do with the
definition of a product of numbers.

We define as follows:—

The sum of two straight lines a and b means a straight line c which may be divided in
two parts equal respectively to a and b. This sum is denoted by a + b.

The difference of two lines a and b (in symbols, a−b) means a line c which when added
to b gives a; that is,

a − b = c if b + c = a.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 15/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

The product of two lines a and b (in symbols, ab) means the area of the rectangle
contained by the lines a and b. For aa, which means the square on the line a, we write
a2.

§ 21. The first ten of the fourteen propositions of the second book may then be written in
the form of formulae as follows:—

Prop. 1. a (b + c + d + ... ) = ab + ac + ad + ...

” 2. ab + ac = a2 if b + c = a.
” 3. a (a + b) = a2 + ab.
” 4. (a + b)2 = a2 + 2ab + b2.
” 5. (a + b)(a − b) + b2 = a2.
” 6. (a + b)(a − b) + b2 = a2.
” 7. a2 + (a − b)2 = 2a (a − b) + b2.
” 8. 4(a + b)a + b2 = (2a + b)2.
” 9. (a + b)2 + (a − b)2 = 2a2 + 2b2.
” 10. (a + b)2 + (a − b)2 = 2a2 + 2b2.
It will be seen that 5 and 6, and also 9 and 10, are identical. In Euclid’s statement they
do not look the same, the figures being arranged differently.

If the letters a, b, c, ... denoted numbers, it follows from algebra that each of these
formulae is true. But this does not prove them in our case, where the letters denote lines,
and their products areas without any reference to numbers. To prove them we have to
discover the laws which rule the operations introduced, viz. addition and multiplication
of segments. This we shall do now; and we shall find that these laws are the same with
those which hold in algebraical addition and multiplication.

§ 22. In a sum of numbers we may change the order in which the numbers are added,
and we may also add the numbers together in groups and then add these groups. But
this also holds for the sum of segments and for the sum of rectangles, as a little
consideration shows. That the sum of rectangles has always a meaning follows from the
Props. 43-45 in the first book. These laws about addition are reducible to the two—

a+b=b+a (1),
a + (b + c) = a + b + c (2);
or, when expressed for rectangles,

ab + ed = ed + ab (3),
ab + (cd + ef) = ab + cd + ef (4).
The brackets mean that the terms in the bracket have been added together before they
are added to another term. The more general cases for more terms may be deduced from
the above.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 16/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

For the product of two numbers we have the law that it remains unaltered if the factors
be interchanged. This also holds for our geometrical product. For if ab denotes the area
of the rectangle which has a as base and b as altitude, then ba will denote the area of the
rectangle which has b as base and a as altitude. But in a rectangle we may take either of
the two lines which contain it as base, and then the other will be the altitude. This gives

ab = ba (5).
In order further to multiply a sum by a number, we have in algebra the rule:—Multiply
each term of the sum, and add the products thus obtained. That this holds for our
geometrical products is shown by Euclid in his first proposition of the second book,
where he proves that the area of a rectangle whose base is the sum of a number of
segments is equal to the sum of rectangles which have these segments separately as
bases. In symbols this gives, in the simplest case,

a(b + c) = ab + ac
and (b + c)a = ba + ca (6).
To these laws, which have been investigated by Sir William Hamilton and by Hermann
Grassmann, the former has given special names. He calls the laws expressed in

(1) and (3) the commutative law for addition;

(5) the commutative law for multiplication;

(2) and (4) the associative laws for addition;

(6) the distributive law.

§ 23. Having proved that these six laws hold, we can at once prove every one of the
above propositions in their algebraical form.

The first is proved geometrically, it being one of the fundamental laws. The next two
propositions are only special cases of the first. Of the others we shall prove one, viz. the
fourth:—

(a + b)2 = (a + b)(a + b) = (a + b)a + (a + b)b by (6).

But

(a + b)a = aa + ba by (6),
= aa + ab by (5);
and

(a + b)b = ab + bb by (6).
Therefore

(a + b)2 = aa + ab + (ab + bb)

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 17/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

= aa + (ab + ab) + bb
= aa + 2ab + bb by (4).
This gives the theorem in question.

In the same manner every one of the first ten propositions is proved.

It will be seen that the operations performed are exactly the same as if the letters
denoted numbers.

Props. 5 and 6 may also be written thus—

(a + b)(a − b) = a2 − b2.
Prop. 7, which is an easy consequence of Prop. 4, may be transformed. If we denote by c
the line a + b, so that

c = a + b, a = c − b,
we get

c2 + (c − b)2 = 2c(c − b) + b2
= 2c2 − 2bc + b2.
Subtracting c2 from both sides, and writing a for c, we get

(a − b)2 = a2 − 2ab + b2.

In Euclid’s Elements this form of the theorem does not appear, all propositions being so
stated that the notion of subtraction does not enter into them.

§ 24. The remaining two theorems (Props. 12 and 13) connect the square on one side of a
triangle with the sum of the squares on the other sides, in case that the angle between
the latter is acute or obtuse. They are important theorems in trigonometry, where it is
possible to include them in a single theorem.

§ 25. There are in the second book two problems, Props. 11 and 14.

If written in the above symbolic language, the former requires to find a line x such that
a(a − x) = x2. Prop. 11 contains, therefore, the solution of a quadratic equation, which we
may write x2 + ax = a2. The solution is required later on in the construction of a regular
decagon.

More important is the problem in the last proposition (Prop. 14). It requires the
construction of a square equal in area to a given rectangle, hence a solution of the
equation

x2 = ab.
In Book I., 42-45, it has been shown how a rectangle may be constructed equal in area to
a given figure bounded by straight lines. By aid of the new proposition we may therefore
now determine a line such that the square on that line is equal in area to any given
rectilinear figure, or we can square any such figure.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 18/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

As of two squares that is the greater which has the greater side, it follows that now the
comparison of two areas has been reduced to the comparison of two lines.

The problem of reducing other areas to squares is frequently met with among Greek
mathematicians. We need only mention the problem of squaring the circle (see Circle).

In the present day the comparison of areas is performed in a simpler way by reducing all
areas to rectangles having a common base. Their altitudes give then a measure of their
areas.

The construction of a rectangle having the base u, and being equal in area to a given
rectangle, depends upon Prop. 43, I. This therefore gives a solution of the equation

ab = ux,
where x denotes the unknown altitude.

Book III.

§ 26. The third book of the Elements relates exclusively to properties of the circle. A
circle and its circumference have been defined in Book I., Def. 15. We restate it here in
slightly different words:—

Definition.—The circumference of a circle is a plane curve such that all points in it have
the same distance from a fixed point in the plane. This point is called the “centre” of the
circle.

Of the new definitions, of which eleven are given at the beginning of the third book, a
few only require special mention. The first, which says that circles with equal radii are
equal, is in part a theorem, but easily proved by applying the one circle to the other. Or it
may be considered proved by aid of Prop. 24, equal circles not being used till after this
theorem.

In the second definition is explained what is meant by a line which “touches” a circle.
Such a line is now generally called a tangent to the circle. The introduction of this name
allows us to state many of Euclid’s propositions in a much shorter form.

For the same reason we shall call a straight line joining two points on the circumference
of a circle a “chord.”

Definitions 4 and 5 may be replaced with a slight generalization by the following:—

Definition.—By the distance of a point from a line is meant the length of the
perpendicular drawn from the point to the line.

§ 27. From the definition of a circle it follows that every circle has a centre. Prop. 1
requires to find it when the circle is given, i.e. when its circumference is drawn.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 19/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

To solve this problem a chord is drawn (that is, any two points in the circumference are
joined), and through the point where this is bisected a perpendicular to it is erected.
Euclid then proves, first, that no point off this perpendicular can be the centre, hence
that the centre must lie in this line; and, secondly, that of the points on the
perpendicular one only can be the centre, viz. the one which bisects the parts of the
perpendicular bounded by the circle. In the second part Euclid silently assumes that the
perpendicular there used does cut the circumference in two, and only in two points. The
proof therefore is incomplete. The proof of the first part, however, is exact. By drawing
two non-parallel chords, and the perpendiculars which bisect them, the centre will be
found as the point where these perpendiculars intersect.

§ 28. In Prop. 2 it is proved that a chord of a circle lies altogether within the circle.

What we have called the first part of Euclid’s solution of Prop. 1 may be stated as a
theorem:—

Every straight line which bisects a chord, and is at right angles to it, passes through
the centre of the circle.

The converse to this gives Prop. 3, which may be stated thus:—

If a straight line through the centre of a circle bisect a chord, then it is perpendicular to
the chord, and if it be perpendicular to the chord it bisects it.

An easy consequence of this is the following theorem, which is essentially the same as
Prop. 4:—

Two chords of a circle, of which neither passes through the centre, cannot bisect each
other.

These last three theorems are fundamental for the theory of the circle. It is to be
remarked that Euclid never proves that a straight line cannot have more than two points
in common with a circumference.

§ 29. The next two propositions (5 and 6) might be replaced by a single and a simpler
theorem, viz:—

Two circles which have a common centre, and whose circumferences have one point in
common, coincide.

Or, more in agreement with Euclid’s form:—

Two different circles, whose circumferences have a point in common, cannot have the
same centre.

That Euclid treats of two cases is characteristic of Greek mathematics.

The next two propositions (7 and 8) again belong together. They may be combined thus:
—
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 20/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

If from a point in a plane of a circle, which is not the centre, straight lines be drawn to
the different points of the circumference, then of all these lines one is the shortest, and
one the longest, and these lie both in that straight line which joins the given point to the
centre. Of all the remaining lines each is equal to one and only one other, and these
equal lines lie on opposite sides of the shortest or longest, and make equal angles with
them.

Euclid distinguishes the two cases where the given point lies within or without the circle,
omitting the case where it lies in the circumference.

From the last proposition it follows that if from a point more than two equal straight
lines can be drawn to the circumference, this point must be the centre. This is Prop. 9.

As a consequence of this we get

If the circumferences of the two circles have three points in common they coincide.

For in this case the two circles have a common centre, because from the centre of the
one three equal lines can be drawn to points on the circumference of the other. But two
circles which have a common centre, and whose circumferences have a point in
common, coincide. (Compare above statement of Props. 5 and 6.)

This theorem may also be stated thus:—

Through three points only one circumference may be drawn; or, Three points
determine a circle.

Euclid does not give the theorem in this form. He proves, however, that the two circles
cannot cut another in more than two points (Prop. 10), and that two circles cannot
touch one another in more points than one (Prop. 13).

§ 30. Propositions 11 and 12 assert that if two circles touch, then the point of contact lies
on the line joining their centres. This gives two propositions, because the circles may
touch either internally or externally.

§ 31. Propositions 14 and 15 relate to the length of chords. The first says that equal
chords are equidistant from the centre, and that chords which are equidistant from the
centre are equal;

Whilst Prop. 15 compares unequal chords, viz. Of all chords the diameter is the greatest,
and of other chords that is the greater which is nearer to the centre; and conversely, the
greater chord is nearer to the centre.

§ 32. In Prop. 16 the tangent to a circle is for the first time introduced. The proposition is
meant to show that the straight line at the end point of the diameter and at right angles
to it is a tangent. The proposition itself does not state this. It runs thus:—

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 21/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Prop. 16. The straight line drawn at right angles to the diameter of a circle, from the
extremity of it, falls without the circle; and no straight line can be drawn from the
extremity, between that straight line and the circumference, so as not to cut the circle.

Corollary.—The straight line at right angles to a diameter drawn through the end point
of it touches the circle.

The statement of the proposition and its whole treatment show the difficulties which the
tangents presented to Euclid.

Prop. 17 solves the problem through a given point, either in the circumference or
without it, to draw a tangent to a given circle.

Closely connected with Prop. 16 are Props. 18 and 19, which state (Prop. 18), that the
line joining the centre of a circle to the point of contact of a tangent is perpendicular to
the tangent; and conversely (Prop. 19), that the straight line through the point of
contact of, and perpendicular to, a tangent to a circle passes through the centre of the
circle.

§ 33. The rest of the book relates to angles connected with a circle, viz. angles which have
the vertex either at the centre or on the circumference, and which are called respectively
angles at the centre and angles at the circumference. Between these two kinds of angles
exists the important relation expressed as follows:—

Prop. 20. The angle at the centre of a circle is double of the angle at the circumference
on the same base, that is, on the same arc.

This is of great importance for its consequences, of which the two following are the
principal:—

Prop. 21. The angles in the same segment of a circle are equal to one another;

Prop. 22. The opposite angles of any quadrilateral figure inscribed in a circle are
together equal to two right angles.

Further consequences are:—

Prop. 23. On the same straight line, and on the same side of it, there cannot be two
similar segments of circles, not coinciding with one another;

Prop. 24. Similar segments of circles on equal straight lines are equal to one another.

The problem Prop. 25. A segment of a circle being given to describe the circle of which
it is a segment, may be solved much more easily by aid of the construction described in
relation to Prop. 1, III., in § 27.

§ 34. There follow four theorems connecting the angles at the centre, the arcs into which
they divide the circumference, and the chords subtending these arcs. They are expressed
for angles, arcs and chords in equal circles, but they hold also for angles, arcs and chords
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 22/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

in the same circle.

The theorems are:—

Prop. 26. In equal circles equal angles stand on equal arcs, whether they be at the
centres or circumferences;

Prop. 27. (converse to Prop. 26). In equal circles the angles which stand on equal arcs
are equal to one another, whether they be at the centres or the circumferences;

Prop. 28. In equal circles equal straight lines (equal chords) cut off equal arcs, the
greater equal to the greater, and the less equal to the less;

Prop. 29 (converse to Prop. 28). In equal circles equal arcs are subtended by equal
straight lines.

§ 35. Other important consequences of Props. 20-22 are:—

Prop. 31. In a circle the angle in a semicircle is a right angle; but the angle in a segment
greater than a semicircle is less than a right angle; and the angle in a segment less
than a semicircle is greater than a right angle;

Prop. 32. If a straight line touch a circle, and from the point of contact a straight line
be drawn cutting the circle, the angles which this line makes with the line touching the
circle shall be equal to the angles which are in the alternate segments of the circle.

§ 36. Propositions 30, 33, 34, contain problems which are solved by aid of the
propositions preceding them:—

Prop. 30. To bisect a given arc, that is, to divide it into two equal parts;

Prop. 33. On a given straight line to describe a segment of a circle containing an angle
equal to a given rectilineal angle;

Prop. 34. From a given circle to cut off a segment containing an angle equal to a given
rectilineal angle.

§ 37. If we draw chords through a point A within a circle, they will each be divided by A
into two segments. Between these segments the law holds that the rectangle contained
by them has the same area on whatever chord through A the segments are taken. The
value of this rectangle changes, of course, with the position of A.

A similar theorem holds if the point A be taken without the circle. On every straight line
through A, which cuts the circle in two points B and C, we have two segments AB and
AC, and the rectangles contained by them are again equal to one another, and equal to
the square on a tangent drawn from A to the circle.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 23/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

The first of these theorems gives Prop. 35, and the second Prop. 36, with its corollary,
whilst Prop. 37, the last of Book III., gives the converse to Prop. 36. The first two
theorems may be combined in one:—

If through a point A in the plane of a circle a straight line be drawn cutting the circle in
B and C, then the rectangle AB.AC has a constant value so long as the point A be fixed;
and if from A a tangent AD can be drawn to the circle, touching at D, then the above
rectangle equals the square on AD.

Prop. 37 may be stated thus:—

If from a point A without a circle a line be drawn cutting the circle in B and C, and
another line to a point D on the circle, and AB.AC = AD2, then the line AD touches the
circle at D.

It is not difficult to prove also the converse to the general proposition as above stated.
This proposition and its converse may be expressed as follows:—

If four points ABCD be taken on the circumference of a circle, and if the lines AB, CD,
produced if necessary, meet at E, then

EA·EB = EC·ED;
and conversely, if this relation holds then the four points lie on a circle, that is, the
circle drawn through three of them passes through the fourth.

That a circle may always be drawn through three points, provided that they do not lie in
a straight line, is proved only later on in Book IV.

BOOK IV.

§ 38. The fourth book contains only problems, all relating to the construction of
triangles and polygons inscribed in and circumscribed about circles, and of circles
inscribed in or circumscribed about triangles and polygons. They are nearly all given for
their own sake, and not for future use in the construction of figures, as are most of those
in the former books. In seven definitions at the beginning of the book it is explained
what is understood by figures inscribed in or described about other figures, with special
reference to the case where one figure is a circle. Instead, however, of saying that one
figure is described about another, it is now generally said that the one figure is
circumscribed about the other. We may then state the definitions 3 or 4 thus:—

Definition.—A polygon is said to be inscribed in a circle, and the circle is said to be

circumscribed about the polygon, if the vertices of the polygon lie in the circumference
of the circle.

And definitions 5 and 6 thus:—

Definition.—A polygon is said to be circumscribed about a circle, and a circle is said to

be inscribed in a polygon, if the sides of the polygon are tangents to the circle.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 24/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 39. The first problem is merely constructive. It requires to draw in a given circle a
chord equal to a given straight line, which is not greater than the diameter of the circle.
The problem is not a determinate one, inasmuch as the chord may be drawn from any
point in the circumference. This may be said of almost all problems in this book,
especially of the next two. They are:—

Prop. 2. In a given circle to inscribe a triangle equiangular to a given triangle;

Prop. 3. About a given circle to circumscribe a triangle equiangular to a given triangle.

§ 40. Of somewhat greater interest are the next problems, where the triangles are given
and the circles to be found.

Prop. 4. To inscribe a circle in a given triangle.

The result is that the problem has always a solution, viz. the centre of the circle is the
point where the bisectors of two of the interior angles of the triangle meet. The solution
shows, though Euclid does not state this, that the problem has but one solution; and
also,

The three bisectors of the interior angles of any triangle meet in a point, and this is the
centre of the circle inscribed in the triangle.

The solutions of most of the other problems contain also theorems. Of these we shall
state those which are of special interest; Euclid does not state any one of them.

§ 41. Prop. 5. To circumscribe a circle about a given triangle.

The one solution which always exists contains the following:—

The three straight lines which bisect the sides of a triangle at right angles meet in a
point, and this point is the centre of the circle circumscribed about the triangle.

Euclid adds in a corollary the following property:—

The centre of the circle circumscribed about a triangle lies within, on a side of, or
without the triangle, according as the triangle is acute-angled, right-angled or obtuse-
angled.

§ 42. Whilst it is always possible to draw a circle which is inscribed in or circumscribed

about a given triangle, this is not the case with quadrilaterals or polygons of more sides.
Of those for which this is possible the regular polygons, i.e. polygons which have all their
sides and angles equal, are the most interesting. In each of them a circle may be
inscribed, and another may be circumscribed about it.

Euclid does not use the word regular, but he describes the polygons in question as
equiangular and equilateral. We shall use the name regular polygon. The regular
triangle is equilateral, the regular quadrilateral is the square.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 25/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Euclid considers the regular polygons of 4, 5, 6 and 15 sides. For each of the first three
he solves the problems—(1) to inscribe such a polygon in a given circle; (2) to
circumscribe it about a given circle; (3) to inscribe a circle in, and (4) to circumscribe a
circle about, such a polygon.

For the regular triangle the problems are not repeated, because more general problems
have been solved.

Props. 6, 7, 8 and 9 solve these problems for the square.

The general problem of inscribing in a given circle a regular polygon of n sides depends
upon the problem of dividing the circumference of a circle into n equal parts, or what
comes to the same thing, of drawing from the centre of the circle n radii such that the
angles between consecutive radii are equal, that is, to divide the space about the centre
into n equal angles. Thus, if it is required to inscribe a square in a circle, we have to draw
four lines from the centre, making the four angles equal. This is done by drawing two
diameters at right angles to one another. The ends of these diameters are the vertices of
the required square. If, on the other hand, tangents be drawn at these ends, we obtain a
square circumscribed about the circle.

§ 43. To construct a regular pentagon, we find it convenient first to construct a regular

decagon. This requires to divide the space about the centre into ten equal angles. Each
1 1
will be ⁠10 ⁠th of a right angle, or ⁠5 ⁠th of two right angles. If we suppose the decagon
constructed, and if we join the centre to the end of one side, we get an isosceles triangle,
1
where the angle at the centre equals ⁠5 ⁠th of two right angles; hence each of the angles at
2
the base will be ⁠5 ⁠ths of two right angles, as all three angles together equal two right
angles. Thus we have to construct an isosceles triangle, having the angle at the vertex
equal to half an angle at the base. This is solved in Prop. 10, by aid of the problem in
Prop. 11 of the second book. If we make the sides of this triangle equal to the radius of
the given circle, then the base will be the side of the regular decagon inscribed in the
circle. This side being known the decagon can be constructed, and if the vertices are
joined alternately, leaving out half their number, we obtain the regular pentagon. (Prop.
11.)

Euclid does not proceed thus. He wants the pentagon before the decagon. This, however,
does not change the real nature of his solution, nor does his solution become simpler by
not mentioning the decagon.

Once the regular pentagon is inscribed, it is easy to circumscribe another by drawing

tangents at the vertices of the inscribed pentagon. This is shown in Prop. 12.

Props. 13 and 14 teach how a circle may be inscribed in or circumscribed about any given
regular pentagon.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 26/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 44. The regular hexagon is more easily constructed, as shown in Prop. 15. The result is
that the side of the regular hexagon inscribed in a circle is equal to the radius of the
circle.

For this polygon the other three problems mentioned are not solved.

§ 45. The book closes with Prop. 16. To inscribe a regular quindecagon in a given circle.
If we inscribe a regular pentagon and a regular hexagon in the circle, having one vertex
in common, then the arc from the common vertex to the next vertex of the pentagon is
1 1
5
⁠th of the circumference, and to the next vertex of the hexagon is ⁠6 ⁠th of the
1 1 1
circumference. The difference between these arcs is, therefore, ⁠5 ⁠ − ⁠6 ⁠ = ⁠30 ⁠th of the
circumference. The latter may, therefore, be divided into thirty, and hence also in fifteen
equal parts, and the regular quindecagon be described.

§ 46. We conclude with a few theorems about regular polygons which are not given by
Euclid.

The straight lines perpendicular to and bisecting the sides of any regular polygon meet
in a point. The straight lines bisecting the angles in the regular polygon meet in the
same point. This point is the centre of the circles circumscribed about and inscribed in
the regular polygon.

We can bisect any given arc (Prop. 30, III.). Hence we can divide a circumference into
2n equal parts as soon as it has been divided into n equal parts, or as soon as a regular
polygon of n sides has been constructed. Hence—

If a regular polygon of n sides has been constructed, then a regular polygon of 2n

sides, of 4n, of 8n sides, &c., may also be constructed. Euclid shows how to construct
regular polygons of 3, 4, 5 and 15 sides. It follows that we can construct regular polygons
of

3, 6, 12, 24 sides
4, 8, 16, 32 ”
5, 10, 20, 40 ”
15, 30, 60, 120 ”

The construction of any new regular polygon not included in one of these series will give
rise to a new series. Till the beginning of the 19th century nothing was added to the
knowledge of regular polygons as given by Euclid. Then Gauss, in his celebrated
Arithmetic, proved that every regular polygon of 2n + 1 sides may be constructed if this
number 2n + 1 be prime, and that no others except those with 2m (2n + 1) sides can be
constructed by elementary methods. This shows that regular polygons of 7, 9, 13 sides
cannot thus be constructed, but that a regular polygon of 17 sides is possible; for 17 = 24
+ 1. The next polygon is one of 257 sides. The construction becomes already rather
complicated for 17 sides.

Book V.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 27/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 47. The fifth book of the Elements is not exclusively geometrical. It contains the theory
of ratios and proportion of quantities in general. The treatment, as here given, is
admirable, and in every respect superior to the algebraical method by which Euclid’s
theory is now generally replaced. We shall treat the subject in order to show why the
usual algebraical treatment of proportion is not really sound. We begin by quoting those
definitions at the beginning of Book V. which are most important. These definitions have
given rise to much discussion.

The only definitions which are essential for the fifth book are Defs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Of
the remainder 3, 8 and 9 are more than useless, and probably not Euclid’s, but additions
of later editors, of whom Theon of Alexandria was the most prominent. Defs. 10 and 11
belong rather to the sixth book, whilst all the others are merely nominal. The really
important ones are 4, 5, 6 and 7.

§ 48. To define a magnitude is not attempted by Euclid. The first two definitions state
what is meant by a “part,” that is, a submultiple or measure, and by a “multiple” of a
given magnitude. The meaning of Def. 4 is that two given quantities can have a ratio to
one another only in case that they are comparable as to their magnitude, that is, if they
are of the same kind.

Def. 3, which is probably due to Theon, professes to define a ratio, but is as meaningless
as it is uncalled for, for all that is wanted is given in Defs. 5 and 7.

In Def. 5 it is explained what is meant by saying that two magnitudes have the same
ratio to one another as two other magnitudes, and in Def. 7 what we have to understand
by a greater or a less ratio. The 6th definition is only nominal, explaining the meaning of
the word proportional.

Euclid represents magnitudes by lines, and often denotes them either by single letters
or, like lines, by two letters. We shall use only single letters for the purpose. If a and b
denote two magnitudes of the same kind, their ratio will be denoted by a : b; if c and d
are two other magnitudes of the same kind, but possibly of a different kind from a and b,
then if c and d have the same ratio to one another as a and b, this will be expressed by
writing—

a : b :: c : d.
Further, if m is a (whole) number, ma shall denote the multiple of a which is obtained by
taking it m times.

§ 49. The whole theory of ratios is based on Def. 5.

Def. 5. The first of four magnitudes is said to have the same ratio to the second that the
third has to the fourth when, any equimultiples whatever of the first and the third
being taken, and any equimultiples whatever of the second and the fourth, if the
multiple of the first be less than that of the second, the multiple of the third is also less
than that of the fourth; and if the multiple of the first is equal to that of the second, the

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 28/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

multiple of the third is also equal to that of the fourth; and if the multiple of the first is
greater than that of the second, the multiple of the third is also greater than that of the
fourth.

It will be well to show at once in an example how this definition can be used, by proving
the first part of the first proposition in the sixth book. Triangles of the same altitude are
to one another as their bases, or if a and b are the bases, and α and β the areas, of two
triangles which have the same altitude, then a : b :: α : β.

To prove this, we have, according to Definition 5, to show—

if ma > nb, then mα > nβ,

if ma = nb, then mα = nβ,
if ma < nb, then mα < nβ.
That this is true is in our case easily seen. We may suppose that the triangles have a
common vertex, and their bases in the same line. We set off the base a along the line
containing the bases m times; we then join the different parts of division to the vertex,
and get m triangles all equal to α. The triangle on ma as base equals, therefore, mα. If we
proceed in the same manner with the base b, setting it off n times, we find that the area
of the triangle on the base nb equals nβ, the vertex of all triangles being the same. But if
two triangles have the same altitude, then their areas are equal if the bases are equal;
hence mα = nβ if ma = nb, and if their bases are unequal, then that has the greater area
which is on the greater base; in other words, mα is greater than, equal to, or less than nβ,
according as ma is greater than, equal to, or less than nb, which was to be proved.

§ 50. It will be seen that even in this example it does not become evident what a ratio
really is. It is still an open question whether ratios are magnitudes which we can
compare. We do not know whether the ratio of two lines is a magnitude of the same kind
as the ratio of two areas. Though we might say that Def. 5 defines equal ratios, still we
do not know whether they are equal in the sense of the axiom, that two things which are
equal to a third are equal to one another. That this is the case requires a proof, and until
this proof is given we shall use the :: instead of the sign =, which, however, we shall
afterwards introduce.

As soon as it has been established that all ratios are like magnitudes, it becomes easy to
show that, in some cases at least, they are numbers. This step was never made by Greek
mathematicians. They distinguished always most carefully between continuous
magnitudes and the discrete series of numbers. In modern times it has become the
custom to ignore this difference.

If, in determining the ratio of two lines, a common measure can be found, which is
contained m times in the first, and n times in the second, then the ratio of the two lines
equals the ratio of the two numbers m : n. This is shown by Euclid in Prop. 5, X. But the
ratio of two numbers is, as a rule, a fraction, and the Greeks did not, as we do, consider
fractions as numbers. Far less had they any notion of introducing irrational numbers,

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 29/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

which are neither whole nor fractional, as we are obliged to do if we wish to say that all
ratios are numbers. The incommensurable numbers which are thus introduced as ratios
of incommensurable quantities are nowadays as familiar to us as fractions; but a proof is
generally omitted that we may apply to them the rules which have been established for
rational numbers only. Euclid’s treatment of ratios avoids this difficulty. His definitions
hold for commensurable as well as for incommensurable quantities. Even the notion of
incommensurable quantities is avoided in Book V. But he proves that the more
elementary rules of algebra hold for ratios. We shall state all his propositions in that
algebraical form to which we are now accustomed. This may, of course, be done without
changing the character of Euclid’s method.

§. 51. Using the notation explained above we express the first propositions as follows:—

Prop. 1. If

a = ma′, b = mb′, c = mc′,

then

a + b + c = m(a′ + b′ + c′).
Prop. 2. If

a = mb, and c = md,

e = nb, and f = nd,
then a + e is the same multiple of b as c + f is of d, viz.:—

a + e = (m + n)b, and c + f = (m + n)d.

Prop. 3. If a = mb, c = md, then is na the same multiple of b that nc is of d, viz. na =
nmb, nc = nmd.

Prop. 4. If

a : b :: c : d,
then

ma : nb :: mc : nd.
Prop. 5. If

a = mb, and c = md,

then

a − c = m(b − d).
Prop. 6. If

a = mb, c = md,
then are a − nb and c − nd either equal to, or equimultiples of, b and d, viz. a − nb = (m
− n)b and c − nd = (m − n)d, where m − n may be unity.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 30/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

All these propositions relate to equimultiples. Now follow propositions about ratios
which are compared as to their magnitude.

§ 52. Prop. 7. If a = b, then a : c :: b : c and c : a :: c : b.

The proof is simply this. As a = b we know that ma = mb; therefore if

ma > nc, then mb > nc,

if

ma = nc, then mb = nc,

if

ma < nc, then mb < nc,

therefore the first proportion holds by Definition 5.

Prop. 8. If

a > b, then a : c > b : c,

and

c : a < c : b.
The proof depends on Definition 7.

Prop. 9 (converse to Prop. 7). If

a : c :: b : c,
or if

c : a :: c : b, then a = b.
Prop. 10 (converse to Prop. 8). If

a : c > b : c, then a > b,

and if

c : a < c : b, then a < b.

Prop. 11. If

a : b :: c : d,
and

a : b :: e : f,
then

c : d :: e : f.
In words, if too ratios are equal to a third, they are equal to one another. After these
propositions have been proved, we have a right to consider a ratio as a magnitude, for
only now can we consider a ratio as something for which the axiom about magnitudes
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 31/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

holds: things which are equal to a third are equal to one another.

We shall indicate this by writing in future the sign = instead of ::. The remaining
propositions, which explain themselves, may then be stated as follows:

§ 53. Prop. 12. If

a : b = c : d = e : f,
then

a + c + e : b + d + f = a : b.
Prop. 13. If

a : b = c : d and c : d > e : f,
then

a : b > e : f.
Prop. 14. If

a : b = c : d, and a > c, then b > d.

Prop. 15. Magnitudes have the same ratio to one another that their equimultiples have—

ma : mb = a : b.
Prop. 16. If a, b, c, d are magnitudes of the same kind, and if

a : b = c : d,
then

a : c = b : d.
Prop. 17. If

a + b : b = c + d : d,
then

a : b = c : d.
Prop. 18 (converse to 17). If

a:b=c:d
then

a + b : b = c + d : d.
Prop. 19. If a, b, c, d are quantities of the same kind, and if

a : b = c : d,
then

a − c : b − d = a : b.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 32/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 54. Prop. 20. If there be three magnitudes, and another three, which have the same
ratio, taken two and two, then if the first be greater than the third, the fourth shall be
greater than the sixth: and if equal, equal; and if less, less.

If we understand by

a : b : c : d : e : ... = a' : b' : c' : d' : e' : ...

that the ratio of any two consecutive magnitudes on the first side equals that of the
corresponding magnitudes on the second side, we may write this theorem in symbols,
thus:—

If a, b, c be quantities of one, and d, e, f magnitudes of the same or any other kind, such
that

a : b : c = d : e : f,
and if

a > c, then d > f,

but if

a = c, then d = f,
and if

a < c, then d < f.

Prop. 21. If

a : b = e : f and b : c = d : e,
or if

1 1 1
a : b : c = ⁠ ⁠: ⁠ ⁠: ⁠ ⁠,
f e d
and if a > c, then d > f,
but if a = c, then d = f,
and if a < c, then d < f.

By aid of these two propositions the following two are proved.

§ 55. Prop. 22. If there be any number of magnitudes, and as many others, which have
the same ratio, taken two and two in order, the first shall have to the last of the first
magnitudes the same ratio which the first of the others has to the last.

We may state it more generally, thus:

If a : b : c : d : e: ... = a′ : b′ : c′ : d′ : e′ : ... ,
then not only have two consecutive, but any two magnitudes on the first side, the same
ratio as the corresponding magnitudes on the other. For instance—

a : c = a′ : c′; b : e = b′ : e′, &c.

Prop. 23 we state only in symbols, viz.:—
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 33/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

If a : b : c : d : e : ... = 1/a′ : 1/b′ : 1/c′ : 1/d′ : 1/e′ . . . ,

then a : c = c′ : a′,
b : e = e′ : b′,

and so on.

Prop. 24 comes to this: If a : b = c : d and e : b = f : d, then

a + e : b = c + f : d.
Some of the proportions which are considered in the above propositions have special
names. These we have omitted, as being of no use, since algebra has enabled us to bring
the different operations contained in the propositions under a common point of view.

§ 56. The last proposition in the fifth book is of a different character.

Prop. 25. If four magnitudes of the same kind be proportional, the greatest and least of
them together shall be greater than the other two together. In symbols—

If a, b, c, d be magnitudes of the same kind, and if a : b = c : d, and if a is the greatest,

hence d the least, then a + d > b + c.

§ 57. We return once again to the question. What is a ratio? We have seen that we may
treat ratios as magnitudes, and that all ratios are magnitudes of the same kind, for we
may compare any two as to their magnitude. It will presently be shown that ratios of
lines may be considered as quotients of lines, so that a ratio appears as answer to the
question, How often is one line contained in another? But the answer to this question is
given by a number, at least in some cases, and in all cases if we admit incommensurable
numbers. Considered from this point of view, we may say the fifth book of the Elements
shows that some of the simpler algebraical operations hold for incommensurable
numbers. In the ordinary algebraical treatment of numbers this proof is altogether
omitted, or given by a process of limits which does not seem to be natural to the subject.

Book VI.

§ 58. The sixth book contains the theory of similar figures. After a few definitions
explaining terms, the first proposition gives the first application of the theory of
proportion.

Prop. 1. Triangles and parallelograms of the same altitude are to one another as their
bases.

The proof has already been considered in § 49.

From this follows easily the important theorem

Prop. 2. If a straight line be drawn parallel to one of the sides of a triangle it shall cut
the other sides, or those sides produced, proportionally; and if the sides or the sides
produced be cut proportionally, the straight line which joins the points of section shall
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 34/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

be parallel to the remaining side of the triangle.

§ 59. The next proposition, together with one added by Simson as Prop. A, may be
expressed more conveniently if we introduce a modern phraseology, viz. if in a line AB
we assume a point C between A and B, we shall say that C divides AB internally in the
ratio AC : CB; but if C be taken in the line AB produced, we shall say that AB is divided
externally in the ratio AC : CB.

The two propositions then come to this:

Prop. 3. The bisector of an angle in a triangle divides the opposite side internally in a
ratio equal to the ratio of the two sides including that angle; and conversely, if a line
through the vertex of a triangle divide the base internally in the ratio of the two other
sides, then that line bisects the angle at the vertex.

Simson’s Prop. A. The line which bisects an exterior angle of a triangle divides the
opposite side externally in the ratio of the other sides; and conversely, if a line through
the vertex of a triangle divide the base externally in the ratio of the sides, then it bisects
an exterior angle at the vertex of the triangle.

If we combine both we have—

The two lines which bisect the interior and exterior angles at one vertex of a triangle
divide the opposite side internally and externally in the same ratio, viz. in the ratio of
the other two sides.

§ 60. The next four propositions contain the theory of similar triangles, of which four
cases are considered. They may be stated together.

Two triangles are similar,—

1. (Prop. 4). If the triangles are equiangular:

2. (Prop. 5). If the sides of the one are proportional to those of the other;

3. (Prop. 6). If two sides in one are proportional to two sides in the other, and if the
angles contained by these sides are equal;

4. (Prop. 7). If two sides in one are proportional to two sides in the other, if the angles
opposite homologous sides are equal, and if the angles opposite the other homologous
sides are both acute, both right or both obtuse; homologous sides being in each case
those which are opposite equal angles.

An important application of these theorems is at once made to a right-angled triangle,

viz.:—

Prop. 8. In a right-angled triangle, if a perpendicular be drawn from the right angle to

the base, the triangles on each side of it are similar to the whole triangle, and to one
another.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 35/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Corollary.—From this it is manifest that the perpendicular drawn from the right angle of
a right-angled triangle to the base is a mean proportional between the segments of the
base, and also that each of the sides is a mean proportional between the base and the
segment of the base adjacent to that side.

§ 61. There follow four propositions containing problems, in language slightly different
from Euclid’s, viz.:—

Prop. 9. To divide a straight line into a given number of equal parts.

Prop. 10. To divide a straight line in a given ratio.

Prop. 11. To find a third proportional to two given straight lines.

Prop. 12. To find a fourth proportional to three given straight lines.

Prop. 13. To find a mean proportional between two given straight lines.

The last three may be written as equations with one unknown quantity—viz. if we call
the given straight lines a, b, c, and the required line x, we have to find a line x so that

Prop. 11.

a : b = b : x;
Prop. 12.

a : b = c : x;
Prop. 13.

a : x = x : b.
We shall see presently how these may be written without the signs of ratios.

§ 62. Euclid considers next proportions connected with parallelograms and triangles
which are equal in area.

Prop. 14. Equal parallelograms which have one angle of the one equal to one angle of
the other have their sides about the equal angles reciprocally proportional; and
parallelograms which have one angle of the one equal to one angle of the other, and
their sides about the equal angles reciprocally proportional, are equal to one another.

Prop. 15. Equal triangles which have one angle of the one equal to one angle of the
other, have their sides about the equal angles reciprocally proportional; and triangles
which have one angle of the one equal to one angle of the other, and their sides about
the equal angles reciprocally proportional, are equal to one another.

The latter proposition is really the same as the former, for if, as in the accompanying
diagram, in the figure belonging to the former the two equal parallelograms AB and BC
be bisected by the lines DF and EG, and if EF be drawn, we get the figure belonging to
the latter.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 36/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

It is worth noticing that the lines FE and DG

are parallel. We may state therefore the
theorem—

If two triangles are equal in area, and have

one angle in the one vertically opposite to
one angle in the other, then the two straight
lines which join the remaining two vertices
of the one to those of the other triangle are
parallel.

§ 63. A most important theorem is

Prop. 16. If four straight lines be proportionals, the rectangle contained by the
extremes is equal to the rectangle contained by the means; and if the rectangle
contained by the extremes be equal to the rectangle contained by the means, the four
straight lines are proportionals.

In symbols, if a, b, c, d are the four lines, and

if a : b = c : d,
then ad = bc;
and conversely, if ad = bc,
then a : b = c : d,

where ad and bc denote (as in § 20), the areas of the rectangles contained by a and d and
by b and c respectively.

This allows us to transform every proportion between four lines into an equation
between two products.

It shows further that the operation of forming a product of two lines, and the operation
of forming their ratio are each the inverse of the other.

a
If we now define a quotient ⁠ ⁠of two lines as the number which multiplied into b gives a,
b
so that
a
⁠ ⁠b = a
b
we see that from the equality of two quotients

a c
⁠ ⁠= ⁠ ⁠
b d

follows, if we multiply both sides by bd,

a c
⁠b ⁠b·d = ⁠d ⁠d·b,

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 37/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library
ad = cb.
But from this it follows, according to the last theorem, that

a : b = c : d.
a
Hence we conclude that the quotient ⁠b ⁠and the ratio a : b are different forms of the same
a
magnitude, only with this important difference that the quotient ⁠b ⁠ would have a
meaning only if a and b have a common measure, until we introduce incommensurable
numbers, while the ratio a : b has always a meaning, and thus gives rise to the
introduction of incommensurable numbers.

Thus it is really the theory of ratios in the fifth book which enables us to extend the
geometrical calculus given before in connexion with Book II. It will also be seen that if
we write the ratios in Book V. as quotients, or rather as fractions, then most of the
theorems state properties of quotients or of fractions.

§ 64. Prop. 17. If three straight lines are proportional the rectangle contained by the
extremes is equal to the square on the mean; and conversely, is only a special case of 16.
After the problem, Prop. 18, On a given straight line to describe a rectilineal figure
similar and similarly situated to a given rectilineal figure, there follows another
fundamental theorem:

Prop. 19. Similar triangles are to one another in the duplicate ratio of their homologous
sides. In other words, the areas of similar triangles are to one another as the squares on
homologous sides. This is generalized in:

Prop. 20. Similar polygons may be divided into the same number of similar triangles,
having the same ratio to one another that the polygons have; and the polygons are to
one another in the duplicate ratio of their homologous sides.

§ 65. Prop. 21. Rectilineal figures which are similar to the same rectilineal figure are
also similar to each other, is an immediate consequence of the definition of similar
figures. As similar figures may be said to be equal in “shape” but not in “size,” we may
state it also thus:

“Figures which are equal in shape to a third are equal in shape to each other.”

Prop. 22. If four straight lines be proportionals, the similar rectilineal figures similarly
described on them shall also be proportionals; and if the similar rectilineal figures
similarly described on four straight lines be proportionals, those straight lines shall be
proportionals.

This is essentially the same as the following:—

If a : b = c : d,
then a2 : b2 = c 2 : d2 .

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 38/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 66. Now follows a proposition which has been much discussed with regard to Euclid’s
exact meaning in saying that a ratio is compounded of two other ratios, viz.:

Prop. 23. Parallelograms which are equiangular to one another, have to one another
the ratio which is compounded of the ratios of their sides.

The proof of the proposition makes its meaning clear. In symbols the ratio a : c is
compounded of the two ratios a : b and b : c, and if a : b = a′ : b′, b : c = b″ : c″, then a : c
is compounded of a′ : b′ and b″ : c″.

If we consider the ratios as numbers, we may say that the one ratio is the product of
those of which it is compounded, or in symbols,

a a b a′ b″ a a′ b b″
= · = · , if = and = .
c b c b′ c″ b b′ c c″
The theorem in Prop. 23 is the foundation of all mensuration of areas. From it we see at
once that two rectangles have the ratio of their areas compounded of the ratios of their
sides.

If A is the area of a rectangle contained by a and b, and B that of a rectangle contained

by c and d, so that A = ab, B = cd, then A : B = ab : cd, and this is, the theorem says,
compounded of the ratios a : c and b : d. In forms of quotients,

a b ab
· = .
c d cd
This shows how to multiply quotients in our geometrical calculus.

Further, Two triangles have the ratios of their areas compounded of the ratios of their
bases and their altitude. For a triangle is equal in area to half a parallelogram which has
the same base and the same altitude.

§ 67. To bring these theorems to the form in which they are usually given, we assume a
straight line u as our unit of length (generally an inch, a foot, a mile, &c.), and determine
the number α which expresses how often u is contained in a line a, so that α denotes the
ratio a : u whether commensurable or not, and that a = αu. We call this number α the
numerical value of a. If in the same manner β be the numerical value of a line b we have

a : b = α : β;
in words: The ratio of two lines (and of two like quantities in general) is equal to that of
their numerical values.

This is easily proved by observing that a = αu, b = βu, therefore a : b = αu : βu, and this
may without difficulty be shown to equal α : β.

If now a, b be base and altitude of one, a′, b′ those of another parallelogram, α, β and α′,
β′ their numerical values respectively, and A, A′ their areas, then

A = a · b = α · β = αβ .

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 39/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

A′ a′ b′ α′ β′ α′β′
In words: The areas of two parallelograms are to each other as the products of the
numerical values of their bases and altitudes.

If especially the second parallelogram is the unit square, i.e. a square on the unit of
length, then α′ = β′ = 1, A′ = u2, and we have

A
= αβ or A = αβ·u2.
A′
This gives the theorem: The number of unit squares contained in a parallelogram equals
the product of the numerical values of base and altitude, and similarly the number of
unit squares contained in a triangle equals half the product of the numerical values of
base and altitude.

This is often stated by saying that the area of a parallelogram is equal to the product of
the base and the altitude, meaning by this product the product of the numerical values,
and not the product as defined above in § 20.

§ 68. Propositions 24 and 26 relate to parallelograms about diagonals, such as are

considered in Book I., 43. They are—

Prop. 24. Parallelograms about the diameter of any parallelogram are similar to the
whole parallelogram and to one another; and its converse (Prop. 26), If two similar
parallelograms have a common angle, and be similarly situated, they are about the
same diameter.

Between these is inserted a problem.

Prop. 25. To describe a rectilineal figure which shall be similar to one given rectilinear
figure, and equal to another given rectilineal figure.

§ 69. Prop. 27 contains a theorem relating to the theory of maxima and minima. We may
state it thus:

Prop. 27. If a parallelogram be divided into two by a straight line cutting the base, and
if on half the base another parallelogram be constructed similar to one of those parts,
then this third parallelogram is greater than the other part.

Of far greater interest than this general theorem is a special case of it, where the
parallelograms are changed into rectangles, and where one of the parts into which the
parallelogram is divided is made a square; for then the theorem changes into one which
is easily recognized to be identical with the following:—

Of all rectangles which have the same perimeter the square has the greatest area.

This may also be stated thus:—

Of all rectangles which have the same area the square has the least perimeter.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 40/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 70. The next three propositions contain problems which may be said to be solutions of
quadratic equations. The first two are, like the last, involved in somewhat obscure
language. We transcribe them as follows:

Problem.—To describe on a given base a parallelogram, and to divide it either internally

(Prop. 28) or externally (Prop. 29) from a point on the base into two parallelograms, of
which the one has a given size (is equal in area to a given figure), whilst the other has a
given shape (is similar to a given parallelogram).

If we express this again in symbols, calling the given base a, the one part x, and the
altitude y, we have to determine x and y in the first case from the equations

(a − x)y = k2,
x p
= ,
y q

k2 being the given size of the first, and p and q the base and altitude of the parallelogram
which determine the shape of the second of the required parallelograms.

If we substitute the value of y, we get

pk2
(a − x)x = ,
q
or,

ax − x2 = b2,
where a and b are known quantities, taking b2 = pk2/q.

The second case (Prop. 29) gives rise, in the same manner, to the quadratic

ax + x2 = b2.
The next problem—

Prop. 30. To cut a given straight line in extreme and mean ratio, leads to the equation

ax + x2 = a2.
This is, therefore, only a special case of the last, and is, besides, an old acquaintance,
being essentially the same problem as that proposed in II. 11.

Prop. 30 may therefore be solved in two ways, either by aid of Prop. 29 or by aid of II. 11.
Euclid gives both solutions.

§ 71. Prop. 31 (Theorem). In any right-angled triangle, any rectilineal figure described
on the side subtending the right angle is equal to the similar and similarly-described
figures on the sides containing the right angle,—is a pretty generalization of the
theorem of Pythagoras (I. 47).

Leaving out the next proposition, which is of little interest, we come to the last in this
book.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 41/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Prop. 33. In equal circles angles, whether at the centres or the circumferences, have the
same ratio which the arcs on which they stand have to one another; so also have the
sectors.

Of this, the part relating to angles at the centre is of special importance; it enables us to
measure angles by arcs.

With this closes that part of the Elements which is devoted to the study of figures in a
plane.

Book XI.

§ 72. In this book figures are considered which are not confined to a plane, viz. first
relations between lines and planes in space, and afterwards properties of solids.

Of new definitions we mention those which relate to the perpendicularity and the
inclination of lines and planes.

Def. 3. A straight line is perpendicular, or at right angles, to a plane when it makes

right angles with every straight line meeting it in that plane.

The definition of perpendicular planes (Def. 4) offers no difficulty. Euclid defines the
inclination of lines to planes and of planes to planes (Defs. 5 and 6) by aid of plane
angles, included by straight lines, with which we have been made familiar in the first
books.

The other important definitions are those of parallel planes, which never meet (Def. 8),
and of solid angles formed by three or more planes meeting in a point (Def. 9).

To these we add the definition of a line parallel to a plane as a line which does not meet
the plane.

§ 73. Before we investigate the contents of Book XI., it will be well to recapitulate shortly
what we know of planes and lines from the definitions and axioms of the first book.
There a plane has been defined as a surface which has the property that every straight
line which joins two points in it lies altogether in it. This is equivalent to saying that a
straight line which has two points in a plane has all points in the plane. Hence, a straight
line which does not lie in the plane cannot have more than one point in common with
the plane. This is virtually the same as Euclid’s Prop. 1, viz.:—

Prop. 1. One part of a straight line cannot be in a plane and another part without it.

It also follows, as was pointed out in § 3, in discussing the definitions of Book I., that a
plane is determined already by one straight line and a point without it, viz. if all lines be
drawn through the point, and cutting the line, they will form a plane.

This may be stated thus:—

A plane is determined—
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 42/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

1st, By a straight line and a point which does not lie on it;

2nd, By three points which do not lie in a straight line; for if two of these points be
joined by a straight line we have case 1;

3rd, By two intersecting straight lines; for the point of intersection and two other
points, one in each line, give case 2;

4th, By two parallel lines (Def. 35, I.).

The third case of this theorem is Euclid’s

Prop. 2. Two straight lines which cut one another are in one plane, and three straight
lines which meet one another are in one plane.

And the fourth is Euclid’s

Prop. 7. If two straight lines be parallel, the straight line drawn from any point in one
to any point in the other is in the same plane with the parallels. From the definition of a
plane further follows

Prop. 3. If two planes cut one another, their common section is a straight line.

§ 74. Whilst these propositions are virtually contained in the definition of a plane, the
next gives us a new and fundamental property of space, showing at the same time that it
is possible to have a straight line perpendicular to a plane, according to Def. 3. It states—

Prop. 4. If a straight line is perpendicular to two straight lines in a plane which it

meets, then it is perpendicular to all lines in the plane which it meets, and hence it is
perpendicular to the plane.

Def. 3 may be stated thus: If a straight line is perpendicular to a plane, then it is

perpendicular to every line in the plane which it meets. The converse to this would be

All straight lines which meet a given straight line in the same point, and are
perpendicular to it, lie in a plane which is perpendicular to that line.

This Euclid states thus:

Prop. 5. If three straight lines meet all at one point, and a straight line stands at right
angles to each of them at that point, the three straight lines shall be in one and the
same plane.

§ 75. There follow theorems relating to the theory of parallel lines in space, viz.:—

Prop. 6. Any two lines which are perpendicular to the same plane are parallel to each
other; and conversely

Prop. 8. If of two parallel straight lines one is perpendicular to a plane, the other is so
also.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 43/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Prop. 7. If two straight lines are parallel, the straight line which joins any point in one
to any point in the other is in the same plane as the parallels. (See above, § 73.)

Prop. 9. Two straight lines which are each of them parallel to the same straight line,
and not in the same plane with it, are parallel to one another; where the words, “and
not in the same plane with it,” may be omitted, for they exclude the case of three
parallels in a plane, which has been proved before; and

Prop. 10. If two angles in different planes have the two limits of the one parallel to
those of the other, then the angles are equal. That their planes are parallel is shown later
on in Prop. 15.

This theorem is not necessarily true, for the angles in question may be supplementary;
but then the one angle will be equal to that which is adjacent and supplementary to the
other, and this latter angle will also have its limits parallel to those of the first.

From this theorem it follows that if we take any two straight lines in space which do not
meet, and if we draw through any point P in space two lines parallel to them, then the
angle included by these lines will always be the same, whatever the position of the point
P may be. This angle has in modern times been called the angle between the given
lines:—

By the angles between two not intersecting lines we understand the angles which two
intersecting lines include that are parallel respectively to the two given lines.

§ 76. It is now possible to solve the following two problems:—

To draw a straight line perpendicular to a given plane from a given point which lies

1. Not in the plane (Prop. 11).

2. In the plane (Prop. 12).

The second case is easily reduced to the first—viz. if by aid of the first we have drawn any
perpendicular to the plane from some point without it, we need only draw through the
given point in the plane a line parallel to it, in order to have the required perpendicular
given. The solution of the first part is of interest in itself. It depends upon a construction
which may be expressed as a theorem.

If from a point A without a plane a perpendicular AB be drawn to the plane, and if

from the foot B of this perpendicular another perpendicular BC be drawn to any
straight line in the plane, then the straight line joining A to the foot C of this second
perpendicular will also be perpendicular to the line in the plane.

The theory of perpendiculars to a plane is concluded by the theorem—

Prop. 13. Through any point in space, whether in or without a plane, only one straight
line can be drawn perpendicular to the plane.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 44/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 77. The next four propositions treat of parallel planes. It is shown that planes which
have a common perpendicular are parallel (Prop. 14); that two planes are parallel if
two intersecting straight lines in the one are parallel respectively to two straight lines
in the other plane (Prop. 15); that parallel planes are cut by any plane in parallel
straight lines (Prop. 16); and lastly, that any two straight lines are cut proportionally
by a series of parallel planes (Prop. 17).

This theory is made more complete by adding the following theorems, which are easy
deductions from the last: Two parallel planes have common perpendiculars (converse
to 14); and Two planes which are parallel to a third plane are parallel to each other.

It will be noted that Prop. 15 at once allows of the solution of the problem: “Through a
given point to draw a plane parallel to a given plane.” And it is also easily proved that
this problem allows always of one, and only of one, solution.

§ 78. We come now to planes which are perpendicular to one another. Two theorems
relate to them.

Prop. 18. If a straight line be at right angles to a plane, every plane which passes
through it shall be at right angles to that plane.

Prop. 19. If two planes which cut one another be each of them perpendicular to a third
plane, their common section shall be perpendicular to the same plane.

§ 79. If three planes pass through a common point, and if they bound each other, a solid
angle of three faces, or a trihedral angle, is formed, and similarly by more planes a solid
angle of more faces, or a polyhedral angle. These have many properties which are quite
analogous to those of triangles and polygons in a plane. Euclid states some, viz.:—

Prop. 20. If a solid angle be contained by three plane angles, any two of them are
together greater than the third.

But the next—

Prop. 21. Every solid angle is contained by plane angles, which are together less than
four right angles—has no analogous theorem in the plane.

We may mention, however, that the theorems about triangles contained in the
propositions of Book I., which do not depend upon the theory of parallels (that is all up
to Prop. 27), have their corresponding theorems about trihedral angles. The latter are
formed, if for “side of a triangle” we write “plane angle” or “face” of trihedral angle, and
for “angle of triangle” we substitute “angle between two faces” where the planes
containing the solid angle are called its faces. We get, for instance, from I. 4, the
theorem, If two trihedral angles have the angles of two faces in the one equal to the
angles of two faces in the other, and have likewise the angles included by these faces
equal, then the angles in the remaining faces are equal, and the angles between the

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 45/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

other faces are equal each to each, viz. those which are opposite equal faces. The solid
angles themselves are not necessarily equal, for they may be only symmetrical like the
right hand and the left.

The connexion indicated between triangles and trihedral angles will also be recognized
in

Prop. 22. If every two of three plane angles be greater than the third, and if the
straight lines which contain them be all equal, a triangle may be made of the straight
lines that join the extremities of those equal straight lines.

And Prop. 23 solves the problem, To construct a trihedral angle having the angles of its
faces equal to three given plane angles, any two of them being greater than the third. It
is, of course, analogous to the problem of constructing a triangle having its sides of given
length.

Two other theorems of this kind are added by Simson in his edition of Euclid’s Elements.

§ 80. These are the principal properties of lines and planes in space, but before we go on
to their applications it will be well to define the word distance. In geometry distance
means always “shortest distance”; viz. the distance of a point from a straight line, or
from a plane, is the length of the perpendicular from the point to the line or plane. The
distance between two non-intersecting lines is the length of their common
perpendicular, there being but one. The distance between two parallel lines or between
two parallel planes is the length of the common perpendicular between the lines or the
planes.

§ 81. Parallelepipeds.—The rest of the book is devoted to the study of the parallelepiped.
In Prop. 24 the possibility of such a solid is proved, viz.:—

Prop. 24. If a solid be contained by six planes two and two of which are parallel, the
opposite planes are similar and equal parallelograms.

Euclid calls this solid henceforth a parallelepiped, though he never defines the word.
Either face of it may be taken as base, and its distance from the opposite face as altitude.

Prop. 25. If a solid parallelepiped be cut by a plane parallel to two of its opposite
planes, it divides the whole into two solids, the base of one of which shall be to the base
of the other as the one solid is to the other.

This theorem corresponds to the theorem (VI. 1) that parallelograms between the same
parallels are to one another as their bases. A similar analogy is to be observed among a
number of the remaining propositions.

§ 82. After solving a few problems we come to

Prop. 28. If a solid parallelepiped be cut by a plane passing through the diagonals of
two of the opposite planes, it shall be cut in two equal parts.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 46/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

In the proof of this, as of several other propositions, Euclid neglects the difference
between solids which are symmetrical like the right hand and the left.

Prop. 31. Solid parallelepipeds, which are upon equal bases, and of the same altitude,
are equal to one another.

Props. 29 and 30 contain special cases of this theorem leading up to the proof of the
general theorem.

As consequences of this fundamental theorem we get

Prop. 32. Solid parallelepipeds, which have the same altitude, are to one another as
their bases; and

Prop. 33. Similar solid parallelepipeds are to one another in the triplicate ratio of their
homologous sides.

If we consider, as in § 67, the ratios of lines as numbers, we may also say—

The ratio of the volumes of similar parallelepipeds is equal to the ratio of the third
powers of homologous sides.

Parallelepipeds which are not similar but equal are compared by aid of the theorem

Prop. 34. The bases and altitudes of equal solid parallelepipeds are reciprocally
proportional; and if the bases and altitudes be reciprocally proportional, the solid
parallelepipeds are equal.

§ 83. Of the following propositions the 37th and 40th are of special interest.

Prop. 37. If four straight lines be proportionals, the similar solid parallelepipeds,
similarly described from them, shall also be proportionals; and if the similar
parallelepipeds similarly described from four straight lines be proportionals, the
straight lines shall be proportionals.

In symbols it says—

If a : b = c : d, then a3 : b3 = c3: d 3.
Prop. 40 teaches how to compare the volumes of triangular prisms with those of
parallelepipeds, by proving that a triangular prism is equal in volume to a
parallelepiped, which has its altitude and its base equal to the altitude and the base of
the triangular prism.

§ 84. From these propositions follow all results relating to the mensuration of volumes.
We shall state these as we did in the case of areas. The starting-point is the “rectangular”
parallelepiped, which has every edge perpendicular to the planes it meets, and which
takes the place of the rectangle in the plane. If this has all its edges equal we obtain the
“cube.”

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 47/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

If we take a certain line u as unit length, then the square on u is the unit of area, and the
cube on u the unit of volume, that is to say, if we wish to measure a volume we have to
determine how many unit cubes it contains.

A rectangular parallelepiped has, as a rule, the three edges unequal, which meet at a
point. Every other edge is equal to one of them. If a, b, c be the three edges meeting at a
point, then we may take the rectangle contained by two of them, say by b and c, as base
and the third as altitude. Let V be its volume, V′ that of another rectangular
parallelepiped which has the edges a′, b, c, hence the same base as the first. It follows
then easily, from Prop. 25 or 32, that V : V′ = a : a′; or in words,

Rectangular parallelepipeds on equal bases are proportional to their altitudes.

If we have two rectangular parallelepipeds, of which the first has the volume V and the
edges a, b, c, and the second, the volume V′ and the edges a′, b′, c′, we may compare
them by aid of two new ones which have respectively the edges a′, b, c and a′, b′, c, and
the volumes V1 and V2. We then have

V : V1 = a : a′; V1 : V2 = b : b′, V2 : V′ = c : c′.

Compounding these, we have

V : V′ = (a : a′) (b : b′) (c : c′),

or

V a b c
= · · .
V′ a′ b′ c′
Hence, as a special case, making V′ equal to the unit cube U on u we get

V a b c
= · · = α·β·γ,
U u u u
where α, β, γ are the numerical values of a, b, c; that is, The number of unit cubes in a
rectangular parallelepiped is equal to the product of the numerical values of its three
edges. This is generally expressed by saying the volume of a rectangular parallelepiped is
measured by the product of its sides, or by the product of its base into its altitude, which
in this case is the same.

Prop. 31 allows us to extend this to any parallelepipeds, and Props. 28 or 40, to

triangular prisms.

The volume of any parallelepiped, or of any triangular prism, is measured by the

product of base and altitude.

The consideration that any polygonal prism may be divided into a number of triangular
prisms, which have the same altitude and the sum of their bases equal to the base of the
polygonal prism, shows further that the same holds for any prism whatever.

Book XII.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 48/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 85. In the last part of Book XI. we have learnt how to compare the volumes of
parallelepipeds and of prisms. In order to determine the volume of any solid bounded by
plane faces we must determine the volume of pyramids, for every such solid may be
decomposed into a number of pyramids.

As every pyramid may again be decomposed into triangular pyramids, it becomes only
necessary to determine their volume. This is done by the

Theorem.—Every triangular pyramid is equal in volume to one third of a triangular

prism having the same base and the same altitude as the pyramid.

This is an immediate consequence of Euclid’s

Prop. 7. Every prism having a triangular base may be divided into three pyramids that
have triangular bases, and are equal to one another.

The proof of this theorem is difficult, because the three triangular pyramids into which
the prism is divided are by no means equal in shape, and cannot be made to coincide. It
has first to be proved that two triangular pyramids have equal volumes, if they have
equal bases and equal altitudes. This Euclid does in the following manner. He first
shows (Prop. 3) that a triangular pyramid may be divided into four parts, of which two
are equal triangular pyramids similar to the whole pyramid, whilst the other two are
equal triangular prisms, and further, that these two prisms together are greater than the
two pyramids, hence more than half the given pyramid. He next shows (Prop. 4) that if
two triangular pyramids are given, having equal bases and equal altitudes, and if each be
divided as above, then the two triangular prisms in the one are equal to those in the
other, and each of the remaining pyramids in the one has its base and altitude equal to
the base and altitude of the remaining pyramids in the other. Hence to these pyramids
the same process is again applicable. We are thus enabled to cut out of the two given
pyramids equal parts, each greater than half the original pyramid. Of the remainder we
can again cut out equal parts greater than half these remainders, and so on as far as we
like. This process may be continued till the last remainder is smaller than any assignable
quantity, however small. It follows, so we should conclude at present, that the two
volumes must be equal, for they cannot differ by any assignable quantity.

To Greek mathematicians this conclusion offers far greater difficulties. They prove
elaborately, by a reductio ad absurdum, that the volumes cannot be unequal. This proof
must be read in the Elements. We must, however, state that we have in the above not
proved Euclid’s Prop. 5, but only a special case of it. Euclid does not suppose that the
bases of the two pyramids to be compared are equal, and hence he proves that the
volumes are as the bases. The reasoning of the proof becomes clearer in the special case,
from which the general one may be easily deduced.

§ 86. Prop. 6 extends the result to pyramids with polygonal bases. From these results
follow again the rules at present given for the mensuration of solids, viz. a pyramid is the
third part of a triangular prism having the same base and the same altitude. But a

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 49/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

triangular prism is equal in volume to a parallelepiped which has the same base and
altitude. Hence if B is the base and h the altitude, we have

Volume of prism = Bh,

1
Volume of pyramid = ⁠3 ⁠Bh,

statements which have to be taken in the sense that B means the number of square units
in the base, h the number of units of length in the altitude, or that B and h denote the
numerical values of base and altitude.

§ 87. A method similar to that used in proving Prop. 5 leads to the following results
relating to solids bounded by simple curved surfaces:—

Prop. 10. Every cone is the third part of a cylinder which has the same base, and is of
an equal altitude with it.

Prop. 11. Cones or cylinders of the same altitude are to one another as their bases.

Prop. 12. Similar cones or cylinders have to one another the triplicate ratio of that
which the diameters of their bases have.

Prop. 13. If a cylinder be cut by a plane parallel to its opposite planes or bases, it
divides the cylinder into two cylinders, one of which is to the other as the axis of the
first to the axis of the other; which may also be stated thus:—

Cylinders on the same base are proportional to their altitudes.

Prop. 14. Cones or cylinders upon equal bases are to one another as their altitudes.

Prop. 15. The bases and altitudes of equal cones or cylinders are reciprocally
proportional, and if the bases and altitudes be reciprocally proportional, the cones or
cylinders are equal to one another.

These theorems again lead to formulae in mensuration, if we compare a cylinder with a

prism having its base and altitude equal to the base and altitude of the cylinder. This
may be done by the method of exhaustion. We get, then, the result that their bases are
equal, and have, if B denotes the numerical value of the base, and h that of the altitude,

Volume of cylinder = Bh,

Volume of cone = ⁠13 ⁠Bh.

§ 88. The remaining propositions relate to circles and spheres. Of the sphere only one
property is proved, viz.:—

Prop. 18. Spheres have to one another the triplicate ratio of that which their diameters
have. The mensuration of the sphere, like that of the circle, the cylinder and the cone,
had not been settled in the time of Euclid. It was done by Archimedes.

Book XIII.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 50/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 89. The 13th and last book of Euclid’s Elements is devoted to the regular solids (see
Polyhedron). It is shown that there are five of them, viz.:—

1. The regular tetrahedron, with 4 triangular faces and 4 vertices;

2. The cube, with 8 vertices and 6 square faces;

3. The octahedron, with 6 vertices and 8 triangular faces;

4. The dodecahedron, with 12 pentagonal faces, 3 at each of the 20 vertices;

5. The icosahedron, with 20 triangular faces, 5 at each of the 12 vertices.

It is shown how to inscribe these solids in a given sphere, and how to determine the
lengths of their edges.

§ 90. The 13th book, and therefore the Elements, conclude with the scholium, “that no
other regular solid exists besides the five ones enumerated.”

The proof is very simple. Each face is a regular polygon, hence the angles of the faces at
any vertex must be angles in equal regular polygons, must be together less than four
right angles (XI. 21), and must be three or more in number. Each angle in a regular
triangle equals two-thirds of one right angle. Hence it is possible to form a solid angle
with three, four or five regular triangles or faces. These give the solid angles of the
tetrahedron, the octahedron and the icosahedron. The angle in a square (the regular
quadrilateral) equals one right angle. Hence three will form a solid angle, that of the
cube, and four will not. The angle in the regular pentagon equals ⁠65 ⁠ of a right angle.
Hence three of them equal ⁠18
5
⁠ (i.e. less than 4) right angles, and form the solid angle of
the dodecahedron. Three regular polygons of six or more sides cannot form a solid
angle. Therefore no other regular solids are possible. (O. H.)

II. Projective Geometry

It is difficult, at the outset, to characterize projective geometry as compared with

Euclidean. But a few examples will at least indicate the practical differences between the
two.

In Euclid’s Elements almost all propositions refer to the magnitude of lines, angles,
areas or volumes, and therefore to measurement. The statement that an angle is right, or
that two straight lines are parallel, refers to measurement. On the other hand, the fact
that a straight line does or does not cut a circle is independent of measurement, it being
dependent only upon the mutual “position” of the line and the circle. This difference
becomes clearer if we project any figure from one plane to another (see Projection). By
this the length of lines, the magnitude of angles and areas, is altered, so that the
projection, or shadow, of a square on a plane will not be a square; it will, however, be
some quadrilateral. Again, the projection of a circle will not be a circle, but some other
curve more or less resembling a circle. But one property may be stated at once—no
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 51/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

straight line can cut the projection of a circle in more than two points, because no
straight line can cut a circle in more than two points. There are, then, some properties of
figures which do not alter by projection, whilst others do. To the latter belong nearly all
properties relating to measurement, at least in the form in which they are generally
given. The others are said to be projective properties, and their investigation forms the
subject of projective geometry.

Different as are the kinds of properties investigated in the old and the new sciences, the
methods followed differ in a still greater degree. In Euclid each proposition stands by
itself; its connexion with others is never indicated; the leading ideas contained in its
proof are not stated; general principles do not exist. In the modern methods, on the
other hand, the greatest importance is attached to the leading thoughts which pervade
the whole; and general principles, which bring whole groups of theorems under one
aspect, are given rather than separate propositions. The whole tendency is towards
generalization. A straight line is considered as given in its entirety, extending both ways
to infinity, while Euclid never admits anything but finite quantities. The treatment of the
infinite is in fact another fundamental difference between the two methods: Euclid
avoids it; in modern geometry it is systematically introduced.

Of the different modern methods of geometry, we shall treat principally of the methods
of projection and correspondence which have proved to be the most powerful. These
have become independent of Euclidean Geometry, especially through the Geometrie der
Lage of V. Staudt and the Ausdehnungslehre of Grassmann.

For the sake of brevity we shall presuppose a knowledge of Euclid’s Elements, although
we shall use only a few of his propositions.

§ 1. Geometrical Elements. We consider space as filled with points, lines and planes, and
these we call the elements out of which our figures are to be formed, calling any
combination of these elements a “figure.”

By a line we mean a straight line in its entirety, extending both ways to infinity; and by a
plane, a plane surface, extending in all directions to infinity.

We accept the three-dimensional space of experience—the space assumed by Euclid—

which has for its properties (among others):—

Through any two points in space one and only one line may be drawn;

Through any three points which are not in a line, one and only one plane may be placed;

The intersection of two planes is a line;

A line which has two points in common with a plane lies in the plane, hence the
intersection of a line and a plane is a single point; and

Three planes which do not meet in a line have one single point in common.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 52/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

These results may be stated differently in the following form:—

I. A plane is determined— A point is determined—

1. By three planes which do not pass through
1. By three points which do not lie in a line;
a line;
2. By two intersecting lines;
2. By two intersecting lines
3. By a line and a point which does not lie in
3. By a plane and a line which does not lie in
it.
it.
II. A line is determined—
1. By two points; 2. By two planes.

It will be observed that not only are planes determined by points, but also points by
planes; that therefore the planes may be considered as elements, like points; and also
that in any one of the above statements we may interchange the words point and plane,
and we obtain again a correct statement, provided that these statements themselves are
true. As they stand, we ought, in several cases, to add “if they are not parallel,” or some
such words, parallel lines and planes being evidently left altogether out of consideration.
To correct this we have to reconsider the theory of parallels.

§ 2. Parallels. Point at Infinity.—Let

us take in a plane a line p (fig. 1), a
point S not in this line, and a line q
drawn through S. Then this line q will
meet the line p in a point A. If we turn
the line q about S towards q′, its point
of intersection with p will move along
p towards B, passing, on continued
turning, to a greater and greater
distance, until it is moved out of our
reach. If we turn q still farther, its Fig. 1.
continuation will meet p, but now at the other side of A. The point of intersection has
disappeared to the right and reappeared to the left. There is one intermediate position
where q is parallel to p—that is where it does not cut p. In every other position it cuts p
in some finite point. If, on the other hand, we move the point A to an infinite distance in
p, then the line q which passes through A will be a line which does not cut p at any finite
point. Thus we are led to say: Every line through S which joins it to any point at an
infinite distance in p is parallel to p. But by Euclid’s 12th axiom there is but one line
parallel to p through S. The difficulty in which we are thus involved is due to the fact that
we try to reason about infinity as if we, with our finite capabilities, could comprehend
the infinite. To overcome this difficulty, we may say that all points at infinity in a line
appear to us as one, and may be replaced by a single “ideal” point.

We may therefore now give the following definitions and axiom:—

Definition.—Lines which meet at infinity are called parallel.

Axiom.—All points at an infinite distance in a line may be considered as one single point.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 53/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Definition.—This ideal point is called the point at infinity in the line.

The axiom is equivalent to Euclid’s Axiom 12, for it follows from either that through any
point only one line may be drawn parallel to a given line.

This point at infinity in a line is reached whether we move a point in the one or in the
opposite direction of a line to infinity. A line thus appears closed by this point, and we
speak as if we could move a point along the line from one position A to another B in two
ways, either through the point at infinity or through finite points only.

It must never be forgotten that this point at infinity is ideal; in fact, the whole notion of
“infinity” is only a mathematical conception, and owes its introduction (as a method of
research) to the working generalizations which it permits.

§ 3. Line and Plane at Infinity.—Having arrived at the notion of replacing all points at
infinity in a line by one ideal point, there is no difficulty in replacing all points at infinity
in a plane by one ideal line.

To make this clear, let us suppose that a line p, which cuts two fixed lines a and b in the
points A and B, moves parallel to itself to a greater and greater distance. It will at last cut
both a and b at their points at infinity, so that a line which joins the two points at infinity
in two intersecting lines lies altogether at infinity. Every other line in the plane will meet
it therefore at infinity, and thus it contains all points at infinity in the plane.

All points at infinity in a plane lie in a line, which is called the line at infinity in the
plane.

It follows that parallel planes must be considered as planes having a common line at
infinity, for any other plane cuts them in parallel lines which have a point at infinity in
common.

If we next take two intersecting planes, then the point at infinity in their line of
intersection lies in both planes, so that their lines at infinity meet. Hence every line at
infinity meets every other line at infinity, and they are therefore all in one plane.

All points at infinity in space may be considered as lying in one ideal plane, which is
called the plane at infinity.

§ 4. Parallelism.—We have now the following definitions:—

Parallel lines are lines which meet at infinity;

Parallel planes are planes which meet at infinity;

A line is parallel to a plane if it meets it at infinity.

Theorems like this—Lines (or planes) which are parallel to a third are parallel to each
other—follow at once.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 54/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

This view of parallels leads therefore to no contradiction of Euclid’s Elements.

As immediate consequences we get the propositions:—

Every line meets a plane in one point, or it lies in it;

Every plane meets every other plane in a line;

Any two lines in the same plane meet.

§ 5. Aggregates of Geometrical Elements.—We have called points, lines and planes the
elements of geometrical figures. We also say that an element of one kind contains one of
the other if it lies in it or passes through it.

All the elements of one kind which are contained in one or two elements of a different
kind form aggregates which have to be enumerated. They are the following:—

I. Of one dimension.

1. The row, or range, of points formed by all points in a line, which is called its
base.

2. The flat pencil formed by all the lines through a point in a plane. Its base is the
point in the plane.

3. The axial pencil formed by all planes through a line which is called its base or
axis.

II. Of two dimensions.

1. The field of points and lines—that is, a plane with all its points and all its lines.

2. The pencil of lines and planes—that is, a point in space with all lines and all
planes through it.

III. Of three dimensions.

The space of points—that is, all points in space.

The space of planes—that is, all planes in space.

IV. Of four dimensions.

The space of lines, or all lines in space.

§ 6. Meaning of “Dimensions.”—The word dimension in the above needs explanation. If

in a plane we take a row p and a pencil with centre Q, then through every point in p one
line in the pencil will pass, and every ray in Q will cut p in one point, so that we are
entitled to say a row contains as many points as a flat pencil lines, and, we may add, as
an axial pencil planes, because an axial pencil is cut by a plane in a flat pencil.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 55/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

The number of elements in the row, in the flat pencil, and in the axial pencil is, of
course, infinite and indefinite too, but the same in all. This number may be denoted by
∞. Then a plane contains ∞2 points and as many lines. To see this, take a flat pencil in a
plane. It contains ∞ lines, and each line contains ∞ points, whilst each point in the plane
lies on one of these lines. Similarly, in a plane each line cuts a fixed line in a point. But
this line is cut at each point by ∞ lines and contains ∞ points; hence there are ∞2 lines in
a plane.

A pencil in space contains as many lines as a plane contains points and as many planes
as a plane contains lines, for any plane cuts the pencil in a field of points and lines.
Hence a pencil contains ∞2 lines and ∞2 planes. The field and the pencil are of two
dimensions.

To count the number of points in space we observe that each point lies on some line in a
pencil. But the pencil contains ∞2 lines, and each line ∞ points; hence space contains ∞3
points. Each plane cuts any fixed plane in a line. But a plane contains ∞2 lines, and
through each pass ∞ planes; therefore space contains ∞3 planes.

Hence space contains as many planes as points, but it contains an infinite number of
times more lines than points or planes. To count them, notice that every line cuts a fixed
plane in one point. But ∞2 lines pass through each point, and there are ∞2 points in the
plane. Hence there are ∞4 lines in space. The space of points and planes is of three
dimensions, but the space of lines is of four dimensions.

A field of points or lines contains an infinite number of rows and flat pencils; a pencil
contains an infinite number of flat pencils and of axial pencils; space contains a triple
infinite number of pencils and of fields, ∞4 rows and axial pencils and ∞5 flat pencils—
or, in other words, each point is a centre of ∞2 flat pencils.

§ 7. The above enumeration allows a classification of figures. Figures in a row consist of

groups of points only, and figures in the flat or axial pencil consist of groups of lines or
planes. In the plane we may draw polygons; and in the pencil or in the point, solid
angles, and so on.

We may also distinguish the different measurements. We have—

In the row, length of segment;

In the flat pencil, angles;
In the axial pencil, dihedral angles between two planes;
In the plane, areas;
In the pencil, solid angles;
In the space of points or planes, volumes.
Segments of a Line

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 56/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 8. Any two points A and B in space determine on the line through them a finite part,
which may be considered as being described by a point moving from A to B. This we
shall denote by AB, and distinguish it from BA, which is supposed as being described by
a point moving from B to A, and hence in a direction or in a “sense” opposite to AB. Such
a finite line, which has a definite sense, we shall call a “segment,” so that AB and BA
denote different segments, which are said to be equal in length but of opposite sense.
The one sense is often called positive and the other negative.

In introducing the word “sense” for direction in a line, we have the word direction
reserved for direction of the line itself, so that different lines have different directions,
unless they be parallel, whilst in each line we have a positive and negative sense.

We may also say, with Clifford, that AB denotes the “step” of going from A to B.

§ 9. If we have three points A, B, C in a line (fig. 2), the

step AB will bring us from A to B, and the step BC from
B to C. Hence both steps are equivalent to the one step
AC. This is expressed by saying that AC is the “sum” of
AB and BC; in symbols—

AB + BC = AC,
where account is to be taken of the sense. Fig. 2.

This equation is true whatever be the position of the three points on the line. As a special
case we have

AB + BA = 0, (1)

and similarly

AB + BC + CA = 0, (2)

which again is true for any three points in a line.

We further write

AB = −BA.
where − denotes negative sense.

We can then, just as in algebra, change subtraction of segments into addition by

changing the sense, so that AB − CB is the same as AB + (−CB) or AB + BC. A figure will
at once show the truth of this. The sense is, in fact, in every respect equivalent to the
“sign” of a number in algebra.

§ 10. Of the many formulae which exist between points in a line we shall have to use only
one more, which connects the segments between any four points A, B, C, D in a line. We
have

BC = BD + DC, CA = CD + DA, AB = AD + DB;

or multiplying these by AD, BD, CD respectively, we get
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 57/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

BC · AD = BD · AD + DC · AD = BD · AD − CD · AD
CA · BD = CD · BD + DA · BD = CD · BD − AD · BD
AB · CD = AD · CD + DB · CD = AD · CD − BD · CD.
It will be seen that the sum of the right-hand sides vanishes, hence that

BC · AD + CA · BD + AB · CD = 0 (3)

for any four points on a line.

§ 11. If C is any point in the line

AB, then we say that C divides
Fig. 3.
the segment AB in the ratio
AC/CB, account being taken of the sense of the two segments AC and CB. If C lies
between A and B the ratio is positive, as AC and CB have the same sense. But if C lies
without the segment AB, i.e. if C divides AB externally, then the ratio is negative. To see
how the value of this ratio changes with C, we will move C along the whole line (fig. 3),
whilst A and B remain fixed. If C lies at the point A, then AC = 0, hence the ratio AC : CB
vanishes. As C moves towards B, AC increases and CB decreases, so that our ratio
increases. At the middle point M of AB it assumes the value +1, and then increases till it
reaches an infinitely large value, when C arrives at B. On passing beyond B the ratio
becomes negative. If C is at P we have AC = AP = AB + BP, hence

AC AB BP AB
= + =− − 1.
CB PB PB BP

In the last expression the ratio AB : BP is positive, has its greatest value ∞ when C
coincides with B, and vanishes when BC becomes infinite. Hence, as C moves from B to
the right to the point at infinity, the ratio AC : CB varies from −∞ to −1.

If, on the other hand, C is to the left of A, say at Q, we have AC = AQ = AB + BQ = AB −

AC AB
QB, hence ⁠CB ⁠= ⁠QB ⁠− 1.

Here AB < QB, hence the ratio AB : QB is positive and always less than one, so that the
whole is negative and < 1. If C is at the point at infinity it is −1, and then increases as C
moves to the right, till for C at A we get the ratio = 0. Hence—

“As C moves along the line from an infinite distance to the left to an infinite distance at
the right, the ratio always increases; it starts with the value −1, reaches 0 at A, +1 at M, ∞
at B, now changes sign to −∞, and increases till at an infinite distance it reaches again
the value −1. It assumes therefore all possible values from −∞ to +∞, and each value
only once, so that not only does every position of C determine a definite value of the
ratio AC : CB, but also, conversely, to every positive or negative value of this ratio
belongs one single point in the line AB.

[Relations between segments of lines are interesting as showing an application of

algebra to geometry. The genesis of such relations from algebraic identities is very
simple. For example, if a, b, c, x be any four quantities, then

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 58/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

a b c x
+ + = ;
(a − b)(a − c)(x − a) (b − c)(b − a)(x − b) (c − a)(c − b)(x − c) (x − a)(x − b)(x − c)
this may be proved, cumbrously, by multiplying up, or, simply, by decomposing the
right-hand member of the identity into partial fractions. Now take a line ABCDX, and let
AB = a, AC = b, AD = c, AX = x. Then obviously (a − b) = AB − AC = −BC, paying regard
to signs; (a − c) = AB − AD = DB, and so on. Substituting these values in the identity we
obtain the following relation connecting the segments formed by five points on a line:—

AB AC AD AX
+ + = .
BC · BD · BX CD · CB · CX DB · DC · DX BX · CX · DX
Conversely, if a metrical relation be given, its validity may be tested by reducing to an
algebraic equation, which is an identity if the relation be true. For example, if ABCDX be
five collinear points, prove

AD · AX BD · BX CD · CX
+ + = 1.
AB · AC BC · BA CA · CB

Clearing of fractions by multiplying throughout by AB · BC · CA, we have to prove

−AD · AX · BC − BD · BX · CA − CD · CX · AB = AB · BC · CA.
Take A as origin and let AB = a, AC = b, AD = c, AX = x. Substituting for the segments in
terms of a, b, c, x, we obtain on simplification

a2b − ab2 = −ab2 + a2b, an obvious identity.

An alternative method of testing a relation is illustrated in the following example:— If A,
B, C, D, E, F be six collinear points, then

AE · AF BE · BF CE · CF DE · DF
+ + + = 0.
AB · AC · AD BC · BD · BA CD · CA · CB DA · DB · DC
Clearing of fractions by multiplying throughout by AB · BC · CD · DA, and reducing to a
common origin O (calling OA = a, OB = b, &c.), an equation containing the second and
lower powers of OA ( = a), &c., is obtained. Calling OA = x, it is found that x = b, x = c, x
= d are solutions. Hence the quadratic has three roots; consequently it is an identity.

The relations connecting five points which we have instanced above may be readily
deduced from the six-point relation; the first by taking D at infinity, and the second by
taking F at infinity, and then making the obvious permutations of the points.]

Projection and Cross-ratios

§ 12. If we join a point A to a point S, then the point where the line SA cuts a fixed plane
π is called the projection of A on the plane π from S as centre of projection. If we have
two planes π and π′ and a point S, we may project every point A in π to the other plane. If
A′ is the projection of A, then A is also the projection of A′, so that the relations are
reciprocal. To every figure in π we get as its projection a corresponding figure in π′.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 59/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

We shall determine such properties of figures as remain true for the projection, and
which are called projective properties. For this purpose it will be sufficient to consider at
first only constructions in one plane.

Fig. 4. Fig. 5.

Let us suppose we have given in a plane two lines p and p′ and a centre S (fig. 4); we
may then project the points in p from S to p′. Let A′, B′ ... be the projections of A, B ...,
the point at infinity in p which we shall denote by I will be projected into a finite point I′
in p′, viz. into the point where the parallel to p through S cuts p′. Similarly one point J in
p will be projected into the point J′ at infinity in p′. This point J is of course the point
where the parallel to p′ through S cuts p. We thus see that every point in p is projected
into a single point in p′.

Fig. 5 shows that a segment AB will be projected into a segment A′B′ which is not equal
to it, at least not as a rule; and also that the ratio AC : CB is not equal to the ratio A′C′ :
C′B′ formed by the projections. These ratios will become equal only if p and p′ are
parallel, for in this case the triangle SAB is similar to the triangle SA′B′. Between three
points in a line and their projections there exists therefore in general no relation. But
between four points a relation does exist.

§ 13. Let A, B, C, D be four points in p, A′, B′, C, D′ their projections in p′, then the ratio
of the two ratios AC : CB and AD : DB into which C and D divide the segment AB is equal
to the corresponding expression between A′, B′, C′, D′. In symbols we have

AC AD A′C′ A′D′
: = : .
CB DB C′B′ D′B′
This is easily proved by aid of similar triangles.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 60/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Through the points A and B on p draw

parallels to p′, which cut the projecting
rays in C2, D2, B2 and A1, C1, D1, as
indicated in fig. 6. The two triangles
ACC2 and BCC1 will be similar, as will
also be the triangles ADD2 and BDD1.

The proof is left to the reader.

This result is of fundamental

importance.

The expression AC/CB : AD/DB has Fig. 6.

been called by Chasles the “anharmonic ratio of the four points A, B, C, D.” Professor
Clifford proposed the shorter name of “cross-ratio.” We shall adopt the latter. We have
then the

Fundamental Theorem.—The cross-ratio of four points in a line is equal to the cross-

ratio of their projections on any other line which lies in the same plane with it.

§ 14. Before we draw conclusions from this result, we must investigate the meaning of a
cross-ratio somewhat more fully.

If four points A, B, C, D are given, and we wish to form their cross-ratio, we have first to
divide them into two groups of two, the points in each group being taken in a definite
order. Thus, let A, B be the first, C, D the second pair, A and C being the first points in
each pair. The cross-ratio is then the ratio AC : CB divided by AD : DB. This will be
denoted by (AB, CD), so that

AC AD
(AB, CD) = : .
CB DB
This is easily remembered. In order to write it out, make first the two lines for the
fractions, and put above and below these the letters A and B in their places, thus, A/*B :
A/*B; and then fill up, crosswise, the first by C and the other by D.

§ 15. If we take the points in a different order, the value of the cross-ratio will change.
We can do this in twenty-four different ways by forming all permutations of the letters.
But of these twenty-four cross-ratios groups of four are equal, so that there are really
only six different ones, and these six are reciprocals in pairs.

We have the following rules:—

I. If in a cross-ratio the two groups be interchanged, its value remains unaltered, i.e.

(AB, CD) = (CD, AB) = (BA, DC) = (DC, BA).

II. If in a cross-ratio the two points belonging to one of the two groups be interchanged,
the cross-ratio changes into its reciprocal, i.e.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 61/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library
(AB, CD) = 1/(AB, DC) = 1/(BA, CD) = 1/(CD, BA) = 1/(DC, AB).
From I. and II. we see that eight cross-ratios are associated with (AB, CD).

III. If in a cross-ratio the two middle letters be interchanged, the cross-ratio α changes
into its complement 1 − α, i.e. (AB, CD) = 1 − (AC, BD).

[§ 16. If λ = (AB, CD), μ = (AC, DB), ν = (AD, BC), then λ, μ, ν and their reciprocals 1/λ,
1/μ, 1/ν are the values of the total number of twenty-four cross-ratios. Moreover, λ, μ, ν
are connected by the relations

λ + 1/μ = μ + 1/ν = ν + 1/λ =

− λμν = 1;

this proposition may be proved by substituting for λ, μ, ν and reducing to a common

origin. There are therefore four equations between three unknowns; hence if one cross-
ratio be given, the remaining twenty-three are determinate. Moreover, two of the
quantities λ, μ, ν are positive, and the remaining one negative.

The following scheme shows the twenty-four cross-ratios expressed in terms of λ, μ, ν.]

(AB, CD) (AC, DB)

(BA, DC) (BD, CA)
λ 1−μ 1/(1 − ν) 1/(1 − λ) 1/μ (ν − 1)/ν
(CD, AB) (CA, BD)
(DC, BA) (DB, AC)
(AB, DC) (AD, BC)
(BA, CD) (BC, AD)
1/λ 1/(1 − μ) 1−ν (λ − 1)/λ μ/(μ − 1) ν
(CD, BA) (CB, DA)
(DC, AB) (DA, CB)
(AC, BD) (AD, CB)
(BD, AC) (BC, DA)
1−λ μ ν/(ν − 1) λ/(λ − 1) (μ − 1)/μ 1/ν
(CA, DB) (CB, AD)
(DB, CA) (DA, BC)
§ 17. If one of the points of which a cross-ratio is formed is the point at infinity in the
line, the cross-ratio changes into a simple ratio. It is convenient to let the point at
infinity occupy the last place in the symbolic expression for the cross-ratio. Thus if I is a
point at infinity, we have (AB, CI) = −AC/CB, because AI : IB = −1.

Every common ratio of three points in a line may thus be expressed as a cross-ratio, by
adding the point at infinity to the group of points.

Harmonic Ranges

§ 18. If the points have special positions, the cross-ratios may have such a value that, of
the six different ones, two and two become equal. If the first two shall be equal, we get λ
= 1/λ, or λ2 = 1, λ = ±1.

If we take λ = +1, we have (AB, CD) = 1, or AC/CB = AD/DB; that is, the points C and D
coincide, provided that A and B are different.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 62/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

If we take λ = −1, so that (AB, CD) = −1, we have AC/CB = −AD/DB. Hence C and D
divide AB internally and externally in the same ratio.

The four points are in this case said to be harmonic points, and C and D are said to be
harmonic conjugates with regard to A and B.

But we have also (CD, AB) = −1, so that A and B are harmonic conjugates with regard to
C and D.

The principal property of harmonic points is that their cross-ratio remains unaltered if
we interchange the two points belonging to one pair, viz.

(AB, CD) = (AB, DC) = (BA, CD).

For four harmonic points the six cross-ratios become equal two and two:

λ 1 1 λ−1
λ = −1, 1 − λ = 2, = ⁠12 ⁠, = −1, = ⁠12 ⁠, = 2.
λ−1 λ 1−λ λ
Hence if we get four points whose cross-ratio is 2 or ⁠21 ⁠, then they are harmonic, but not
arranged so that conjugates are paired. If this is the case the cross-ratio = −1.

§ 19. If we equate any two of the above six values of the cross-ratios, we get either λ = 1,
0, ∞, or λ = −1, 2, ⁠21 ⁠, or else λ becomes a root of the equation λ2 − λ + 1 = 0, that is, an
imaginary cube root of −1. In this case the six values become three and three equal, so
that only two different values remain. This case, though important in the theory of cubic
curves, is for our purposes of no interest, whilst harmonic points are all-important.

§ 20. From the definition of harmonic points, and by aid of § 11, the following properties
are easily deduced.

If C and D are harmonic conjugates with regard to A and B, then one of them lies in, the
other without AB; it is impossible to move from A to B without passing either through C
or through D; the one blocks the finite way, the other the way through infinity. This is
expressed by saying A and B are “separated” by C and D.

For every position of C there will be one and only one point D which is its harmonic
conjugate with regard to any point pair A, B.

If A and B are different points, and if C coincides with A or B, D does. But if A and B
coincide, one of the points C or D, lying between them, coincides with them, and the
other may be anywhere in the line. It follows that, “if of four harmonic conjugates two
coincide, then a third coincides with them, and the fourth may be any point in the line.”

If C is the middle point between A and B, then D is the point at infinity; for AC : CB = +1,
hence AD : DB must be equal to −1. The harmonic conjugate of the point at infinity in a
line with regard to two points A, B is the middle point of AB.

This important property gives a first example how metric properties are connected with
projective ones.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 63/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library
[§ 21. Harmonic properties of the complete quadrilateral and quadrangle.

Fig. 7. Fig. 8.

A figure formed by four lines in a plane is called a complete quadrilateral, or, shorter, a
four-side. The four sides meet in six points, named the “vertices,” which may be joined
by three lines (other than the sides), named the “diagonals” or “harmonic lines.” The
diagonals enclose the “harmonic triangle of the quadrilateral.” In fig. 7, A′B′C′, B′AC,
C′AB, CBA′ are the sides, A, A′, B, B′, C, C′ the vertices, AA′, BB′, CC′ the harmonic
lines, and αβγ the harmonic triangle of the quadrilateral. A figure formed by four
coplanar points is named a complete quadrangle, or, shorter, a four-point. The four
points may be joined by six lines, named the “sides,” which intersect in three other
points, termed the “diagonal or harmonic points.” The harmonic points are the vertices
of the “harmonic triangle of the complete quadrangle.” In fig. 8, AA′, BB′ are the points,
AA′, BB′, A′B′, B′A, AB, BA′ are the sides, L, M, N are the diagonal points, and LMN is
the harmonic triangle of the quadrangle.

The harmonic property of the complete quadrilateral is: Any diagonal or harmonic line
is harmonically divided by the other two; and of a complete quadrangle: The angle at
any harmonic point is divided harmonically by the joins to the other harmonic points.
To prove the first theorem, we have to prove (AA′, βγ), (BB′, γα), (CC′, βα) are harmonic.
Consider the cross-ratio (CC′, αβ). Then projecting from A on BB′ we have A(CC′, αβ) =
A(B′B, αγ). Projecting from A′ on BB′, A′(CC′, αβ) = A′(BB′, αγ). Hence (B′B, αγ) = (BB′,
αγ), i.e. the cross-ratio (BB′, αγ) equals that of its reciprocal; hence the range is
harmonic.

The second theorem states that the pencils L(BA, NM), M(B′A, LN), N(BA, LM) are
harmonic. Deferring the subject of harmonic pencils to the next section, it will suffice to
state here that any transversal intersects an harmonic pencil in an harmonic range.
Consider the pencil L(BA, NM), then it is sufficient to prove (BA′, NM′) is harmonic.
This follows from the previous theorem by considering A′B as a diagonal of the
quadrilateral ALB′M.]

This property of the complete quadrilateral allows the solution of the problem:

To construct the harmonic conjugate D to a point C with regard to two given points A
and B.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 64/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Through A draw any two lines, and through C one cutting the former two in G and H.
Join these points to B, cutting the former two lines in E and F. The point D where EF
cuts AB will be the harmonic conjugate required.

This remarkable construction requires nothing but the drawing of lines, and is therefore
independent of measurement. In a similar manner the harmonic conjugate of the line
VA for two lines VC, VD is constructed with the aid of the property of the complete
quadrangle.

§ 22. Harmonic Pencils.—The theory of cross-ratios may be extended from points in a

row to lines in a flat pencil and to planes in an axial pencil. We have seen (§ 13) that if
the lines which join four points A, B, C, D to any point S be cut by any other line in A′,
B′, C′, D′, then (AB, CD) = (A′B′, C′D′). In other words, four lines in a flat pencil are cut
by every other line in four points whose cross-ratio is constant.

Definition.—By the cross-ratio of four rays in a flat pencil is meant the cross-ratio of the
four points in which the rays are cut by any line. If a, b, c, d be the lines, then this cross-
ratio is denoted by (ab, cd).

Definition.—By the cross-ratio of four planes in an axial pencil is understood the cross-
ratio of the four points in which any line cuts the planes, or, what is the same thing, the
cross-ratio of the four rays in which any plane cuts the four planes.

In order that this definition may have a meaning, it has to be proved that all lines cut the
pencil in points which have the same cross-ratio. This is seen at once for two intersecting
lines, as their plane cuts the axial pencil in a flat pencil, which is itself cut by the two
lines. The cross-ratio of the four points on one line is therefore equal to that on the
other, and equal to that of the four rays in the flat pencil.

If two non-intersecting lines p and q cut the four planes in A, B, C, D and A′, B′, C′, D′,
draw a line r to meet both p and q, and let this line cut the planes in A″, B″, C″, D″.
Then (AB, CD) = (A′B′, C′D′), for each is equal to (A″B″, C″D″).

§ 23. We may now also extend the notion of harmonic elements, viz.

Definition.—Four rays in a flat pencil and four planes in an axial pencil are said to be
harmonic if their cross-ratio equals -1, that is, if they are cut by a line in four harmonic
points.

If we understand by a “median line” of a triangle a line which joins a vertex to the

middle point of the opposite side, and by a “median line” of a parallelogram a line
joining middle points of opposite sides, we get as special cases of the last theorem:

The diagonals and median lines of a parallelogram form an harmonic pencil; and

At a vertex of any triangle, the two sides, the median line, and the line parallel to the
base form an harmonic pencil.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 65/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Taking the parallelogram a rectangle, or the triangle isosceles, we get:

Any two lines and the bisections of their angles form an harmonic pencil. Or:

In an harmonic pencil, if two conjugate rays are perpendicular, then the other two are
equally inclined to them; and, conversely, if one ray bisects the angle between
conjugate rays, it is perpendicular to its conjugate.

This connects perpendicularity and bisection of angles with projective properties.

§ 24. We add a few theorems and problems which are easily proved or solved by aid of
harmonics.

An harmonic pencil is cut by a line parallel to one of its rays in three equidistant points.

Through a given point to draw a line such that the segment determined on it by a given
angle is bisected at that point.

Having given two parallel lines, to bisect on either any given segment without using a
pair of compasses.

Having given in a line a segment and its middle point, to draw through any given point
in the plane a line parallel to the given line.

To draw a line which joins a given point to the intersection of two given lines which meet
off the drawing paper (by aid of § 21).

Correspondence. Homographic and Perspective Ranges

§ 25. Two rows, p and p′, which are one the projection of the other (as in fig. 5), stand in
a definite relation to each other, characterized by the following properties.

1. To each point in either corresponds one point in the other; that is, those points are
said to correspond which are projections of one another.

2. The cross-ratio of any four points in one equals that of the corresponding points in
the other.

3. The lines joining corresponding points all pass through the same point.

If we suppose corresponding points marked, and the rows brought into any other
position, then the lines joining corresponding points will no longer meet in a common
point, and hence the third of the above properties will not hold any longer; but we have
still a correspondence between the points in the two rows possessing the first two
properties. Such a correspondence has been called a one-one correspondence, whilst the
two rows between which such correspondence has been established are said to be
projective or homographic. Two rows which are each the projection of the other are
therefore projective. We shall presently see, also, that any two projective rows may

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 66/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

always be placed in such a position that one appears as the projection of the other. If
they are in such a position the rows are said to be in perspective position, or simply to be
in perspective.

§ 26. The notion of a one-one correspondence between rows may be extended to flat and
axial pencils, viz. a flat pencil will be said to be projective to a flat pencil if to each ray in
the first corresponds one ray in the second, and if the cross-ratio of four rays in one
equals that of the corresponding rays in the second.

Similarly an axial pencil may be projective to an axial pencil. But a flat pencil may also
be projective to an axial pencil, or either pencil may be projective to a row. The
definition is the same in each case: there is a one-one correspondence between the
elements, and four elements have the same cross-ratio as the corresponding ones.

§ 27. There is also in each case a special position which is called perspective, viz.

1. Two projective rows are perspective if they lie in the same plane, and if the one row is
a projection of the other.

2. Two projective flat pencils are perspective—(1) if they lie in the same plane, and have
a row as a common section; (2) if they lie in the same pencil (in space), and are both
sections of the same axial pencil; (3) if they are in space and have a row as common
section, or are both sections of the same axial pencil, one of the conditions involving the
other.

3. Two projective axial pencils, if their axes meet, and if they have a flat pencil as a
common section.

4. A row and a projective flat pencil, if the row is a section of the pencil, each point lying
in its corresponding line.

5. A row and a projective axial pencil, if the row is a section of the pencil, each point
lying in its corresponding line.

6. A flat and a projective axial pencil, if the former is a section of the other, each ray
lying in its corresponding plane.

That in each case the correspondence established by the position indicated is such as has
been called projective follows at once from the definition. It is not so evident that the
perspective position may always be obtained. We shall show in § 30 this for the first
three cases. First, however, we shall give a few theorems which relate to the general
correspondence, not to the perspective position.

§ 28. Two rows or pencils, flat or axial, which are projective to a third are projective to
each other; this follows at once from the definitions.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 67/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 29. If two rows, or two pencils, either flat or axial, or a row and a pencil, be
projective, we may assume to any three elements in the one the three corresponding
elements in the other, and then the correspondence is uniquely determined.

For if in two projective rows we assume that the points A, B, C in the first correspond to
the given points A′, B′, C′ in the second, then to any fourth point D in the first will
correspond a point D′ in the second, so that

(AB, CD) = (A′B′, C′D′).

But there is only one point, D′, which makes the cross-ratio (A′B′, C′D′) equal to the
given number (AB, CD).

The same reasoning holds in the other cases.

§ 30. If two rows are perspective, then the lines joining corresponding points all meet in
a point, the centre of projection; and the point in which the two bases of the rows
intersect as a point in the first row coincides with its corresponding point in the second.

This follows from the definition. The converse also holds, viz.

If two projective rows have such a position that one point in the one coincides with its
corresponding point in the other, then they are perspective, that is, the lines joining
corresponding points all pass through a common point, and form a flat pencil.

For let A, B, C, D ... be points in the one, and A′, B′, C′, D′ ... the corresponding points in
the other row, and let A be made to coincide with its corresponding point A′. Let S be the
point where the lines BB′ and CC′ meet, and let us join S to the point D in the first row.
This line will cut the second row in a point D″, so that A, B, C, D are projected from S
into the points A, B′, C′, D″. The cross-ratio (AB, CD) is therefore equal to (AB′, C′D″),
and by hypothesis it is equal to (A′B′, C′D′). Hence (A′B′, C′D″) = (A′B′,
C&primeprime;D′), that is, D″ is the same point as D′.

§ 31. If two projected flat pencils in the same plane are in perspective, then the
intersections of corresponding lines form a row, and the line joining the two centres as a
line in the first pencil corresponds to the same line as a line in the second. And
conversely,

If two projective pencils in the same plane, but with different centres, have one line in
the one coincident with its corresponding line in the other, then the two pencils are
perspective, that is, the intersection of corresponding lines lie in a line.

The proof is the same as in § 30.

§ 32. If two projective flat pencils in the same point (pencil in space), but not in the same
plane, are perspective, then the planes joining corresponding rays all pass through a line
(they form an axial pencil), and the line common to the two pencils (in which their
planes intersect) corresponds to itself. And conversely:—

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 68/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

If two flat pencils which have a common centre, but do not lie in a common plane, are
placed so that one ray in the one coincides with its corresponding ray in the other, then
they are perspective, that is, the planes joining corresponding lines all pass through a
line.

§ 33. If two projective axial pencils are perspective, then the intersection of
corresponding planes lie in a plane, and the plane common to the two pencils (in which
the two axes lie) corresponds to itself. And conversely:—

If two projective axial pencils are placed in such a position that a plane in the one
coincides with its corresponding plane, then the two pencils are perspective, that is,
corresponding planes meet in lines which lie in a plane.

The proof again is the same as in § 30.

§ 34. These theorems relating to perspective position become illusory if the projective
rows of pencils have a common base. We then have:—

In two projective rows on the same line—and also in two projective and concentric flat
pencils in the same plane, or in two projective axial pencils with a common axis—every
element in the one coincides with its corresponding element in the other as soon as
three elements in the one coincide with their corresponding elements in the other.

Proof (in case of two rows).—Between four elements A, B, C, D and their corresponding
elements A′, B′, C′, D′ exists the relation (ABCD) = (A′B′C′D′). If now A′, B′, C′ coincide
respectively with A, B, C, we get (AB, CD) = (AB, CD′), hence D and D′ coincide.

The last theorem may also be stated thus:—

In two projective rows or pencils, which have a common base but are not identical, not
more than two elements in the one can coincide with their corresponding elements in
the other.

Thus two projective rows on the same line cannot have more than two pairs of
coincident points unless every point coincides with its corresponding point.

It is easy to construct two projective rows on the same line, which have two pairs of
corresponding points coincident. Let the points A, B, C as points belonging to the one
row correspond to A, B, and C′ as points in the second. Then A and B coincide with their
corresponding points, but C does not. It is, however, not necessary that two such rows
have twice a point coincident with its corresponding point; it is possible that this
happens only once or not at all. Of this we shall see examples later.

§ 35. If two projective rows or pencils are in perspective position, we know at once which
element in one corresponds to any given element in the other. If p and q (fig. 9) are two
projective rows, so that K corresponds to itself, and if we know that to A and B in p

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 69/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

correspond A′ and B′ in q, then the

point S, where AA′ meets BB′, is the
centre of projection, and hence, in
order to find the point C′
corresponding to C, we have only to
join C to S; the point C′, where this
line cuts q, is the point required.

If two flat pencils, S1 and S2, in a

plane are perspective (fig. 10), we
need only to know two pairs, a, a′
and b, b′, of corresponding rays in
order to find the axis s of
projection. This being known, a ray
c′ in S2, corresponding to a given Fig. 9.
ray c in S1, is found by joining S2 to
the point where c cuts the axis s.

A similar construction holds in the

other cases of perspective figures.

On this depends the solution of the

following general problem.

§ 36. Three pairs of corresponding

elements in two projective rows or
pencils being given, to determine
for any element in one the
corresponding element in the other.
Fig. 10.
We solve this in the two cases of
two projective rows and of two
projective flat pencils in a plane.

Problem I.—Let A, B, C be three

points in a row s, A′, B′, C′ the
corresponding points in a projective
row s′, both being in a plane; it is
required to find for any point D in s
the corresponding point D′ in s′.

Problem II.—Let a, b, c be three

rays in a pencil S, a′, b′, c′ the
corresponding rays in a projective
pencil S′, both being in the same

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 70/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

plane; it is required to find for any

ray d in S the corresponding ray d′
in S′.

The solution is made to depend on

the construction of an auxiliary row
or pencil which is perspective to
both the given ones. This is found
as follows:—

Solution of Problem I.—On the line

joining two corresponding points,
say AA′ (fig. 11), take any two
points, S and S′, as centres of
auxiliary pencils. Join the
intersection B1 of SB and S′B′ to the
intersection C1 of SC and S′C′ by
the line s1. Then a row on s1 will be
perspective to s with S as centre of Fig. 11.
projection, and to s′ with S′ as
centre. To find now the point D′ on s′ corresponding to a point D on s we have only to
determine the point D1, where the line SD cuts s1, and to draw S′D1; the point where this
line cuts s′ will be the required point D′.

Proof.—The rows s and s′ are both perspective to the row s1, hence they are projective to
one another. To A, B, C, D on s correspond A1, B1, C1, D1 on s1, and to these correspond
A′, B′, C′, D′ on s′; so that D and D′ are

corresponding points as required.

Solution of Problem II.—Through the
intersection A of two corresponding rays a
and a′ (fig. 12), take two lines, s and s′, as
bases of auxiliary rows. Let S1 be the point
where the line b1, which joins B and B′, cuts
the line c1, which joins C and C′. Then a
pencil S1 will be perspective to S with s as
axis of projection. To find the ray d′ in S′
corresponding to a given ray d in S, cut d by
s at D; project this point from S1 to D′ on s′
and join D′ to S′. This will be the required
ray.

Proof.—That the pencil S1 is perspective to

S and also to S′ follows from construction.
Fig. 12.
To the lines a1, b1, c1, d1 in S1 correspond

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 71/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

the lines a, b, c, d in S and the lines a′, b′,

c′, d′ in S′, so that d and d′ are
corresponding rays.

In the first solution the two centres, S, S′,

are any two points on a line joining any two
corresponding points, so that the solution
of the problem allows of a great many
different constructions. But whatever
construction be used, the point D′,
corresponding to D, must be always the
same, according to the theorem in § 29.
Fig. 13. This gives rise to a number of theorems,
into which, however, we shall not enter.
The same remarks hold for the second problem.

§ 37. Homological Triangles.—As a further application of the theorems about

perspective rows and pencils we shall prove the following important theorem.

Theorem.—If ABC and A′B′C′ (fig. 13) be two triangles, such that the lines AA′, BB′, CC′
meet in a point S, then the intersections of BC and B′C′, of CA and C′A′, and of AB and
A′B′ will lie in a line. Such triangles are said to be homological, or in perspective. The
triangles are “co-axial” in virtue of the property that the meets of corresponding sides
are collinear and copolar, since the lines joining corresponding vertices are concurrent.

Proof.—Let a, b, c denote the lines AA′, BB′, CC′, which meet at S. Then these may be
taken as bases of projective rows, so that A, A′, S on a correspond to B, B′, S on b, and to
C, C′, S on c. As the point S is common to all, any two of these rows will be perspective.

If S1 be the centre of projection of rows b and c,

S2 ” ” ” c and a,
S3 ” ” ” a and b,
and if the line S1S2 cuts a in A1, and b in B1, and c in C1, then A1, B1 will be
corresponding points in a and b, both corresponding to C1 in c. But a and b are
perspective, therefore the line A1B1, that is S1S2, joining corresponding points must pass
through the centre of projection S3 of a and b. In other words, S1, S2, S3 lie in a line. This
is Desargues’ celebrated theorem if we state it thus:—

Theorem of Desargues.—If each of two triangles has one vertex on each of three
concurrent lines, then the intersections of corresponding sides lie in a line, those sides
being called corresponding which are opposite to vertices on the same line.

The converse theorem holds also, viz.

Theorem.—If the sides of one triangle meet those of another in three points which lie in
a line, then the vertices lie on three lines which meet in a point.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 72/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

The proof is almost the same as before.

§ 38. Metrical Relations between Projective Rows.—Every row contains one point which
is distinguished from all others, viz. the point at infinity. In two projective rows, to the
point I at infinity in one corresponds a point I′ in the other, and to the point J′ at infinity
in the second corresponds a point J in the first. The points I′ and J are in general finite.
If now A and B are any two points in the one, A′, B′ the corresponding points in the
other row, then

(AB, JI) = (A′B′, J′I′),

or

AJ/JB : AI/IB = A′J′/J′B′ : A′I′/I′B′.

But, by § 17,

AI/IB = A′J′/J′B′ = −1;

therefore the last equation changes into

AJ · A′I′ = BJ · B′I′,
that is to say—

Theorem.—The product of the distances of any two corresponding points in two

projective rows from the points which correspond to the points at infinity in the other is
constant, viz. AJ · A′I′ = k. Steiner has called this number k the Power of the
correspondence.

[The relation AJ · A′I′ = k shows that if J, I′ be given then the point A′ corresponding to
a specified point A is readily found; hence A, A′ generate homographic ranges of which I
and J′ correspond to the points at infinity on the ranges. If we take any two origins O,
O′, on the ranges and reduce the expression AJ · A′I′ = k to its algebraic equivalent, we
derive an equation of the form αxx′ + βx + γx′ + δ = 0. Conversely, if a relation of this
nature holds, then points corresponding to solutions in x, x′ form homographic ranges.]

§ 39. Similar Rows.—If the points at infinity in two projective rows correspond so that I′
and J are at infinity, this result loses its meaning. But if A, B, C be any three points in
one, A′, B′, C′ the corresponding ones on the other row, we have

(AB, CI) = (A′B′, C′I′),

which reduces to

AC/CB = A′C′/C′B′ or AC/A′C′ = BC/B′C′,

that is, corresponding segments are proportional. Conversely, if corresponding segments
are proportional, then to the point at infinity in one corresponds the point at infinity in
the other. If we call such rows similar, we may state the result thus—

Theorem.—Two projective rows are similar if to the point at infinity in one corresponds
the point at infinity in the other, and conversely, if two rows are similar then they are
projective, and the points at infinity are corresponding points.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 73/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

From this the well-known propositions

follow:—

Two lines are cut proportionally (in similar

rows) by a series of parallels. The rows are
perspective, with centre of projection at
infinity.

If two similar rows are placed parallel, then

the lines joining homologous points pass
through a common point.

§ 40. If two flat pencils be projective, then

Fig. 14.
there exists in either, one single pair of lines
at right angles to one another, such that the corresponding lines in the other pencil are
again at right angles.

To prove this, we place the pencils in perspective position (fig. 14) by making one ray
coincident with its corresponding ray. Corresponding rays meet then on a line p. And
now we draw the circle which has its centre O on p, and which passes through the
centres S and S′ of the two pencils. This circle cuts p in two points H and K. The two
pairs of rays, h, k, and h′, k′, joining these points to S and S′ will be pairs of
corresponding rays at right angles. The construction gives in general but one circle, but
if the line p is the perpendicular bisector of SS′, there exists an infinite number, and to
every right angle in the one pencil corresponds a right angle in the other.

Principle of Duality

§ 41. It has been stated in § 1 that not only points, but also planes and lines, are taken as
elements out of which figures are built up. We shall now see that the construction of one
figure which possesses certain properties gives rise in many cases to the construction of
another figure, by replacing, according to definite rules, elements of one kind by those of
another. The new figure thus obtained will then possess properties which may be stated
as soon as those of the original figure are known.

We obtain thus a principle, known as the principle of duality or of reciprocity, which

enables us to construct to any figure not containing any measurement in its construction
a reciprocal figure, as it is called, and to deduce from any theorem a reciprocal theorem,
for which no further proof is needed.

It is convenient to print reciprocal propositions on opposite sides of a page broken into

two columns, and this plan will occasionally be adopted.

We begin by repeating in this form a few of our former statements:—

Two points determine a line. Two planes determine a line.

Three points which are not in a line determine a Three planes which do not pass through a line
plane. determine a point.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 74/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

A line and a plane not through it determine a

A line and a point without it determine a plane.
point.
Two lines in a plane determine a point. Two lines through a point determine a plane.

These propositions show that it will be possible, when any figure is given, to construct a
second figure by taking planes instead of points, and points instead of planes, but lines
where we had lines.

For instance, if in the first figure we take a plane and three points in it, we have to take
in the second figure a point and three planes through it. The three points in the first,
together with the three lines joining them two and two, form a triangle; the three planes
in the second and their three lines of intersection form a trihedral angle. A triangle and a
trihedral angle are therefore reciprocal figures.

Similarly, to any figure in a plane consisting of points and lines will correspond a figure
consisting of planes and lines passing through a point S, and hence belonging to the
pencil which has S as centre.

The figure reciprocal to four points in space which do not lie in a plane will consist of
four planes which do not meet in a point. In this case each figure forms a tetrahedron.

§ 42. As other examples we have the following:—

To a row is reciprocal an axial pencil,

to a flat pencil ” a flat pencil,
to a field of points and lines ” a pencil of planes and lines,
to the space of points ” the space of planes.
For the row consists of a line and all the points in it, reciprocal to it therefore will be a
line with all planes through it, that is, an axial pencil; and so for the other cases.

This correspondence of reciprocity breaks down, however, if we take figures which

contain measurement in their construction. For instance, there is no figure reciprocal to
two planes at right angles, because there is no segment in a row which has a magnitude
as definite as a right angle.

We add a few examples of reciprocal propositions which are easily proved.

Theorem.—If A, B, C, D are any four points in Theorem.—If α, β, γ, δ are four planes in space,
space, and if the lines AB and CD meet, then all and if the lines αβ and γδ meet, then all four
four points lie in a plane, hence also AC and planes lie in a point (pencil), hence also αγ and
BD, as well as AD and BC, meet. βδ, as well as αδ and βγ, meet.

Theorem.—If of any number of lines every one meets every other, whilst all do not

lie in a point, then all lie in a plane. lie in a plane, then all lie in a point (pencil).

§ 43. Reciprocal figures as explained lie both in space of three dimensions. If the one is
confined to a plane (is formed of elements which lie in a plane), then the reciprocal
figure is confined to a pencil (is formed of elements which pass through a point).

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 75/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

But there is also a more special principle of duality, according to which figures are
reciprocal which lie both in a plane or both in a pencil. In the plane we take points and
lines as reciprocal elements, for they have this fundamental property in common, that
two elements of one kind determine one of the other. In the pencil, on the other hand,
lines and planes have to be taken as reciprocal, and here it holds again that two lines or
planes determine one plane or line.

Thus, to one plane figure we can construct one reciprocal figure in the plane, and to each
one reciprocal figure in a pencil. We mention a few of these. At first we explain a few
names:—

A figure consisting of n points in a plane will be A figure consisting of n lines in a plane will be
called an n-point. called an n-side.
A figure consisting of n planes in a pencil will be A figure consisting of n lines in a pencil will be
called an n-flat. called an n-edge.

It will be understood that an n-side is different from a polygon of n sides. The latter has
sides of finite length and n vertices, the former has sides all of infinite extension, and
every point where two of the sides meet will be a vertex. A similar difference exists
between a solid angle and an n-edge or an n-flat. We notice particularly—

A four-point has six sides, of which two and two A four-side has six vertices, of which two and two
are opposite, and three diagonal points, which are opposite, and three diagonals, which join
are intersections of opposite sides. opposite vertices.
A four-flat has six edges, of which two and two A four-edge has six faces, of which two and two
are opposite, and three diagonal planes, which are opposite, and three diagonal edges, which
pass through opposite edges. are intersections of opposite faces.

A four-side is usually called a complete quadrilateral, and a four-point a complete

quadrangle. The above notation, however, seems better adapted for the statement of
reciprocal propositions.

§ 44.

If a point moves in a plane it describes a plane If a line moves in a plane it envelopes a plane
curve. curve (fig. 15).
If a plane moves in a pencil it envelopes a cone. If a line moves in a pencil it describes a cone.

A curve thus appears as generated either by points,

and then we call it a “locus,” or by lines, and then we
call it an “envelope.” In the same manner a cone,
which means here a surface, appears either as the
locus of lines passing through a fixed point, the
“vertex” of the cone, or as the envelope of planes
passing through the same point.

To a surface as locus of points corresponds, in the

same manner, a surface as envelope of planes; and to Fig. 15.
a curve in space as locus of points corresponds a
developable surface as envelope of planes.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 76/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

It will be seen from the above that we may, by aid of the principle of duality, construct
for every figure a reciprocal figure, and that to any property of the one a reciprocal
property of the other will exist, as long as we consider only properties which depend
upon nothing but the positions and intersections of the different elements and not upon
measurement.

For such propositions it will therefore be unnecessary to prove more than one of two
reciprocal theorems.

Generation of Curves and Cones of Second Order or Second Class

§ 45. Conics.—If we have two projective pencils in a plane, corresponding rays will meet,
and their point of intersection will constitute some locus which we have to investigate.
Reciprocally, if two projective rows in a plane are given, then the lines which join
corresponding points will envelope some curve. We prove first:—

Theorem.—If two projective flat pencils lie in a Theorem.—If two projective rows lie in a plane,
plane, but are neither in perspective nor but are neither in perspective nor on a common
concentric, then the locus of intersections of base, then the envelope of lines joining
corresponding rays is a curve of the second corresponding points is a curve of the second
order, that is, no line contains more than two class, that is, through no point pass more than
points of the locus. two of the enveloping lines.
Proof.—We draw any line t. This cuts each of
Proof.—We take any point T and join it to all
the pencils in a row, so that we have on t two
points in each row. This gives two concentric
rows, and these are projective because the
pencils, which are projective because the rows
pencils are projective. If corresponding rays of
are projective. If a line joining corresponding
the two pencils meet on the line t, their
points in the two rows passes through T, it will be
intersection will be a point in the one row which
a line in the one pencil which coincides with its
coincides with its corresponding point in the
corresponding line in the other. But two projective
other. But two projective rows on the same base
concentric flat pencils in the same plane cannot
cannot have more than two points of one
have more than two lines of one coincident with
coincident with their corresponding points in the
their corresponding line in the other (§ 34).
other (§ 34).

It will be seen that the proofs are reciprocal, so that the one may be copied from the
other by simply interchanging the words point and line, locus and envelope, row and
pencil, and so on. We shall therefore in future prove seldom more than one of two
reciprocal theorems, and often state one theorem only, the reader being recommended
to go through the reciprocal proof by himself, and to supply the reciprocal theorems
when not given.

§ 46. We state the theorems in the pencil reciprocal to the last, without proving them:—

Theorem.—If two projective flat pencils are

Theorem.—If two projective axial pencils lie in
concentric, but are neither perspective nor
the same pencil (their axes meet in a point), but
coplanar, then the envelope of the planes
are neither perspective nor co-axial, then the
joining corresponding rays is a cone of the
locus of lines joining corresponding planes is a
second class; that is, no line through the
cone of the second order; that is, no plane in the
common centre contains more than two of the
pencil contains more than two of these lines.
enveloping planes.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 77/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 47. Of theorems about cones of second order and cones of second class we shall state
only very few. We point out, however, the following connexion between the curves and
cones under consideration:

The lines which join any point in space to the Every plane section of a cone of the second
points on a curve of the second order form a order is a curve of the second order.
cone of the second order.
The planes which join any point in space to the Every plane section of a cone of the second
lines enveloping a curve of the second class class is a curve of the second class.
envelope themselves a cone of the second
class.

By its aid, or by the principle of duality, it will be easy to obtain theorems about them
from the theorems about the curves.

We prove the first. A curve of the second order is generated by two projective pencils.
These pencils, when joined to the point in space, give rise to two projective axial pencils,
which generate the cone in question as the locus of the lines where corresponding planes

meet.
§48.

Theorem.—The envelope of second class which

Theorem.—The curve of second order which is
is generated by two projective rows contains the
generated by two projective flat pencils passes
bases of these rows as enveloping lines or
through the centres of the two pencils.
tangents.
Proof.—If S and S′ are the two pencils, then to Proof.—If s and s′ are the two rows, then to the
the ray SS′ or p′ in the pencil S′ corresponds in point ss′ or P′ as a point in s′ corresponds in s a
the pencil S a ray p, which is different from p′, for point P, which is not coincident with P′, for the
the pencils are not perspective. But p and p′ rows are not perspective. But P and P′ are joined
meet at S, so that S is a point on the curve, and by s, so that s is one of the enveloping lines, and
similarly S′. similarly s′.

It follows that every line in one of the two pencils cuts the curve in two points, viz. once
at the centre S of the pencil, and once where it cuts its corresponding ray in the other
pencil. These two points, however, coincide, if the line is cut by its corresponding line at
S itself. The line p in S, which corresponds to the line SS′ in S′, is therefore the only line
through S which has but one point in common with the curve, or which cuts the curve in
two coincident points. Such a line is called a tangent to the curve, touching the latter at
the point S, which is called the “point of contact.”

In the same manner we get in the reciprocal investigation the result that through every
point in one of the rows, say in s, two tangents may be drawn to the curve, the one being
s, the other the line joining the point to its corresponding point in s′. There is, however,
one point P in s for which these two lines coincide. Such a point in one of the tangents is
called the “point of contact” of the tangent. We thus get—

Theorem.—To the point of intersection of the

Theorem.—To the line joining the centres of the
bases of two projective rows as a point in one
projective pencils as a line in one pencil
row corresponds in the other the point of contact
corresponds in the other the tangent at its centre.
of its base.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 78/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 49. Two projective pencils are determined if three pairs of corresponding lines are
given. Hence if a1, b1, c1 are three lines in a pencil S1, and a2, b2, c2 the corresponding
lines in a projective pencil S2, the correspondence and therefore the curve of the second
order generated by the points of intersection of corresponding rays is determined. Of
this curve we know the two centres S1 and S2, and the three points a1a2, b1b2, c1c2,
hence five points in all. This and the reciprocal considerations enable us to solve the
following two problems:

Problem.—To construct a curve of the second Problem.—To construct a curve of the second
order, of which five points S1, S2, A, B, C are class, of which five tangents u1, u2, a, b, c are
given. given.

In order to solve the left-hand problem, we take two of the given points, say S1 and S2, as
centres of pencils. These we make projective by taking the rays a1, b1, c1, which join S1 to
A, B, C respectively, as corresponding to the rays a2, b2, c2, which join S2 to A, B, C
respectively, so that three rays meet their corresponding rays at the given points A, B, C.
This determines the correspondence of the pencils which will generate a curve of the
second order passing through A, B, C and through the centres S1 and S2, hence through
the five given points. To find more points on the curve we have to construct for any ray
in S1 the corresponding ray in S2. This has been done in § 36. But we repeat the
construction in order to deduce further properties from it. We also solve the right-hand
problem. Here we select two, viz. u1, u2 of the five given lines, u1, u2, a, b, c, as bases of
two rows, and the points A1, B1, C1 where a, b, c cut u1 as corresponding to the points A2,
B2, C2 where a, b, c cut u2.

We get then the following solutions of the two problems:

Solution.—In the line a take any two points S1

Solution.—Through the point A draw any two
and S2 as centres of pencils (fig. 17), the first
lines, u1 and u2 (fig. 16), the first u1 to cut the
S1 (A1B1C1) to project the row u1, the other S2
pencil S1 in a row AB1C1, the other u2 to cut the
(A2B2C2) to project the row u2. These two
pencil S2 in a row AB2C2. These two rows will
pencils will be perspective, the line S1A1 being
be perspective, as the point A corresponds to
the same as the corresponding line S2A2, and
itself, and the centre of projection will be the
the axis of projection will be the line u, which
point S, where the lines B1B2 and C1C2 meet.
joins the intersection B of S1B1 and S2B2 to the
To find now for any ray d1 in S1 its
intersection C of S1C1 and S2C2. To find now
corresponding ray d2 in S2, we determine the
for any point D1 in u1 the corresponding point
point D1 where d1 cuts u1, project this point
D2 in u2, we draw S1D1 and project the point D
from S to D2 on u2 and join S2 to D2. This will
where this line cuts u from S2 to u2. This will
be the required ray d2 which cuts d1 at some
give the required point D2, and the line d joining
point D on the curve.
D1 to D2 will be a new tangent to the curve.

§ 50. These constructions prove, when rightly interpreted, very important properties of
the curves in question.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 79/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Fig. 16.

If in fig. 16 we draw in the pencil S1 the ray k1 which passes through the auxiliary centre
S, it will be found that the corresponding ray k2 cuts it on u2. Hence—

Theorem.—In the above construction the bases Theorem.—In the above construction (fig. 17) the
of the auxiliary rows u1 and u2 cut the curve tangents to the curve from the centres of the
where they cut the rays S2S and S1S auxiliary pencils S1 and S2 are the lines which
respectively. pass through u2u and u1u respectively.

As A is any given point on the curve, and u1 any line through it, we have solved the
problems:

Problem.—To find the second point in which any Problem.—To find the second tangent which can
line through a known point on the curve cuts the be drawn from any point in a given tangent to the
curve. curve.

If we determine in S1 (fig. 16) the ray corresponding to the ray S2S1 in S2, we get the
tangent at S1. Similarly, we can determine the point of contact of the tangents u1 or u2 in
fig. 17.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 80/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Fig. 17.

§ 51. If five points are given, of which not

three are in a line, then we can, as has just
been shown, always draw a curve of the
second order through them; we select two of
the points as centres of projective pencils, and
then one such curve is determined. It will be
presently shown that we get always the same
curve if two other points are taken as centres
of pencils, that therefore five points
determine one curve of the second order, and
Fig. 18.
reciprocally, that five tangents determine one
curve of the second class. Six points taken at random will therefore not lie on a curve of
the second order. In order that this may be the case a certain condition has to be
satisfied, and this condition is easily obtained from the construction in § 49, fig. 16. If we
consider the conic determined by the five points A, S1, S2, K, L, then the point D will be
on the curve if, and only if, the points on D1, S, D2 be in a line.

This may be stated differently if we take AKS1DS2L (figs. 16 and 18) as a hexagon
inscribed in the conic, then AK and DS2 will be opposite sides, so will be KS1 and S2L, as
well as S1D and LA. The first two meet in D2, the others in S and D1 respectively. We
may therefore state the required condition, together with the reciprocal one, as follows:
—

Pascal’s Theorem.—If a hexagon be inscribed Brianchon’s Theorem.—If a hexagon be

in a curve of the second order, then the circumscribed about a curve of the second class,
intersections of opposite sides are three points then the lines joining opposite vertices are three
in a line. lines meeting in a point.

These celebrated theorems, which are known by the names of their discoverers, are
perhaps the most fruitful in the whole theory of conics. Before we go over to their
applications we have to show that we obtain the same curve if we take, instead of S1, S2,
any two other points on the curve as centres of projective pencils.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 81/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 52. We know that the curve depends only upon the correspondence between the
pencils S1 and S2, and not upon the special construction used for finding new points on
the curve. The point A (fig. 16 or 18), through which the two auxiliary rows u1, u2 were
drawn, may therefore be changed to any other point on the curve. Let us now suppose
the curve drawn, and keep the points S1, S2, K, L and D, and hence also the point S fixed,
whilst we move A along the curve. Then the line AL will describe a pencil about L as
centre, and the point D1 a row on S1D perspective to the pencil L. At the same time AK
describes a pencil about K and D2 a row perspective to it on S2D. But by Pascal’s
theorem D1 and D2 will always lie in a line with S, so that the rows described by D1 and
D2 are perspective. It follows that the pencils K and L will themselves be projective,
corresponding rays meeting on the curve. This proves that we get the same curve
whatever pair of the five given points we take as centres of projective pencils. Hence—

Only one curve of the second order can be Only one curve of the second class can be drawn
drawn which passes through five given points. which touches five given lines.

We have seen that if on a curve of the second order two points coincide at A, the line
joining them becomes the tangent at A. If, therefore, a point on the curve and its tangent
are given, this will be equivalent to having given two points on the curve. Similarly, if on
the curve of second class a tangent and its point of contact are given, this will be
equivalent to two given tangents.

We may therefore extend the last theorem:

Only one curve of the second order can be Only one curve of the second class can be
drawn, of which four points and the tangent at drawn, of which four tangents and the point of
one of them, or three points and the tangents at contact at one of them, or three tangents and the
two of them, are given. points of contact at two of them, are given.

§ 53. At the same time it has been proved:

If all points on a curve of the second order be

All tangents to a curve of second class are cut by
joined to any two of them, then the two pencils
any two of them in projective rows, those being
thus formed are projective, those rays being
corresponding points which lie on the same
corresponding which meet on the curve. Hence
tangent. Hence—
—
The cross-ratio of four rays joining a point S on
The cross-ratio of the four points in which any
a curve of second order to four fixed points A, B,
tangent u is cut by four fixed tangents a, b, c, d is
C, D in the curve is independent of the position
independent of the position of u, and is called the
of S, and is called the cross-ratio of the four
cross-ratio of the four tangents a, b, c, d.
points A, B, C, D.
If this cross-ratio equals −1 the four points are If this cross-ratio equals −1 the four tangents are
said to be four harmonic points. said to be four harmonic tangents.

We have seen that a curve of second order, as generated by projective pencils, has at the
centre of each pencil one tangent; and further, that any point on the curve may be taken
as centre of such pencil. Hence—

A curve of second order has at every point one A curve of second class has on every tangent a
tangent. point of contact.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 82/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 54. We return to Pascal’s and Brianchon’s theorems and their applications, and shall,
as before, state the results both for curves of the second order and curves of the second
class, but prove them only for the former.

Pascal’s theorem may be used when five points are given to find more points on the
curve, viz. it enables us to find the point where any line through one of the given points
cuts the curve again. It is convenient, in making use of Pascal’s theorem, to number the
points, to indicate the order in which they are to be taken in forming a hexagon, which,
by the way, may be done in 60 different ways. It will be seen that 1 2 (leaving out 3) 4 5
are opposite sides, so are 2 3 and (leaving out 4) 5 6, and also 3 4 and (leaving out 5) 6 1.

If the points 1 2 3 4 5 are given, and we want a 6th point on a line drawn through 1, we
know all the sides of the hexagon with the exception of 5 6, and this is found by Pascal’s
theorem.

If this line should happen to pass through 1, then 6 and 1 coincide, or the line 6 1 is the
tangent at 1. And always if two consecutive vertices of the hexagon approach nearer and
nearer, then the side joining them will ultimately become a tangent.

We may therefore consider a pentagon inscribed in a curve of second order and the
tangent at one of its vertices as a hexagon, and thus get the theorem:

Every pentagon inscribed in a curve of second Every pentagon circumscribed about a curve of
order has the property that the intersections of the second class has the property that the lines
two pairs of non-consecutive sides lie in a line which join two pairs of non-consecutive vertices
with the point where the fifth side cuts the meet on that line which joins the fifth vertex to
tangent at the opposite vertex. the point of contact of the opposite side.

This enables us also to solve the following problems.

Given five points on a curve of second order to Given five tangents to a curve of second class to
construct the tangent at any one of them. construct the point of contact of any one of them.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 83/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Fig. 19.

If two pairs of adjacent vertices coincide, the hexagon becomes a quadrilateral, with
tangents at two vertices. These we take to be opposite, and get the following theorems:

If a quadrilateral be inscribed in a curve of If a quadrilateral be circumscribed about a curve

second order, the intersections of opposite of second class, the lines joining opposite
sides, and also the intersections of the tangents vertices, and also the lines joining points of
at opposite vertices, lie in a line (fig. 19). contact of opposite sides, meet in a point.

Fig. 20.

If we consider the hexagon made up of a triangle and the tangents at its vertices, we get
—

If a triangle is inscribed in a curve of the second If a triangle be circumscribed about a curve of

order, the points in which the sides are cut by second class, the lines which join the vertices to

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 84/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library
the tangents at the opposite vertices meet in a the points of contact of the opposite sides meet in
point. a point (fig. 20).

§ 55. Of these theorems, those about the quadrilateral give rise to a number of others.
Four points A, B, C, D may in three different ways be formed into a quadrilateral, for we
may take them in the order ABCD, or ACBD, or ACDB, so that either of the points B, C,
D may be taken as the vertex opposite to A. Accordingly we may apply the theorem in
three different ways.

Let A, B, C, D be four points on a curve of second order (fig. 21), and let us take them as
forming a quadrilateral by taking the points in the order ABCD, so that A, C and also B,
D are pairs of opposite vertices. Then P, Q will be the points where opposite sides meet,
and E, F the intersections of tangents at opposite vertices. The four points P, Q, E, F lie
therefore in a line. The quadrilateral ACBD gives us in the same way the four points Q,
R, G, H in a line, and the quadrilateral ABDC a line containing the four points R, P, I, K.
These three lines form a triangle PQR.

The relation between the points and lines in this figure may be expressed more clearly if
we consider ABCD as a four-point inscribed in a conic, and the tangents at these points
as a four-side circumscribed about it,—viz. it will be seen that P, Q, R are the diagonal
points of the four-point ABCD, whilst the sides of the triangle PQR are the diagonals of
the circumscribing four-side. Hence the theorem—

Any four-point on a curve of the second order and the four-side formed by the tangents
at these points stand in this relation that the diagonal points of the four-point lie in the
diagonals of the four-side. And conversely,

If a four-point and a circumscribed four-side stand in the above relation, then a curve
of the second order may be described which passes through the four points and touches
there the four sides of these figures.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 85/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Fig. 21.

That the last part of the theorem is true follows from the fact that the four points A, B, C,
D and the line a, as tangent at A, determine a curve of the second order, and the
tangents to this curve at the other points B, C, D are given by the construction which
leads to fig. 21.

The theorem reciprocal to the last is—

Any four-side circumscribed about a curve of second class and the four-point formed
by the points of contact stand in this relation that the diagonals of the four-side pass
through the diagonal points of the four-point. And conversely,

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 86/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

If a four-side and an inscribed four-point stand in the above relation, then a curve of
the second class may be described which touches the sides of the four-side at the points
of the four-point.

§ 56. The four-point and the four-side in the two reciprocal theorems are alike. Hence if
we have a four-point ABCD and a four-side abcd related in the manner described, then
not only may a curve of the second order be drawn, but also a curve of the second class,
which both touch the lines a, b, c, d at the points A, B, C, D.

The curve of second order is already more than determined by the points A, B, C and the
tangents a, b, c at A, B and C. The point D may therefore be any point on this curve, and
d any tangent to the curve. On the other hand the curve of the second class is more than
determined by the three tangents a, b, c and their points of contact A, B, C, so that d is
any tangent to this curve. It follows that every tangent to the curve of second order is a
tangent of a curve of the second class having the same point of contact. In other words,
the curve of second order is a curve of second class, and vice versa. Hence the important
theorems—

Every curve of second order is a curve of second Every curve of second class is a curve of second
class. order.

The curves of second order and of second class, having thus been proved to be identical,
shall henceforth be called by the common name of Conics.

For these curves hold, therefore, all properties which have been proved for curves of
second order or of second class. We may therefore now state Pascal’s and Brianchon’s
theorem thus—

Pascal’s Theorem.—If a hexagon be inscribed in a conic, then the intersections of

opposite sides lie in a line.

Brianchon’s Theorem.—If a hexagon be circumscribed about a conic, then the diagonals

forming opposite centres meet in a point.

§ 57. If we suppose in fig. 21 that the point D together with the tangent d moves along
the curve, whilst A, B, C and their tangents a, b, c remain fixed, then the ray DA will
describe a pencil about A, the point Q a projective row on the fixed line BC, the point F
the row b, and the ray EF a pencil about E. But EF passes always through Q. Hence the
pencil described by AD is projective to the pencil described by EF, and therefore to the
row described by F on b. At the same time the line BD describes a pencil about B
projective to that described by AD (§ 53). Therefore the pencil BD and the row F on b are
projective. Hence—

If on a conic a point A be taken and the tangent a at this point, then the cross-ratio of
the four rays which join A to any four points on the curve is equal to the cross-ratio of
the points in which the tangents at these points cut the tangent at A.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 87/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 58. There are theorems about cones of second order and second class in a pencil which
are reciprocal to the above, according to § 43. We mention only a few of the more
important ones.

The locus of intersections of corresponding planes in two projective axial pencils whose
axes meet is a cone of the second order.

The envelope of planes which join corresponding lines in two projective flat pencils, not
in the same plane, is a cone of the second class.

Cones of second order and cones of second class are identical.

Every plane cuts a cone of the second order in a conic.

A cone of second order is uniquely determined by five of its edges or by five of its
tangent planes, or by four edges and the tangent plane at one of them, &c. &c.

Pascal’s Theorem.—If a solid angle of six faces be inscribed in a cone of the second
order, then the intersections of opposite faces are three lines in a plane.

Brianchon’s Theorem.—If a solid angle of six edges be circumscribed about a cone of the
second order, then the planes through opposite edges meet in a line.

Each of the other theorems about conics may be stated for cones of the second order.

§ 59. Projective Definitions of the

Conics.—We now consider the shape
of the conics. We know that any line
in the plane of the conic, and hence
that the line at infinity, either has no
point in common with the curve, or
one (counting for two coincident
points) or two distinct points. If the
line at infinity has no point on the
curve the latter is altogether finite,
and is called an Ellipse (fig. 21). If the
line at infinity has only one point in
common with the conic, the latter
extends to infinity, and has the line
at infinity a tangent. It is called a
Parabola (fig. 22). If, lastly, the line Fig. 22.
at infinity cuts the curve in two
points, it consists of two separate parts which each extend in two branches to the points
at infinity where they meet. The curve is in this case called an Hyperbola (see fig. 20).
The tangents at the two points at infinity are finite because the line at infinity is not a
tangent. They are called Asymptotes. The branches of the hyperbola approach these
lines indefinitely as a point on the curves moves to infinity.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 88/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 60. That the circle belongs to the curves of the second order is seen at once if we state
in a slightly different form the theorem that in a circle all angles at the circumference
standing upon the same arc are equal. If two points S1, S2 on a circle be joined to any
other two points A and B on the circle, then the angle included by the rays S1A and S1B is
equal to that between the rays S2A and S2B, so that as A moves along the circumference
the rays S1A and S2A describe equal and therefore projective pencils. The circle can thus
be generated by two projective pencils, and is a curve of the second order.

If we join a point in space to all points on a circle, we get a (circular) cone of the second
order (§ 43). Every plane section of this cone is a conic. This conic will be an ellipse, a
parabola, or an hyperbola, according as the line at infinity in the plane has no, one or
two points in common with the conic in which the plane at infinity cuts the cone. It
follows that our curves of second order may be obtained as sections of a circular cone,
and that they are identical with the “Conic Sections” of the Greek mathematicians.

§ 61. Any two tangents to a parabola are cut by all others in projective rows; but the line
at infinity being one of the tangents, the points at infinity on the rows are corresponding
points, and the rows therefore similar. Hence the theorem—

The tangents to a parabola cut each other proportionally.

Pole and Polar

§ 62. We return once again to fig. 21, which we obtained in § 55.

If a four-side be circumscribed about and a four-point inscribed in a conic, so that the

vertices of the second are the points of contact of the sides of the first, then the triangle
formed by the diagonals of the first is the same as that formed by the diagonal points of
the other.

Such a triangle will be called a polar-triangle of the conic, so that PQR in fig. 21 is a
polar-triangle. It has the property that on the side p opposite P meet the tangents at A
and B, and also those at C and D. From the harmonic properties of four-points and four-
sides it follows further that the points L, M, where it cuts the lines AB and CD, are
harmonic conjugates with regard to AB and CD respectively.

If the point P is given, and we draw a line through it, cutting the conic in A and B, then
the point Q harmonic conjugate to P with regard to AB, and the point H where the
tangents at A and B meet, are determined. But they lie both on p, and therefore this line
is determined. If we now draw a second line through P, cutting the conic in C and D,
then the point M harmonic conjugate to P with regard to CD, and the point G where the
tangents at C and D meet, must also lie on p. As the first line through P already
determines p, the second may be any line through P. Now every two lines through P
determine a four-point ABCD on the conic, and therefore a polar-triangle which has one
vertex at P and its opposite side at p. This result, together with its reciprocal, gives the
theorems—

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 89/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

All polar-triangles which have one vertex in common have also the opposite side in
common.

All polar-triangles which have one side in common have also the opposite vertex in
common.

§ 63. To any point P in the plane of, but not on, a conic corresponds thus one line p as
the side opposite to P in all polar-triangles which have one vertex at P, and reciprocally
to every line p corresponds one point P as the vertex opposite to p in all triangles which
have p. as one side.

We call the line p the polar of P, and the point P the pole of the line p with regard to the
conic.

If a point lies on the conic, we call the tangent at that point its polar; and reciprocally we
call the point of contact the pole of tangent.

§ 64. From these definitions and former results follow—

The polar of any point P not on the conic is a line The pole of any line p not a tangent to the conic
p, which has the following properties:— is a point P, which has the following properties:—
1. On every line through P which cuts the conic, 1. Of all lines through a point on p from which
the polar of P contains the harmonic conjugate two tangents may be drawn to the conic, the pole
of P with regard to those points on the conic. P contains the line which is harmonic conjugate
to p, with regard to the two tangents.
2. If tangents can be drawn from P, their points 2. If p cuts the conic, the tangents at the
of contact lie on p. intersections meet at P.
3. Tangents drawn at the points where any line 3. The point of contact of tangents drawn from
through P cuts the conic meet on p; and any point on p to the conic lie in a line with P;
conversely, and conversely,
4. If from any point on p, tangents be drawn, 4. Tangents drawn at points where any line
their points of contact will lie in a line with P. through P cuts the conic meet on p.
5. Any four-side circumscribed about a conic
5. Any four-point on the conic which has one
which has one diagonal on p has the other two
diagonal point at P has the other two lying on p.
meeting at P.

The truth of 2 follows from 1. If T be a point where p cuts the conic, then one of the
points where PT cuts the conic, and which are harmonic conjugates with regard to PT,
coincides with T; hence the other does—that is, PT touches the curve at T.

That 4 is true follows thus: If we draw from a point H on the polar one tangent a to the
conic, join its point of contact A to the pole P, determine the second point of intersection
B of this line with the conic, and draw the tangent at B, it will pass through H, and will
therefore be the second tangent which may be drawn from H to the curve.

§ 65. The second property of the polar or pole gives rise to the theorem—

From a point in the plane of a conic, two, one or A line in the plane of a conic has two, one or no
no tangents may be drawn to the conic, as its points in common with the conic, according as
polar has two, one, or no points in common with two, one or no tangents can be drawn from its
the curve. pole to the conic.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 90/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Of any point in the plane of a conic we say that it was without, on or within the curve
according as two, one or no tangents to the curve pass through it. The points on the
conic separate those within the conic from those without. That this is true for a circle is
known from elementary geometry. That it also holds for other conics follows from the
fact that every conic may be considered as the projection of a circle, which will be proved
later on.

The fifth property of pole and polar stated in § 64 shows how to find the polar of any
point and the pole of any line by aid of the straight-edge only. Practically it is often
convenient to draw three secants through the pole, and to determine only one of the
diagonal points for two of the four-points formed by pairs of these lines and the conic
(fig. 22).

These constructions also solve the problem—

From a point without a conic, to draw the two tangents to the conic by aid of the
straight-edge only.

For we need only draw the polar of the point in order to find the points of contact.

§ 66. The property of a polar-triangle may now be stated thus—

In a polar-triangle each side is the polar of the opposite vertex, and each vertex is the
pole of the opposite side.

If P is one vertex of a polar-triangle,

then the other vertices, Q and R, lie on
the polar p of P. One of these vertices
we may choose arbitrarily. For if from
any point Q on the polar a secant be
drawn cutting the conic in A and D (fig.
23), and if the lines joining these points
to P cut the conic again at B and C, then
the line BC will pass through Q. Hence
P and Q are two of the vertices on the
polar-triangle which is determined by
the four-point ABCD. The third vertex R
lies also on the line p. It follows,
therefore, also—

If Q is a point on the polar of P, then P

Fig. 23.
is a point on the polar of Q; and
reciprocally,

If q is a line through the pole of p, then p is a line through the pole of q.

This is a very important theorem. It may also be stated thus—

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 91/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

If a point moves along a line describing a row, its polar turns about the pole of the line
describing a pencil.

This pencil is projective to the row, so that the cross-ratio of four poles in a row equals
the cross-ratio of its four polars, which pass through the pole of the row.

To prove the last part, let us suppose that P, A and B in fig. 23 remain fixed, whilst Q
moves along the polar p of P. This will make CD turn about P and move R along p, whilst
QD and RD describe projective pencils about A and B. Hence Q and R describe
projective rows, and hence PR, which is the polar of Q, describes a pencil projective to
either.

§ 67. Two points, of which one, and therefore each, lies on the polar of the other, are said
to be conjugate with regard to the conic; and two lines, of which one, and therefore
each, passes through the pole of the other, are said to be conjugate with regard to the
conic. Hence all points conjugate to a point P lie on the polar of P; all lines conjugate to a
line p pass through the pole of p.

If the line joining two conjugate poles cuts the conic, then the poles are harmonic
conjugates with regard to the points of intersection; hence one lies within the other
without the conic, and all points conjugate to a point within a conic lie without it.

Of a polar-triangle any two vertices are conjugate poles, any two sides conjugate lines. If,
therefore, one side cuts a conic, then one of the two vertices which lie on this side is
within and the other without the conic. The vertex opposite this side lies also without,
for it is the pole of a line which cuts the curve. In this case therefore one vertex lies
within, the other two without. If, on the other hand, we begin with a side which does not
cut the conic, then its pole lies within and the other vertices without. Hence—

Every polar-triangle has one and only one vertex within the conic.

We add, without a proof, the theorem—

The four points in which a conic is cut by two conjugate polars are four harmonic points
in the conic.

§ 68. If two conics intersect in four points (they cannot have more points in common, §
52), there exists one and only one four-point which is inscribed in both, and therefore
one polar-triangle common to both.

Theorem.—Two conics which intersect in four points have always one and only one
common polar-triangle; and reciprocally,

Two conics which have four common tangents have always one and only one common
polar-triangle.

Diameters and Axes of Conics

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 92/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 69. Diameters.—The theorems about the harmonic properties of poles and polars
contain, as special cases, a number of important metrical properties of conics. These are
obtained if either the pole or the polar is moved to infinity,—it being remembered that
the harmonic conjugate to a point at infinity, with regard to two points A, B, is the
middle point of the segment AB. The most important properties are stated in the
following theorems:—

The middle points of parallel chords of a conic lie in a line—viz. on the polar to the
point at infinity on the parallel chords.

This line is called a diameter.

The polar of every point at infinity is a diameter.

The tangents at the end points of a diameter are parallel, and are parallel to the chords
bisected by the diameter.

All diameters pass through a common point, the pole of the line at infinity.

All diameters of a parabola are parallel, the pole to the line at infinity being the point
where the curve touches the line at infinity.

In case of the ellipse and hyperbola, the pole to the line at infinity is a finite point called
the centre of the curve.

A centre of a conic bisects every chord through it.

The centre of an ellipse is within the curve, for the line at infinity does not cut the
ellipse.

The centre of an hyperbola is without the curve, because the line at infinity cuts the
curve. Hence also—

From the centre of an hyperbola two tangents can be drawn to the curve which have
their point of contact at infinity. These are called Asymptotes (§ 59).

To construct a diameter of a conic, draw two parallel chords and join their middle
points.

To find the centre of a conic, draw two diameters; their intersection will be the centre.

§ 70. Conjugate Diameters.—A polar-triangle with one vertex at the centre will have the
opposite side at infinity. The other two sides pass through the centre, and are called
conjugate diameters, each being the polar of the point at infinity on the other.

Of two conjugate diameters each bisects the chords parallel to the other, and if one cuts
the curve, the tangents at its ends are parallel to the other diameter.

Further—

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 93/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Every parallelogram inscribed in a conic has its sides parallel to two conjugate
diameters; and

Every parallelogram circumscribed about a conic has as diagonals two conjugate

diameters.

This will be seen by considering the parallelogram in the first case as an inscribed four-
point, in the other as a circumscribed four-side, and determining in each case the
corresponding polar-triangle. The first may also be enunciated thus—

The lines which join any point on an ellipse or an hyperbola to the ends of a diameter
are parallel to two conjugate diameters.

§ 71. If every diameter is perpendicular to its conjugate the conic is a circle.

For the lines which join the ends of a diameter to any point on the curve include a right
angle.

A conic which has more than one pair of conjugate diameters at right angles to each
other is a circle.

Let AA′ and BB′ (fig. 24) be one pair of conjugate

diameters at right angles to each other, CC and DD′
a second pair. If we draw through the end point A
of one diameter a chord AP parallel to DD′, and
join P to A′, then PA and PA′ are, according to § 70,
parallel to two conjugate diameters. But PA is
parallel to DD′, hence PA′ is parallel to CC, and
therefore PA and PA′ are perpendicular. If we
further draw the tangents to the conic at A and A′,
these will be perpendicular to AA′, they being
parallel to the conjugate diameter BB′. We know
Fig. 24.
thus five points on the conic, viz. the points A and
A′ with their tangents, and the point P. Through these a circle may be drawn having AA′
as diameter; and as through five points one conic only can be drawn, this circle must
coincide with the given conic.

§ 72. Axes.—Conjugate diameters perpendicular to each other are called axes, and the
points where they cut the curve vertices of the conic.

In a circle every diameter is an axis, every point on it is a vertex; and any two lines at
right angles to each other may be taken as a pair of axes of any circle which has its centre
at their intersection.

If we describe on a diameter AB of an ellipse or hyperbola a circle concentric to the

conic, it will cut the latter in A and B (fig. 25). Each of the semicircles in which it is
divided by AB will be partly within, partly without the curve, and must cut the latter
therefore again in a point. The circle and the conic have thus four points A, B, C, D, and
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 94/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

therefore one polar-triangle, in common

(§ 68). Of this the centre is one vertex,
for the line at infinity is the polar to this
point, both with regard to the circle and
the other conic. The other two sides are
conjugate diameters of both, hence
perpendicular to each other. This gives
—

An ellipse as well as an hyperbola has

one pair of axes.

This reasoning shows at the same time

Fig. 25. how to construct the axis of an ellipse
or of an hyperbola.

A parabola has one axis, if we define an axis as a diameter perpendicular to the chords
which it bisects. It is easily constructed. The line which bisects any two parallel chords is
a diameter. Chords perpendicular to it will be bisected by a parallel diameter, and this is
the axis.

§ 73. The first part of the right-hand theorem in § 64 may be stated thus: any two
conjugate lines through a point P without a conic are harmonic conjugates with regard
to the two tangents that may be drawn from P to the conic.

If we take instead of P the centre C of an hyperbola, then the conjugate lines become
conjugate diameters, and the tangents asymptotes. Hence—

Any two conjugate diameters of an hyperbola are harmonic conjugates with regard to
the asymptotes.

As the axes are conjugate diameters at right angles to one another, it follows (§ 23)—

The axes of an hyperbola bisect the angles between the asymptotes.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 95/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Fig. 26.

Let O be the centre of the hyperbola (fig. 26), t any secant which cuts the hyperbola in C,
D and the asymptotes in E, F, then the line OM which bisects the chord CD is a diameter
conjugate to the diameter OK which is parallel to the secant t, so that OK and OM are
harmonic with regard to the asymptotes. The point M therefore bisects EF. But by
construction M bisects CD. It follows that DF = EC, and ED = CF; or

On any secant of an hyperbola the segments between the curve and the asymptotes are
equal.

If the chord is changed into a tangent, this gives—

The segment between the asymptotes on any tangent to an hyperbola is bisected by the
point of contact.

The first part allows a simple solution of the problem to find any number of points on an
hyperbola, of which the asymptotes and one point are given. This is equivalent to three
points and the tangents at two of them. This construction requires measurement.

§ 74. For the parabola, too, follow some metrical properties. A diameter PM (fig. 27)
bisects every chord conjugate to it, and the pole P of such a chord BC lies on the
diameter. But a diameter cuts the parabola once at infinity. Hence—

The segment PM which joins the middle point M of a chord of a parabola to the pole P
of the chord is bisected by the parabola at A.

§ 75. Two asymptotes and any two tangents to an hyperbola may be considered as a
quadrilateral circumscribed about the hyperbola. But in such a quadrilateral the
intersections of the diagonals and the points of contact of opposite sides lie in a line (§
54). If therefore DEFG (fig. 28) is such a quadrilateral, then the diagonals DF and GE

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 96/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

will meet on the line which joins the

points of contact of the asymptotes, that
is, on the line at infinity; hence they are
parallel. From this the following
theorem is a simple deduction:

All triangles formed by a tangent and

the asymptotes of an hyperbola are
equal in area.

If we draw at a point P (fig. 28) on an

hyperbola a tangent, the part HK
between the asymptotes is bisected at P.
The parallelogram PQOQ′ formed by
the asymptotes and lines parallel to Fig. 27.
them through P will be half the triangle
OHK, and will therefore be constant. If we now take the asymptotes OX and OY as
oblique axes of co-ordinates, the lines OQ and QP will be the co-ordinates of P, and will
satisfy the equation xy = const. = a2.

Fig. 28.

For the asymptotes as axes of co-ordinates the equation of the hyperbola is xy = const.

Involution

§ 76. If we have two projective rows, ABC on u

and A′B′C′ on u′, and place their bases on the
same line, then each point in this line counts
twice, once as a point in the row u and once as a Fig. 29.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 97/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

point in the row u ′. In fig. 29 we denote the points as points in the one row by letters
above the line A, B, C ..., and as points in the second row by A′, B′, C′ ... below the line.
Let now A and B′ be the same point, then to A will correspond a point A′ in the second,
and to B′ a point B in the first row. In general these points A′ and B will be different. It
may, however, happen that they coincide. Then the correspondence is a peculiar one, as
the following theorem shows:

If two projective rows lie on the same base, and if it happens that to one point in the
base the same point corresponds, whether we consider the point as belonging to the
first or to the second row, then the same will happen for every point in the base—that is
to say, to every point in the line corresponds the same point in the first as in the second
row.

In order to determine the correspondence, we

may assume three pairs of corresponding points
in two projective rows. Let then A′, B′, C′, in fig.
30, correspond to A, B, C, so that A and B′, and Fig. 30.
also B and A′, denote the same point. Let us
further denote the point C′ when considered as a point in the first row by D; then it is to
be proved that the point D′, which corresponds to D, is the same point as C. We know
that the cross-ratio of four points is equal to that of the corresponding row. Hence

(AB, CD) = (A′B′, C′D′)

but replacing the dashed letters by those undashed ones which denote the same points,
the second cross-ratio equals (BA, DD′), which, according to § 15, equals (AB, D′D); so
that the equation becomes

(AB, CD) = (AB, D′D).

This requires that C and D′ coincide.

§ 77. Two projective rows on the same base, which have the above property, that to every
point, whether it be considered as a point in the one or in the other row, corresponds the
same point, are said to be in involution, or to form an involution of points on the line.

We mention, but without proving it, that any two projective rows may be placed so as to
form an involution.

An involution may be said to consist of a row of pairs of points, to every point A

corresponding a point A′, and to A′ again the point A. These points are said to be
conjugate, or, better, one point is termed the “mate” of the other.

From the definition, according to which an involution may be considered as made up of

two projective rows, follow at once the following important properties:

1. The cross-ratio of four points equals that of the four conjugate points.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 98/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

2. If we call a point which coincides with its mate a “focus” or “double point” of the
involution, we may say: An involution has either two foci, or one, or none, and is called
respectively a hyperbolic, parabolic or elliptic involution (§ 34).

3. In an hyperbolic involution any two conjugate points are harmonic conjugates with
regard to the two foci.

For if A, A′ be two conjugate points, F1, F2 the two foci, then to the points F1, F2, A, A′ in
the one row correspond the points F1, F2, A′, A in the other, each focus corresponding to
itself. Hence (F1F2, AA′) = (F1F2, A′A)—that is, we may interchange the two points AA′
without altering the value of the cross-ratio, which is the characteristic property of
harmonic conjugates (§ 18).

4. The point conjugate to the point at infinity is called the “centre” of the involution.
Every involution has a centre, unless the point at infinity be a focus, in which case we
may say that the centre is at infinity.

In an hyperbolic involution the centre is the middle point between the foci.

5. The product of the distances of two conjugate points A, A′ from the centre O is
constant: OA · OA′ = c.

For let A, A′ and B, B′ be two pairs of conjugate points, the centre, I the point at infinity,
then

(AB, OI) = (A′B′, IO),

or

OA · OA′ = OB · OB′.
In order to determine the distances of the foci from the centre, we write F for A and A′
and get

OF2 = c; OF = ±&√c.
Hence if c is positive OF is real, and has two values, equal and opposite. The involution
is hyperbolic.

If c = 0, OF = 0, and the two foci both coincide with the centre. If c is negative, √c
becomes imaginary, and there are no foci. Hence we may write—

In an hyperbolic involution, OA · OA′ = k2,

In a parabolic involution, OA · OA′ = 0,
In an elliptic involution, OA · OA′ = −k2.

From these expressions it follows that conjugate points A, A′ in an hyperbolic involution

lie on the same side of the centre, and in an elliptic involution on opposite sides of the
centre, and that in a parabolic involution one coincides with the centre.

In the first case, for instance, OA · OA′ is positive; hence OA and OA′ have the same
sign.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 99/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

It also follows that two segments, AA′ and BB′, between pairs of conjugate points have
the following positions: in an hyperbolic involution they lie either one altogether within
or altogether without each other; in a parabolic involution they have one point in
common; and in an elliptic involution they overlap, each being partly within and partly
without the other.

Proof.—We have OA . OA′ = OB · OB′ = k2 in case of an hyperbolic involution. Let A and

B be the points in each pair which are nearer to the centre O. If now A, A′ and B, B′ lie
on the same side of O, and if B is nearer to O than A, so that OB < OA, then OB′ > OA′;
hence B′ lies farther away from O than A′, or the segment AA′ lies within BB′. And so on
for the other cases.

6. An involution is determined—

(α) By two pairs of conjugate points. Hence also

(β) By one pair of conjugate points and the centre;
(γ) By the two foci;
(δ) By one focus and one pair of conjugate points;
(ε) By one focus and the centre.
7. The condition that A, B, C and A′, B′, C′ may form an involution may be written in one
of the forms—

(AB, CC′) = (A′B′, C′C),

or

(AB, CA′) = (A′B′, C′A),

or

(AB, C′A′) = (A′B′, CA),

for each expresses that in the two projective rows in which A, B, C and A′, B′, C′ are
conjugate points two conjugate elements may be interchanged.

8. Any three pairs. A, A′, B, B′, C, C′, of conjugate points are connected by the relations:

AB′ · BC′ · CA′ AB′ · BC · C′A′ AB · B′C′ · CA′ AB · B′C · C′A′

= = = = −1.
A′B · B′C · C′A A′B · B′C′ · CA A′B′ · BC · C′A A′B′ · BC′ · CA

These relations readily follow by working out the relations in (7) (above).

§ 78. Involution of a quadrangle.—The sides of any four-point are cut by any line in six
points in involution, opposite sides being cut in conjugate points.

Let A1B1C1D1 (fig. 31) be the four-point. If its sides be cut by the line p in the points A,
A′, B, B′, C, C′, if further, C1D1 cuts the line A1B1 in C2, and if we project the row
A1B1C2C to p once from D1 and once from C1, we get (A′B′, C′C) = (BA, C′C).

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 100/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Interchanging in the last cross-ratio the letters in each pair we get (A′B′, C′C) = (AB,
CC′). Hence by § 77 (7) the points are in involution.

The theorem may also be stated thus:

The three points in which any line cuts the sides of a triangle and the projections, from
any point in the plane, of the vertices of the triangle on to the same line are six points in
involution.

Fig. 31.

Or again—

The projections from any point on to any line of the six vertices of a four-side are six
points in involution, the projections of opposite vertices being conjugate points.

This property gives a simple means to construct, by aid of the straight edge only, in an
involution of which two pairs of conjugate points are given, to any point its conjugate.

§ 79. Pencils in Involution.—The theory of involution may at once be extended from the
row to the flat and the axial pencil—viz. we say that there is an involution in a flat or in
an axial pencil if any line cuts the pencil in an involution of points. An involution in a
pencil consists of pairs of conjugate rays or planes; it has two, one or no focal rays
(double lines) or planes, but nothing corresponding to a centre.

An involution in a flat pencil contains always one, and in general only one, pair of
conjugate rays which are perpendicular to one another. For in two projective flat pencils
exist always two corresponding right angles (§ 40).

Each involution in an axial pencil contains in the same manner one pair of conjugate
planes at right angles to one another.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 101/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

As a rule, there exists but one pair of conjugate lines or planes at right angles to each
other. But it is possible that there are more, and then there is an infinite number of such
pairs. An involution in a flat pencil, in which every ray is perpendicular to its conjugate
ray, is said to be circular. That such involution is possible is easily seen thus: if in two
concentric flat pencils each ray on one is made to correspond to that ray on the other
which is perpendicular to it, then the two pencils are projective, for if we turn the one
pencil through a right angle each ray in one coincides with its corresponding ray in the
other. But these two projective pencils are in involution.

A circular involution has no focal rays, because no ray in a pencil coincides with the ray
perpendicular to it.

§ 80. Every elliptical involution in a row may be considered as a section of a circular

involution.

In an elliptical involution any two segments AA′ and BB′ lie partly within and partly
without each other (fig. 32). Hence two circles described on AA′ and BB′ as diameters
will intersect in two points E and E′. The line EE′ cuts the base of the involution at a
point O, which has the property that OA . OA′ = OB · OB′, for each is equal to OE . OE′.
The point O is therefore the centre of the involution. If we wish to construct to any point
C the conjugate point C′, we may draw the circle through CEE′. This will cut the base in
the required point C′ for OC · OC′ = OA · OA′. But EC and EC′ are at right angles. Hence
the involution which is obtained by joining E or E′ to the points in the given involution
is circular. This may also be expressed thus:

Every elliptical involution has the property

that there are two definite points in the
plane from which any two conjugate points
are seen under a right angle.

At the same time the following problem has

been solved:

To determine the centre and also the point Fig. 32.

corresponding to any given point in an
elliptical involution of which two pairs of conjugate points are given.

§ 81. Involution Range on a Conic.—By the aid of § 53, the points on a conic may be
made to correspond to those on a line, so that the row of points on the conic is projective
to a row of points on a line. We may also have two projective rows on the same conic,
and these will be in involution as soon as one point on the conic has the same point
corresponding to it all the same to whatever row it belongs. An involution of points on a
conic will have the property (as follows from its definition, and from § 53) that the lines
which join conjugate points of the involution to any point on the conic are conjugate
lines of an involution in a pencil, and that a fixed tangent is cut by the tangents at
conjugate points on the conic in points which are again conjugate points of an involution
on the fixed tangent. For such involution on a conic the following theorem holds:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 102/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

The lines which join corresponding points in an involution on a conic all pass through
a fixed point; and reciprocally, the points of intersection of conjugate lines in an
involution among tangents to a conic lie on a line.

We prove the first part only.

The involution is determined
by two pairs of conjugate
points, say by A, A′ and B, B′
(fig. 33). Let AA′ and BB′ meet
in P. If we join the points in
involution to any point on the
conic, and the conjugate points
to another point on the conic,
we obtain two projective
pencils. We take A and A′ as
centres of these pencils, so that
the pencils A(A′BB′) and A′
(AB′B) are projective, and in
Fig. 33
perspective position, because
AA′ corresponds to A′A. Hence corresponding rays meet in a line, of which two points
are found by joining AB′ to A′B and AB to A′B′. It follows that the axis of perspective is
the polar of the point P, where AA′ and BB′ meet. If we now wish to construct to any
other point C on the conic the corresponding point C′, we join C to A′ and the point
where this line cuts p to A. The latter line cuts the conic again in C′. But we know from
the theory of pole and polar that the line CC′ passes through P. The point of concurrence
is called the “pole of the involution,” and the line of collinearity of the meets is called the
“axis of the involution.”

Involution Determined by a Conic on a Line.—Foci

§ 82. The polars, with regard to a conic, of points in a row p form a pencil P projective to
the row (§ 66). This pencil cuts the base of the row p in a projective row.

If A is a point in the given row, A′ the point where the polar of A cuts p, then A and A′
will be corresponding points. If we take A′ a point in the first row, then the polar of A′
will pass through A, so that A corresponds to A′—in other words, the rows are in
involution. The conjugate points in this involution are conjugate points with regard to
the conic. Conjugate points coincide only if the polar of a point A passes through A—that
is, if A lies on the conic. Hence—

A conic determines on every line in its plane an involution, in which those points are
conjugate which are also conjugate with regard to the conic.

If the line cuts the conic the involution is hyperbolic, the points of intersection being the
foci.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 103/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

If the line touches the conic the involution is parabolic, the two foci coinciding at the
point of contact.

If the line does not cut the conic the involution is elliptic, having no foci.

If, on the other hand, we take a point P in the plane of a conic, we get to each line a
through P one conjugate line which joins P to the pole of a. These pairs of conjugate
lines through P form an involution in the pencil at P. The focal rays of this involution are
the tangents drawn from P to the conic. This gives the theorem reciprocal to the last, viz:
—

A conic determines in every pencil in its plane an involution, corresponding lines being
conjugate lines with regard to the conic.

If the point is without the conic the involution is hyperbolic, the tangents from the
points being the focal rays.

If the point lies on the conic the involution is parabolic, the tangent at the point
counting for coincident focal rays.

If the point is within the conic the involution is elliptic, having no focal rays.

It will further be seen that the involution determined by a conic on any line p is a section
of the involution, which is determined by the conic at the pole P of p.

§ 83. Foci.—The centre of a pencil in which the conic determines a circular involution is
called a “focus” of the conic.

In other words, a focus is such a point that every line through it is perpendicular to its
conjugate line. The polar to a focus is called a directrix of the conic.

From the definition it follows that every focus lies on an axis, for the line joining a focus
to the centre of the conic is a diameter to which the conjugate lines are perpendicular;
and every line joining two foci is an axis, for the perpendiculars to this line through the
foci are conjugate to it. These conjugate lines pass through the pole of the line, the pole
lies therefore at infinity, and the line is a diameter, hence by the last property an axis.

It follows that all foci lie on one axis, for no line joining a point in one axis to a point in
the other can be an axis.

As the conic determines in the pencil which has its centre at a focus a circular involution,
no tangents can be drawn from the focus to the conic. Hence each focus lies within a
conic; and a directrix does not cut the conic.

Further properties are found by the following considerations:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 104/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

§ 84. Through a point P one line p can be drawn, which is with regard to a given conic
conjugate to a given line q, viz. that line which joins the point P to the pole of the line q.
If the line q is made to describe a pencil about a point Q, then the line p will describe a
pencil about P. These two pencils will be projective, for the line p passes through the
pole of q, and whilst q describes the pencil Q, its pole describes a projective row, and this
row is perspective to the pencil P.

We now take the point P on an axis of the conic, draw any line p through it, and from the
pole of p draw a perpendicular q to p. Let q cut the axis in Q. Then, in the pencils of
conjugate lines, which have their centres at P and Q, the lines p and q are conjugate lines
at right angles to one another. Besides, to the axis as a ray in either pencil will
correspond in the other the perpendicular to the axis (§ 72). The conic generated by the
intersection of corresponding lines in the two pencils is therefore the circle on PQ as
diameter, so that every line in P is perpendicular to its corresponding line in Q.

To every point P on an axis of a conic corresponds thus a point Q, such that conjugate
lines through P and Q are perpendicular.

We shall show that these point-pairs P, Q form an involution. To do this let us move P
along the axis, and with it the line p, keeping the latter parallel to itself. Then P describes
a row, p a perspective pencil (of parallels), and the pole of p a projective row. At the
same time the line q describes a pencil of parallels perpendicular to p, and perspective to
the row formed by the pole of p. The point Q, therefore, where q cuts the axis, describes
a row projective to the row of points P. The two points P and Q describe thus two
projective rows on the axis; and not only does P as a point in the first row correspond to
Q, but also Q as a point in the first corresponds to P. The two rows therefore form an
involution. The centre of this involution, it is easily seen, is the centre of the conic.

A focus of this involution has the property that any two conjugate lines through it are
perpendicular; hence, it is a focus to the conic.

Such involution exists on each axis. But only one of these can have foci, because all foci
lie on the same axis. The involution on one of the axes is elliptic, and appears (§ 80)
therefore as the section of two circular involutions in two pencils whose centres lie in the
other axis. These centres are foci, hence the one axis contains two foci, the other axis
none; or every central conic has two foci which lie on one axis equidistant from the
centre.

The axis which contains the foci is called the principal axis; in case of an hyperbola it is
the axis which cuts the curve, because the foci lie within the conic.

In case of the parabola there is but one axis. The involution on this axis has its centre at
infinity. One focus is therefore at infinity, the one focus only is finite. A parabola has
only one focus.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 105/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Fig. 34.

§ 85. If through any point P (fig. 34) on a conic the tangent PT and the normal PN (i.e.
the perpendicular to the tangent through the point of contact) be drawn, these will be
conjugate lines with regard to the conic, and at right angles to each other. They will
therefore cut the principal axis in two points, which are conjugate in the involution
considered in § 84; hence they are harmonic conjugates with regard to the foci. If
therefore the two foci F1 and F2 be joined to P, these lines will be harmonic with regard
to the tangent and normal. As the latter are perpendicular, they will bisect the angles
between the other pair. Hence—

The lines joining any point on a conic to the two foci are equally inclined to the tangent
and normal at that point.

In case of the parabola this becomes—

The line joining any point on a parabola to the focus and the diameter through the
point, are equally inclined to the tangent and normal at that point.

From the definition of a focus it follows that—

The segment of a tangent between the directrix and the point of contact is seen from
the focus belonging to the directrix under a right angle, because the lines joining the
focus to the ends of this segment are conjugate with regard to the conic, and therefore
perpendicular.

With equal ease the following theorem is proved:

The two lines which join the points of contact of two tangents each to one focus, but not
both to the same, are seen from the intersection of the tangents under equal angles.

§ 86. Other focal properties of a conic are obtained by the following considerations:

Let F (fig. 35) be a focus to a conic, f the corresponding directrix, A and B the points of
contact of two tangents meeting at T, and P the point where the line AB cuts the
directrix. Then TF will be the polar of P (because polars of F and T meet at P). Hence TF

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 106/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

and PF are conjugate lines through

a focus, and therefore
perpendicular. They are further
harmonic conjugates with regard to
FA and FB (§§ 64 and 13), so that
they bisect the angles formed by
these lines. This by the way proves
—

The segments between the point of

intersection of two tangents to a
conic and their points of contact
are seen from a focus under equal
angles.

If we next draw through A and B

lines parallel to TF, then the points
A1, B1 where these cut the directrix
will be harmonic conjugates with
regard to P and the point where FT
cuts the directrix. The lines FT and
FP bisect therefore also the angles
between FA1 and FB1. From this it
follows easily that the triangles
FAA1 and FBB1 are equiangular,
and therefore similar, so that FA :
AA1 = FB : BB1. Fig. 35.

The triangles AA1A2 and BB1B2 formed by drawing perpendiculars from A and B to the
directrix are also similar, so that AA1 : AA2 = BB1 : BB2. This, combined with the above
proportion, gives FA : AA2 = FB : BB2. Hence the theorem:

The ratio of the distances of any point on a conic from a focus and the corresponding
directrix is constant.

To determine this ratio we consider its value for a vertex on the principal axis. In an
ellipse the focus lies between the two vertices on this axis, hence the focus is nearer to a
vertex than to the corresponding directrix. Similarly, in an hyperbola a vertex is nearer
to the directrix than to the focus. In a parabola the vertex lies halfway between directrix
and focus.

It follows in an ellipse the ratio between the distance of a point from the focus to that
from the directrix is less than unity, in the parabola it equals unity, and in the hyperbola
it is greater than unity.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 107/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

It is here the same which focus we take, because the two foci lie symmetrical to the axis
of the conic. If now P is any point on the conic having the distances r1 and r2 from the
foci and the distances d1 and d2 from the corresponding directrices, then r1/d1 = r2/d2 =
r1 ± r2
e, where e is constant. Hence also ⁠d ± d ⁠= e.
1 2

In the ellipse, which lies between the directrices, d1 + d2 is constant, therefore also r1 +
r2. In the hyperbola on the other hand d1 − d2 is constant, equal to the distance between
the directrices, therefore in this case r1 − r2 is constant.

If we call the distances of a point on a conic from the focus its focal distances we have
the theorem:

In an ellipse the sum of the focal distances is constant; and in an hyperbola the
difference of the focal distances is constant.

This constant sum or difference equals in both cases the length of the principal axis.

Pencil of Conics

§ 87. Through four points A, B, C, D in a plane, of which no three lie in a line, an infinite
number of conics may be drawn, viz. through these four points and any fifth one single
conic. This system of conics is called a pencil of conics. Similarly, all conics touching
four fixed lines form a system such that any fifth tangent determines one and only one
conic. We have here the theorems:

The pairs of points in which any line is cut by a The pairs of tangents which can be drawn from a
system of conics through four fixed points are in point to a system of conics touching four fixed
involution. lines are in involution.

Fig. 36.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 108/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

We prove the first theorem only. Let ABCD (fig. 36) be the four-point, then any line t
will cut two opposite sides AC, BD in the points E, E′, the pair AD, BC in points F, F′,
and any conic of the system in M, N, and we have A(CD, MN) = B(CD, MN).

If we cut these pencils by t we get

(EF, MN) = (F′E′, MN)

or

(EF, MN) = (E′F′, NM).

But this is, according to § 77 (7), the condition that M, N are corresponding points in the
involution determined by the point pairs E, E′, F, F′ in which the line t cuts pairs of
opposite sides of the four-point ABCD. This involution is independent of the particular
conic chosen.

§ 88. There follow several important theorems:

Through four points two, one, or no conics may be drawn which touch any given line,
according as the involution determined by the given four-point on the line has real,
coincident or imaginary foci.

Two, one, or no conics may be drawn which touch four given lines and pass through a
given point, according as the involution determined by the given four-side at the point
has real, coincident or imaginary focal rays.

For the conic through four points which touches a given line has its point of contact at a
focus of the involution determined by the four-point on the line.

As a special case we get, by taking the line at infinity:

Through four points of which none is at infinity either two or no parabolas may be
drawn.

The problem of drawing a conic through four points and touching a given line is solved
by determining the points of contact on the line, that is, by determining the foci of the
involution in which the line cuts the sides of the four-point. The corresponding remark
holds for the problem of drawing the conics which touch four lines and pass through a
given point.

Ruled Quadric Surfaces

§ 89. We have considered hitherto projective rows which lie in the same plane, in which
case lines joining corresponding points envelop a conic. We shall now consider
projective rows whose bases do not meet. In this case, corresponding points will be
joined by lines which do not lie in a plane, but on some surface, which like every surface
generated by lines is called a ruled surface. This surface clearly contains the bases of the
two rows.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 109/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

If the points in either row be joined to the base of the other, we obtain two axial pencils
which are also projective, those planes being corresponding which pass through
corresponding points in the given rows. If A′, A be two corresponding points, α, α′ the
planes in the axial pencils passing through them, then AA′ will be the line of intersection
of the corresponding planes α, α′ and also the line joining corresponding points in the
rows.

If we cut the whole figure by a plane this will cut the axial pencils in two projective flat
pencils, and the curve of the second order generated by these will be the curve in which
the plane cuts the surface. Hence

The locus of lines joining corresponding points in two projective rows which do not lie
in the same plane is a surface which contains the bases of the rows, and which can also
be generated by the lines of intersection of corresponding planes in two projective axial
pencils. This surface is cut by every plane in a curve of the second order, hence either in
a conic or in a line-pair. No line which does not lie altogether on the surface can have
more than two points in common with the surface, which is therefore said to be of the
second order or is called a ruled quadric surface.

That no line which does not lie on the surface can cut the surface in more than two
points is seen at once if a plane be drawn through the line, for this will cut the surface in
a conic. It follows also that a line which contains more than two points of the surface lies
altogether on the surface.

§ 90. Through any point in space one line can always be drawn cutting two given lines
which do not themselves meet.

If therefore three lines in space be given of which no two meet, then through every point
in either one line may be drawn cutting the other two.

If a line moves so that it always cuts three given lines of which no two meet, then it
generates a ruled quadric surface.

Let a, b, c be the given lines, and p, q, r . . . lines cutting them in the points A, A′, A″ . . .;
B, B′, B″ . . .; C, C′, C″ . . . respectively; then the planes through a containing p, q, r, and
the planes through b containing the same lines, may be taken as corresponding planes in
two axial pencils which are projective, because both pencils cut the line c in the same
row, C, C′, C″ . . .; the surface can therefore be generated by projective axial pencils.

Of the lines p, q, r . . . no two can meet, for otherwise the lines a, b, c which cut them
would also lie in their plane. There is a single infinite number of them, for one passes
through each point of a. These lines are said to form a set of lines on the surface.

If now three of the lines p, q, r be taken, then every line d cutting them will have three
points in common with the surface, and will therefore lie altogether on it. This gives rise
to a second set of lines on the surface. From what has been said the theorem follows:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 110/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

A ruled quadric surface contains two sets of straight lines. Every line of one set cuts
every line of the other, but no two lines of the same set meet.

Any two lines of the same set may be taken as bases of two projective rows, or of two
projective pencils which generate the surface. They are cut by the lines of the other set
in two projective rows.

The plane at infinity like every other plane cuts the surface either in a conic proper or in
a line-pair. In the first case the surface is called an Hyperboloid of one sheet, in the
second an Hyperbolic Paraboloid.

The latter may be generated by a line cutting three lines of which one lies at infinity, that
is, cutting two lines and remaining parallel to a given plane.

Quadric Surfaces

§ 91. The conics, the cones of the second order, and the ruled quadric surfaces complete
the figures which can be generated by projective rows or flat and axial pencils, that is, by
those aggregates of elements which are of one dimension (§§ 5, 6). We shall now
consider the simpler figures which are generated by aggregates of two dimensions. The
space at our disposal will not, however, allow us to do more than indicate a few of the
results.

§ 92. We establish a correspondence between the lines and planes in pencils in space, or
reciprocally between the points and lines in two or more planes, but consider principally
pencils.

In two pencils we may either make planes correspond to planes and lines to lines, or else
planes to lines and lines to planes. If hereby the condition be satisfied that to a flat, or
axial, pencil corresponds in the first case a projective flat, or axial, pencil, and in the
second a projective axial, or flat, pencil, the pencils are said to be projective in the first
case and reciprocal in the second.

For instance, two pencils which join two points S1 and S2 to the different points and
lines in a given plane π are projective (and in perspective position), if those lines and
planes be taken as corresponding which meet the plane π in the same point or in the
same line. In this case every plane through both centres S1 and S2 of the two pencils will
correspond to itself. If these pencils are brought into any other position they will be
projective (but not perspective).

The correspondence between two projective pencils is uniquely determined, if to four

rays (or planes) in the one the corresponding rays (or planes) in the other are given,
provided that no three rays of either set lie in a plane.

Let a, b, c, d be four rays in the one, a′, b′, c′, d′ the corresponding rays in the other
pencil. We shall show that we can find for every ray e in the first a single corresponding
ray e′ in the second. To the axial pencil a (b, c, d . . .) formed by the planes which join a

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 111/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

to b, c, d . . ., respectively corresponds the axial pencil a′ (b′, c′, d′ . . . ), and this

correspondence is determined. Hence, the plane a′e′ which corresponds to the plane ae
is determined. Similarly the plane b′e′ may be found and both together determine the
ray e′.

Similarly the correspondence between two reciprocal pencils is determined if for four
rays in the one the corresponding planes in the other are given.

§ 93. We may now combine—

1. Two reciprocal pencils.

Each ray cuts its corresponding plane in a point, the locus of these points is a
quadric surface.

2. Two projective pencils.

Each plane cuts its corresponding plane in a line, but a ray as a rule does not cut
its corresponding ray. The locus of points where a ray cuts its corresponding ray
is a twisted cubic. The lines where a plane cuts its corresponding plane are
secants.

3. Three projective pencils.

The locus of intersection of corresponding planes is a cubic surface.

Of these we consider only the first two cases.

§ 94. If two pencils are reciprocal, then to a plane in either corresponds a line in the
other, to a flat pencil an axial pencil, and so on. Every line cuts its corresponding plane
in a point. If S1 and S2 be the centres of the two pencils, and P be a point where a line a1
in the first cuts its corresponding plane α2, then the line b2 in the pencil S2 which passes
through P will meet its corresponding plane β1 in P. For b2 is a line in the plane α2. The
corresponding plane β1 must therefore pass through the line a1, hence through P.

The points in which the lines in S1 cut the planes corresponding to them in S2 are
therefore the same as the points in which the lines in S2 cut the planes corresponding to
them in S1.

The locus of these points is a surface which is cut by a plane in a conic or in a line-pair
and by a line in not more than two points unless it lies altogether on the surface. The
surface itself is therefore called a quadric surface, or a surface of the second order.

To prove this we consider any line p in space.

The flat pencil in S1 which lies in the plane drawn through p and the corresponding axial
pencil in S2 determine on p two projective rows, and those points in these which
coincide with their corresponding points lie on the surface. But there exist only two, or

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 112/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

one, or no such points, unless every point coincides with its corresponding point. In the
latter case the line lies altogether on the surface.

This proves also that a plane cuts the surface in a curve of the second order, as no line
can have more than two points in common with it. To show that this is a curve of the
same kind as those considered before, we have to show that it can be generated by
projective flat pencils. We prove first that this is true for any plane through the centre of
one of the pencils, and afterwards that every point on the surface may be taken as the
centre of such pencil. Let then α1 be a plane through S1. To the flat pencil in S1 which it
contains corresponds in S2 a projective axial pencil with axis a2 and this cuts α1 in a
second flat pencil. These two flat pencils in α1 are projective, and, in general, neither
concentric nor perspective. They generate therefore a conic. But if the line a2 passes
through S1 the pencils will have S1 as common centre, and may therefore have two, or
one, or no lines united with their corresponding lines. The section of the surface by the
plane α1 will be accordingly a line-pair or a single line, or else the plane α1 will have only
the point S1 in common with the surface.

Every line l1 through S1 cuts the surface in two points, viz. first in S1 and then at the
point where it cuts its corresponding plane. If now the corresponding plane passes
through S1, as in the case just considered, then the two points where l1 cuts the surface
coincide at S1, and the line is called a tangent to the surface with S1 as point of contact.
Hence if l1 be a tangent, it lies in that plane τ1 which corresponds to the line S2S1 as a
line in the pencil S2. The section of this plane has just been considered. It follows that—

All tangents to quadric surface at the centre of one of the reciprocal pencils lie in a
plane which is called the tangent plane to the surface at that point as point of contact.

To the line joining the centres of the two pencils as a line in one corresponds in the
other the tangent plane at its centre.

The tangent plane to a quadric surface either cuts the surface in two lines, or it has
only a single line, or else only a single point in common with the surface.

In the first case the point of contact is said to be hyperbolic, in the second parabolic, in
the third elliptic.

§ 95. It remains to be proved that every point S on the surface may be taken as centre of
one of the pencils which generate the surface. Let S be any point on the surface Φ′
generated by the reciprocal pencils S1 and S2. We have to establish a reciprocal
correspondence between the pencils S and S1, so that the surface generated by them is
identical with Φ. To do this we draw two planes α1 and β1 through S1, cutting the surface
Φ in two conics which we also denote by α1 and β1. These conics meet at S1, and at some
other point T where the line of intersection of α1 and β1 cuts the surface.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 113/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

In the pencil S we draw some plane σ which passes through T, but not through S1 or S2.
It will cut the two conics first at T, and therefore each at some other point which we call
A and B respectively. These we join to S by lines a and b, and now establish the required
correspondence between the pencils S1 and S as follows:—To S1T shall correspond the
plane σ, to the plane α1 the line a, and to β1 the line b, hence to the flat pencil in α1 the
axial pencil a. These pencils are made projective by aid of the conic in α1.

In the same manner the flat pencil in β1 is made projective to the axial pencil b by aid of
the conic in β1, corresponding elements being those which meet on the conic. This
determines the correspondence, for we know for more than four rays in S1 the
corresponding planes in S. The two pencils S and S1 thus made reciprocal generate a
quadric surface Φ′, which passes through the point S and through the two conics α1 and
β1.

The two surfaces Φ and Φ′ have therefore the points S and S1 and the conics α1 and β1 in
common. To show that they are identical, we draw a plane through S and S2, cutting
each of the conics α1 and β1 in two points, which will always be possible. This plane cuts
Φ and Φ′ in two conics which have the point S and the points where it cuts α1 and β1 in
common, that is five points in all. The conics therefore coincide.

This proves that all those points P on Φ′ lie on Φ which have the property that the plane
SS2P cuts the conics α1, β1 in two points each. If the plane SS2P has not this property,
then we draw a plane SS1P. This cuts each surface in a conic, and these conics have in
common the points S, S1, one point on each of the conics α1, β1, and one point on one of
the conics through S and S2 which lie on both surfaces, hence five points. They are
therefore coincident, and our theorem is proved.

§ 96. The following propositions follow:—

A quadric surface has at every point a tangent plane.

Every plane section of a quadric surface is a conic or a line-pair.

Every line which has three points in common with a quadric surface lies on the surface.

Every conic which has five points in common with a quadric surface lies on the surface.

Through two conics which lie in different planes, but have two points in common, and
through one external point always one quadric surface may be drawn.

§ 97. Every plane which cuts a quadric surface in a line-pair is a tangent plane. For
every line in this plane through the centre of the line-pair (the point of intersection of
the two lines) cuts the surface in two coincident points and is therefore a tangent to the
surface, the centre of the line-pair being the point of contact.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 114/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

If a quadric surface contains a line, then every plane through this line cuts the surface
in a line-pair (or in two coincident lines). For this plane cannot cut the surface in a
conic. Hence:—

If a quadric surface contains one line p then it contains an infinite number of lines, and
through every point Q on the surface, one line q can be drawn which cuts p. For the
plane through the point Q and the line p cuts the surface in a line-pair which must pass
through Q and of which p is one line.

No two such lines q on the surface can meet. For as both meet p their plane would
contain p and therefore cut the surface in a triangle.

Every line which cuts three lines q will be on the surface; for it has three points in
common with it.

Hence the quadric surfaces which contain lines are the same as the ruled quadric
surfaces considered in §§ 89-93, but with one important exception. In the last
investigation we have left out of consideration the possibility of a plane having only one
line (two coincident lines) in common with a quadric surface.

§ 98. To investigate this case we suppose first that there is one point A on the surface
through which two different lines a, b can be drawn, which lie altogether on the surface.

If P is any other point on the surface which lies neither on a nor b, then the plane
through P and a will cut the surface in a second line a′ which passes through P and
which cuts a. Similarly there is a line b′ through P which cuts b. These two lines a′ and
b′ may coincide, but then they must coincide with PA.

If this happens for one point P, it happens for every other point Q. For if two different
lines could be drawn through Q, then by the same reasoning the line PQ would be
altogether on the surface, hence two lines would be drawn through P against the
assumption. From this follows:—

If there is one point on a quadric surface through which one, but only one, line can be
drawn on the surface, then through every point one line can be drawn, and all these
lines meet in a point. The surface is a cone of the second order.

If through one point on a quadric surface, two, and only two, lines can be drawn on the
surface, then through every point two lines may be drawn, and the surface is ruled
quadric surface.

If through one point on a quadric surface no line on the surface can be drawn, then the
surface contains no lines.

Using the definitions at the end of § 95, we may also say:—

On a quadric surface the points are all hyperbolic, or all parabolic, or all elliptic.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 115/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

As an example of a quadric surface with elliptical points, we mention the sphere which
may be generated by two reciprocal pencils, where to each line in one corresponds the
plane perpendicular to it in the other.

§ 99. Poles and Polar Planes.—The theory of poles and polars with regard to a conic is
easily extended to quadric surfaces.

Let P be a point in space not on the surface, which we suppose not to be a cone. On every
line through P which cuts the surface in two points we determine the harmonic
conjugate Q of P with regard to the points of intersection. Through one of these lines we
draw two planes α and β. The locus of the points Q in α is a line a, the polar of P with
regard to the conic in which α cuts the surface. Similarly the locus of points Q in β is a
line b. This cuts a, because the line of intersection of α and β contains but one point Q.
The locus of all points Q therefore is a plane. This plane is called the polar plane of the
point P, with regard to the quadric surface. If P lies on the surface we take the tangent
plane of P as its polar.

The following propositions hold:—

1. Every point has a polar plane, which is constructed by drawing the polars of the point
with regard to the conics in which two planes through the point cut the surface.

2. If Q is a point in the polar of P, then P is a point in the polar of Q, because this is true
with regard to the conic in which a plane through PQ cuts the surface.

3. Every plane is the polar plane of one point, which is called the Pole of the plane.

The pole to a plane is found by constructing the polar planes of three points in the plane.
Their intersection will be the pole.

4. The points in which the polar plane of P cuts the surface are points of contact of
tangents drawn from P to the surface, as is easily seen. Hence:—

5. The tangents drawn from a point P to a quadric surface form a cone of the second
order, for the polar plane of P cuts it in a conic.

6. If the pole describes a line a, its polar plane will turn about another line a′, as follows
from 2. These lines a and a′ are said to be conjugate with regard to the surface.

§ 100. The pole of the line at infinity is called the centre of the surface. If it lies at the
infinity, the plane at infinity is a tangent plane, and the surface is called a paraboloid.

The polar plane to any point at infinity passes through the centre, and is called a
diametrical plane.

A line through the centre is called a diameter. It is bisected at the centre. The line
conjugate to it lies at infinity.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 116/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

If a point moves along a diameter its polar plane turns about the conjugate line at
infinity; that is, it moves parallel to itself, its centre moving on the first line.

The middle points of parallel chords lie in a plane, viz. in the polar plane of the point at
infinity through which the chords are drawn.

The centres of parallel sections lie in a diameter which is a line conjugate to the line at
infinity in which the planes meet.

Twisted Cubics

§ 101. If two pencils with centres S1 and S2 are made projective, then to a ray in one
corresponds a ray in the other, to a plane a plane, to a flat or axial pencil a projective flat
or axial pencil, and so on.

There is a double infinite number of lines in a pencil. We shall see that a single infinite
number of lines in one pencil meets its corresponding ray, and that the points of
intersection form a curve in space.

Of the double infinite number of planes in the pencils each will meet its corresponding
plane. This gives a system of a double infinite number of lines in space. We know (§ 5)
that there is a quadruple infinite number of lines in space. From among these we may
select those which satisfy one or more given conditions. The systems of lines thus
obtained were first systematically investigated and classified by Plücker, in his
Geometrie des Raumes. He uses the following names:—

A treble infinite number of lines, that is, all lines which satisfy one condition, are said to
form a complex of lines; e.g. all lines cutting a given line, or all lines touching a surface.

A double infinite number of lines, that is, all lines which satisfy two conditions, or which
are common to two complexes, are said to form a congruence of lines; e.g. all lines in a
plane, or all lines cutting two curves, or all lines cutting a given curve twice.

A single infinite number of lines, that is, all lines which satisfy three conditions, or
which belong to three complexes, form a ruled surface; e.g. one set of lines on a ruled
quadric surface, or developable surfaces which are formed by the tangents to a curve.

It follows that all lines in which corresponding planes in two projective pencils meet
form a congruence. We shall see this congruence consists of all lines which cut a twisted
cubic twice, or of all secants to a twisted cubic.

§ 102. Let l1 be the line S1S2 as a line in the pencil S1. To it corresponds a line l2 in S2. At
each of the centres two corresponding lines meet. The two axial pencils with l1 and l2 as
axes are projective, and, as, their axes meet at S2, the intersections of corresponding
planes form a cone of the second order (§ 58), with S2 as centre. If π1 and π2 be
corresponding planes, then their intersection will be a line p2 which passes through S2.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 117/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Corresponding to it in S1 will be a line p1 which lies in the plane π1, and which therefore
meets p2 at some point P. Conversely, if p2 be any line in S2 which meets its
corresponding line p1 at a point P, then to the plane l2p2 will correspond the plane l1p1,
that is, the plane S1S2P. These planes intersect in p2, so that p2 is a line on the quadric
cone generated by the axial pencils l1 and l2. Hence:—

All lines in one pencil which meet their corresponding lines in the other form a cone of
the second order which has its centre at the centre of the first pencil, and passes
through the centre of the second.

From this follows that the points in which corresponding rays meet lie on two cones of
the second order which have the ray joining their centres in common, and form
therefore, together with the line S1S2 or l1, the intersection of these cones. Any plane
cuts each of the cones in a conic. These two conics have necessarily that point in
common in which it cuts the line l1, and therefore besides either one or three other
points. It follows that the curve is of the third order as a plane may cut it in three, but
not in more than three, points. Hence:—

The locus of points in which corresponding lines on two projective pencils meet is a
curve of the third order or a “twisted cubic” k, which passes through the centres of the
pencils, and which appears as the intersection of two cones of the second order, which
have one line in common.

A line belonging to the congruence determined by the pencils is a secant of the cubic; it
has two, or one, or no points in common with this cubic, and is called accordingly a
secant proper, a tangent, or a secant improper of the cubic. A secant improper may be
considered, to use the language of coordinate geometry, as a secant with imaginary
points of intersection.

§ 103. If a1 and a2 be any two corresponding lines in the two pencils, then corresponding
planes in the axial pencils having a1 and a2 as axes generate a ruled quadric surface. If P
be any point on the cubic k, and if p1, p2 be the corresponding rays in S1 and S2 which
meet at P, then to the plane a1p1 in S1 corresponds a2p2 in S2. These therefore meet in a
line through P.

This may be stated thus:—

Those secants of the cubic which cut a ray a1, drawn through the centre S1 of one
pencil, form a ruled quadric surface which passes through both centres, and which
contains the twisted cubic k. Of such surfaces an infinite number exists. Every ray
through S1 or S2 which is not a secant determines one of them.

If, however, the rays a1 and a2 are secants meeting at A, then the ruled quadric surface
becomes a cone of the second order, having A as centre. Or all lines of the congruence
which pass through a point on the twisted cubic k form a cone of the second order. In
other words, the projection of a twisted cubic from any point in the curve on to any
plane is a conic.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 118/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

If a1 is not a secant, but made to pass through any point Q in space, the ruled quadric
surface determined by a1 will pass through Q. There will therefore be one line of the
congruence passing through Q, and only one. For if two such lines pass through Q, then
the lines S1Q and S2Q will be corresponding lines; hence Q will be a point on the cubic k,
and an infinite number of secants will pass through it. Hence:—

Through every point in space not on the twisted cubic one and only one secant to the
cubic can be drawn.

§ 104. The fact that all the secants through a point on the cubic form a quadric cone
shows that the centres of the projective pencils generating the cubic are not
distinguished from any other points on the cubic. If we take any two points S, S′ on the
cubic, and draw the secants through each of them, we obtain two quadric cones, which
have the line SS′ in common, and which intersect besides along the cubic. If we make
these two pencils having S and S′ as centres projective by taking four rays on the one
cone as corresponding to the four rays on the other which meet the first on the cubic, the
correspondence is determined. These two pencils will generate a cubic, and the two
cones of secants having S and S′ as centres will be identical with the above cones, for
each has five rays in common with one of the first, viz. the line SS′ and the four lines
determined for the correspondence; therefore these two cones intersect in the original
cubic. This gives the theorem:—

On a twisted cubic any two points may be taken as centres of projective pencils which
generate the cubic, corresponding planes being those which meet on the same secant.

Of the two projective pencils at S and S′ we may keep the first fixed, and move the centre
of the other along the curve. The pencils will hereby remain projective, and a plane α in S
will be cut by its corresponding plane α′ always in the same secant a. Whilst S′ moves
along the curve the plane α′ will turn about a, describing an axial pencil.

Authorities.—In this article we have given a purely geometrical theory of conics, cones
of the second order, quadric surfaces, &c. In doing so we have followed, to a great extent,
Reye’s Geometrie der Lage, and to this excellent work those readers are referred who
wish for a more exhaustive treatment of the subject. Other works especially valuable as
showing the development of the subject are: Monge, Géométrie descriptive: Carnot,
Géométrie de position (1803), containing a theory of transversals; Poncelet’s great work
Traité des propriétés projectives des figures (1822); Möbins, Barycentrischer Calcul
(1826); Steiner, Abhängigkeit geometrischer Gestalten (1832), containing the first full
discussion of the projective relations between rows, pencils, &c.; Von Staudt, Geometrie
der Lage (1847) and Beiträge zur Geometrie der Lage (1856–1860), in which a system
of geometry is built up from the beginning without any reference to number, so that
ultimately a number itself gets a geometrical definition, and in which imaginary
elements are systematically introduced into pure geometry; Chasles, Aperçu historique
(1837), in which the author gives a brilliant account of the progress of modern
geometrical methods, pointing out the advantages of the different purely geometrical
methods as compared with the analytical ones, but without taking as much account of
the German as of the French authors; Id., Rapport sur les progrès de la géométrie
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 119/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

(1870), a continuation of the Aperçu; Id., Traité de géométrie supérieure (1852);

Cremona, Introduzione ad una teoria geometrica delle curve piane (1862) and its
continuation Preliminari di una teoria geometrica delle superficie (German
translations by Curtze). As more elementary books, we mention: Cremona, Elements of
Projective Geometry, translated from the Italian by C. Leudesdorf (2nd ed., 1894); J. W.
Russell, Pure Geometry (2nd ed., 1905). (O. H.)

III. Descriptive Geometry

This branch of geometry is concerned with the methods for representing solids and
other figures in three dimensions by drawings in one plane. The most important method
is that which was invented by Monge towards the end of the 18th century. It is based on
parallel projections to a plane by rays perpendicular to the plane. Such a projection is
called orthographic (see Projection, § 18). If the plane is horizontal the projection is
called the plan of the figure, and if the plane is vertical the elevation. In Monge’s method
a figure is represented by its plan and elevation. It is therefore often called drawing in
plan and elevation, and sometimes simply orthographic projection.

§ 1. We suppose then that we have two planes, one horizontal, the other vertical, and
these we call the planes of plan and of elevation respectively, or the horizontal and the
vertical plane, and denote them by the letters π1 and π2. Their line of intersection is
called the axis, and will be denoted by xy.

If the surface of the drawing paper is taken as the plane of the plan, then the vertical
plane will be the plane perpendicular to it through the axis xy. To bring this also into the
plane of the drawing paper we turn it about the axis till it coincides with the horizontal
plane. This process of turning one plane down till it coincides with another is called
rabatting one to the other. Of course there is no necessity to have one of the two planes
horizontal, but even when this is not the case it is convenient to retain the above names.

Fig. 37. Fig. 38.

The whole arrangement will be better understood by referring to fig. 37. A point A in
space is there projected by the perpendicular AA1 and AA2 to the planes π1 and π2 so that
A1 and A2 are the horizontal and vertical projections of A.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 120/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

If we remember that a line is perpendicular to a plane that is perpendicular to every line

in the plane if only it is perpendicular to any two intersecting lines in the plane, we see
that the axis which is perpendicular both to AA1 and to AA2 is also perpendicular to
A1A0 and to A2A0 because these four lines are all in the same plane. Hence, if the plane
π2 be turned about the axis till it coincides with the plane π1, then A2A0 will be the
continuation of A1A0. This position of the planes is represented in fig. 38, in which the
line A1A2 is perpendicular to the axis x.

Conversely any two points A1, A2 in a line perpendicular to the axis will be the
projections of some point in space when the plane π2 is turned about the axis till it is
perpendicular to the plane π1, because in this position the two perpendiculars to the
planes π1 and π2 through the points A1 and A2 will be in a plane and therefore meet at
some point A.

Representation of Points.—We have thus the following method of representing in a

single plane the position of points in space:—we take in the plane a line xy as the axis,
and then any pair of points A1, A2 in the plane on a line perpendicular to the axis
represent a point A in space. If the line A1A2 cuts the axis at A0, and if at A1 a
perpendicular be erected to the plane, then the point A will be in it at a height A1A =
A0A2 above the plane. This gives the position of the point A relative to the plane π1. In
the same way, if in a perpendicular to π2 through A2 a point A be taken such that A2A =
A0A1, then this will give the point A relative to the plane π2.

§ 2. The two planes π1, π2 in their original position

divide space into four parts. These are called the four
quadrants. We suppose that the plane π2 is turned as
indicated in fig. 37, so that the point P comes to Q and
R to S, then the quadrant in which the point A lies is
called the first, and we say that in the first quadrant a
point lies above the horizontal and in front of the
vertical plane. Now we go round the axis in the sense in
which the plane π2 is turned and come in succession to
Fig. 39.
the second, third and fourth quadrant. In the second a
point lies above the plane of the plan and behind the plane of elevation, and so on. In fig.
39, which represents a side view of the planes in fig. 37 the quadrants are marked, and
in each a point with its projection is taken. Fig. 38 shows how these are represented
when the plane π2 is turned down. We see that

A point lies in the first quadrant if the plan lies below, the elevation above the axis; in
the second if plan and elevation both lie above; in the third if the plan lies above, the
elevation below; in the fourth if plan and elevation both lie below the axis.

If a point lies in the horizontal plane, its elevation lies in the axis and the plan coincides
with the point itself. If a point lies in the vertical plane, its plan lies in the axis and the
elevation coincides with the point itself. If a point lies in the axis, both its plan and
elevation lie in the axis and coincide with it.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 121/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Of each of these propositions, which will easily be seen to be true, the converse holds
also.

§ 3. Representation of a Plane.—As we are thus enabled to represent points in a plane,

we can represent any finite figure by representing its separate points. It is, however, not
possible to represent a plane in this way, for the projections of its points completely
cover the planes π1 and π2, and no plane would appear different from any other. But any
plane α cuts each of the planes π1, π2 in a line. These are called the traces of the plane.
They cut each other in the axis at the point where the latter cuts the plane α.

A plane is determined by its two traces, which are two lines that meet on the axis, and,
conversely, any two lines which meet on the axis determine a plane.

If the plane is parallel to the axis its traces are parallel to the axis. Of these one may be
at infinity; then the plane will cut one of the planes of projection at infinity and will be
parallel to it. Thus a plane parallel to the horizontal plane of the plan has only one finite
trace, viz. that with the plane of elevation.

If the plane passes through the axis both its

traces coincide with the axis. This is the only
case in which the representation of the plane
by its two traces fails. A third plane of
projection is therefore introduced, which is
best taken perpendicular to the other two. We
call it simply the third plane and denote it by
π3. As it is perpendicular to π1, it may be
taken as the plane of elevation, its line of
intersection γ with π1 being the axis, and be
turned down to coincide with π1. This is
represented in fig. 40. OC is the axis xy whilst
OA and OB are the traces of the third plane.
Fig. 40.
They lie in one line γ. The plane is rabatted
about γ to the horizontal plane. A plane α through the axis xy will then show in it a trace
α3. In fig. 40 the lines OC and OP will thus be the traces of a plane through the axis xy,
which makes an angle POQ with the horizontal plane.

We can also find the trace which any other plane makes with π3. In rabatting the plane
π3 its trace OB with the plane π2 will come to the position OD. Hence a plane β having
the traces CA and CB will have with the third plane the trace β3, or AD if OD = OB.

It also follows immediately that—

If a plane α is perpendicular to the horizontal plane, then every point in it has its
horizontal projection in the horizontal trace of the plane, as all the rays projecting these
points lie in the plane itself.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 122/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Any plane which is perpendicular to the horizontal plane has its vertical trace
perpendicular to the axis.

Any plane which is perpendicular to the vertical plane has its horizontal trace
perpendicular to the axis and the vertical projections of all points in the plane lie in this
trace.

§ 4. Representation of a Line.—A line is determined either by two points in it or by two

planes through it. We get accordingly two representations of it either by projections or
by traces.

First.—A line a is represented by its projections a1 and a2 on the two planes π1 and π2.
These may be any two lines, for, bringing the planes π1, π2 into their original position,
the planes through these lines perpendicular to π1 and π2 respectively will intersect in
some line a which has a1, a2 as its projections.

Secondly.—A line a is represented by its traces—that is, by the points in which it cuts
the two planes π1, π2. Any two points may be taken as the traces of a line in space, for it
is determined when the planes are in their original position as the line joining the two
traces. This representation becomes undetermined if the two traces coincide in the axis.
In this case we again use a third plane, or else the projections of the line.

The fact that there are different methods of representing points and planes, and hence
two methods of representing lines, suggests the principle of duality (section ii.,
Projective Geometry, § 41). It is worth while to keep this in mind. It is also worth
remembering that traces of planes or lines always lie in the planes or lines which they
represent. Projections do not as a rule do this excepting when the point or line projected
lies in one of the planes of projection.

Having now shown how to represent points, planes and lines, we have to state the
conditions which must hold in order that these elements may lie one in the other, or else
that the figure formed by them may possess certain metrical properties. It will be found
that the former are very much simpler than the latter.

Before we do this, however, we shall explain the notation used; for it is of great
importance to have a systematic notation. We shall denote points in space by capitals A,
B, C; planes in space by Greek letters α, β, γ; lines in space by small letters a, b, c;
horizontal projections by suffixes 1, like A1, a1; vertical projections by suffixes 2, like A2,
a2; traces by single and double dashes α′ α″, a′, a″. Hence P1 will be the horizontal
projection of a point P in space; a line a will have the projections a1, a2 and the traces a′
and a″; a plane α has the traces α′ and α″.

§ 5. If a point lies in a line, the projections of the point lie in the projections of the line.

If a line lies in a plane, the traces of the line lie in the traces of the plane.

These propositions follow at once from the definitions of the projections and of the
traces.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 123/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

If a point lies in two lines its projections must lie in the projections of both. Hence

If two lines, given by their projections, intersect, the intersection of their planes and the
intersection of their elevations must lie in a line perpendicular to the axis, because they
must be the projections of the point common to the two lines.

Similarly—If two lines given by their traces lie in the same plane or intersect, then the
lines joining their horizontal and vertical traces respectively must meet on the axis,
because they must be the traces of the plane through them.

§ 6. To find the projections of a line which joins two points A, B given by their
projections A1, A2 and B1, B2, we join A1, B1 and A2, B2; these will be the projections
required. For example, the traces of a line are two points in the line whose projections
are known or at all events easily found. They are the traces themselves and the feet of
the perpendiculars from them to the axis.

Hence if a′ a″ (fig. 41) are the traces of a line

a, and if the perpendiculars from them cut
the axis in P and Q respectively, then the line
a′Q will be the horizontal and a″P the
vertical projection of the line.

Conversely, if the projections a1, a2 of a line

are given, and if these cut the axis in Q and P
respectively, then the perpendiculars Pa′ and
Qa″ to the axis drawn through these points
cut the projections a1 and a2 in the traces a′ Fig. 41.
and a″.

To find the line of intersection of two planes, we observe that this line lies in both
planes; its traces must therefore lie in the traces of both. Hence the points where the
horizontal traces of the given planes meet will be the horizontal, and the point where the
vertical traces meet the vertical trace of the line required.

§ 7. To decide whether a point A, given by its projections, lies in a plane α, given by its
traces, we draw a line p by joining A to some point in the plane α and determine its
traces. If these lie in the traces of the plane, then the line, and therefore the point A, lies
in the plane; otherwise not. This is conveniently done by joining A1 to some point p′ in
the trace α′; this gives p1; and the point where the perpendicular from p′ to the axis cuts
the latter we join to A2; this gives p2. If the vertical trace of this line lies in the vertical
trace of the plane, then, and then only, does the line p, and with it the point A, lie in the
plane α.

§ 8. Parallel planes have parallel traces, because parallel planes are cut by any plane,
hence also by π1 and by π2, in parallel lines.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 124/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Parallel lines have parallel projections, because points at infinity are projected to
infinity.

If a line is parallel to a plane, then lines through the traces of the line and parallel to
the traces of the plane must meet on the axis, because these lines are the traces of a
plane parallel to the given plane.

§ 9. To draw a plane through two intersecting lines or through two parallel lines, we
determine the traces of the lines; the lines joining their horizontal and vertical traces
respectively will be the horizontal and vertical traces of the plane. They will meet, at a
finite point or at infinity, on the axis if the lines do intersect.

To draw a plane through a line and a point without the line, we join the given point to
any point in the line and determine the plane through this and the given line.

To draw a plane through three points which are not in a line, we draw two of the lines
which each join two of the given points and draw the plane through them. If the traces of
all three lines AB, BC, CA be found, these must lie in two lines which meet on the axis.

§ 10. We have in the last example got more points, or can easily get more points, than
are necessary for the determination of the figure required—in this case the traces of the
plane. This will happen in a great many constructions and is of considerable importance.
It may happen that some of the points or lines obtained are not convenient in the actual
construction. The horizontal traces of the lines AB and AC may, for instance, fall very
near together, in which case the line joining them is not well defined. Or, one or both of
them may fall beyond the drawing paper, so that they are practically non-existent for the
construction. In this case the traces of the line BC may be used. Or, if the vertical traces
of AB and AC are both in convenient position, so that the vertical trace of the required
plane is found and one of the horizontal traces is got, then we may join the latter to the
point where the vertical trace cuts the axis.

The draughtsman must remember that the lines which he draws are not mathematical
lines without thickness, and therefore every drawing is affected by some errors. It is
therefore very desirable to be able constantly to check the latter. Such checks always
present themselves when the same result can be obtained by different constructions, or
when, as in the above case, some lines must meet on the axis, or if three points must lie
in a line. A careful draughtsman will always avail himself of these checks.

§ 11. To draw a plane through a given point parallel to a given plane α, we draw
through the point two lines which are parallel to the plane α, and determine the plane
through them; or, as we know that the traces of the required plane are parallel to those
of the given one (§ 8), we need only draw one line l through the point parallel to the
plane and find one of its traces, say the vertical trace l″; a line through this parallel to
the vertical trace of α will be the vertical trace β″ of the required plane β, and a line
parallel to the horizontal trace of α meeting β″ on the axis will be the horizontal trace β′.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 125/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Let A1 A2 (fig. 42) be the given point, α′

α″ the given plane, a line l1 through A1,
parallel to α′ and a horizontal line l2
through A2 will be the projections of a
line l through A parallel to the plane,
because the horizontal plane through
this line will cut the plane α in a line c
which has its horizontal projection c1
parallel to α′.
Fig. 42.
§ 12. We now come to the metrical
properties of figures.

A line is perpendicular to a plane if the projections of the line are perpendicular to the
traces of the plane. We prove it for the horizontal projection. If a line p is perpendicular
to a plane α, every plane through p is perpendicular to α; hence also the vertical plane
which projects the line p to p1. As this plane is perpendicular both to the horizontal
plane and to the plane α, it is also perpendicular to their intersection—that is, to the
horizontal trace of α. It follows that every line in this projecting plane, therefore also p1,
the plan of p, is perpendicular to the horizontal trace of α.

To draw a plane through a given point A perpendicular to a given line p, we first draw
through some point O in the axis lines γ′, γ″ perpendicular respectively to the
projections p1 and p2 of the given line. These will be the traces of a plane γ which is
perpendicular to the given line. We next draw through the given point A a plane parallel
to the plane γ; this will be the plane required.

Other metrical properties depend on the determination of the real size or shape of a
figure.

In general the projection of a figure differs both in size and shape from the figure itself.
But figures in a plane parallel to a plane of projection will be identical with their
projections, and will thus be given in their true dimensions. In other cases there is the
problem, constantly recurring, either to find the true shape and size of a plane figure
when plan and elevation are given, or, conversely, to find the latter from the known true
shape of the figure itself. To do this, the plane is turned about one of its traces till it is
laid down into that plane of projection to which the trace belongs. This is technically
called rabatting the plane respectively into the plane of the plan or the elevation. As
there is no difference in the treatment of the two cases, we shall consider only the case of
rabatting a plane α into the plane of the plan. The plan of the figure is a parallel
(orthographic) projection of the figure itself. The results of parallel projection (see
Projection, §§ 17 and 18) may therefore now be used. The trace α′ will hereby take the
place of what formerly was called the axis of projection. Hence we see that
corresponding points in the plan and in the rabatted plane are joined by lines which are

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 126/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

perpendicular to the trace α′ and that corresponding lines meet on this trace. We also
see that the correspondence is completely determined if we know for one point or one
line in the plan the corresponding point or line in the rabatted plane.

Before, however, we treat of this we consider some special cases.

§ 13. To determine the distance between two points A, B given by their projections A1,
B1 and A2, B2, or, in other words, to determine the true length of a line the plan and
elevation of which are given.

Solution.—The two points A, B in space lie

vertically above their plans A1, B1 (fig. 43) and
A1A = A0A2, B1B = B0B2. The four points A, B,
A1, B1 therefore form a plane quadrilateral on
the base A1B1 and having right angles at the
base. This plane we rabatt about A1B1 by
drawing A1A and B1B perpendicular to A1B1 and
making A1A = A0A2, B1B = B0B2. Then AB will
give the length required.

The construction might have been performed in

Fig. 43.
the elevation by making A2A = A0A1 and B2B =
B0B1 on lines perpendicular to A2B2. Of course
AB must have the same length in both cases.

This figure may be turned into a model. Cut the

paper along A1A, AB and BB1, and fold the piece
A1ABB1 over along A1B1 till it stands upright at
right angles to the horizontal plane. The points
A, B will then be in their true position in space
relative to π1. Similarly if B2BAA2 be cut out and
turned along A2B2 through a right angle we shall
get AB in its true position relative to the plane Fig. 44.
π2. Lastly we fold the whole plane of the paper along the axis x till the plane π2 is at right
angles to π1. In this position the two sets of points AB will coincide if the drawing has
been accurate.

Models of this kind can be made in many cases and their construction cannot be too
highly recommended in order to realize orthographic projection.

§ 14. To find the angle between two given lines a, b of which the projections a1, b1 and
a2, b2 are given.

Solution.—Let a1, b1 (fig. 44) meet in P1, a2, b2 in T, then if the line P1T is not
perpendicular to the axis the two lines will not meet. In this case we draw a line parallel
to b to meet the line a. This is easiest done by drawing first the line P1P2 perpendicular

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 127/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

to the axis to meet a2 in P2, and then drawing through P2 a line c2 parallel to b2; then b1,
c2 will be the projections of a line c which is parallel to b and meets a in P. The plane α
which these two lines determine we rabatt to the plan. We determine the traces a′ and c′
of the lines a and c; then a′c′ is the trace α′ of their plane. On rabatting the point P
comes to a point S on the line P1Q perpendicular to a′c′, so that QS = QP. But QP is the
hypotenuse of a triangle PP1Q with a right angle P1. This we construct by making QR =
P0P2; then P1R = PQ. The lines a′S and c′S will therefore include angles equal to those
made by the given lines. It is to be remembered that two lines include two angles which
are supplementary. Which of these is to be taken in any special case depends upon the
circumstances.

To determine the angle between a line and a plane, we draw through any point in the
line a perpendicular to the plane (§ 12) and determine the angle between it and the given
line. The complement of this angle is the required one.

To determine the angle between two planes, we draw through any point two lines
perpendicular to the two planes and determine the angle between the latter as above.

In special cases it is simpler to determine at once the angle between the two planes by
taking a plane section perpendicular to the intersection of the two planes and rabatt this.
This is especially the case if one of the planes is the horizontal or vertical plane of
projection.

Thus in fig. 45 the angle P1QR is the angle which the plane α makes with the horizontal
plane.

§ 15. We return to the general case of rabatting a plane α of which the traces α′ α″ are
given.

Here it will be convenient to

determine first the position which the
trace α″—which is a line in α—assumes
when rabatted. Points in this line
coincide with their elevations. Hence it
is given in its true dimension, and we
can measure off along it the true
distance between two points in it. If
therefore (fig. 45) P is any point in α″
originally coincident with its elevation
P2, and if O is the point where α″ cuts
Fig. 45.
the axis xy, so that O is also in α′, then
the point P will after rabatting the
plane assume such a position that OP = OP2. At the same time the plan is an
orthographic projection of the plane α. Hence the line joining P to the plan P1 will after
rabatting be perpendicular to α′. But P1 is known; it is the foot of the perpendicular from
P2 to the axis xy. We draw therefore, to find P, from P1 a perpendicular P1Q to α′ and

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 128/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

find on it a point P such that OP = OP2. Then the line OP will be the position of α″ when
rabatted. This line corresponds therefore to the plan of α″—that is, to the axis xy,
corresponding points on these lines being those which lie on a perpendicular to α′.

We have thus one pair of corresponding lines and can now find for any point B1 in the
plan the corresponding point B in the rabatted plane. We draw a line through B1, say
B1P1, cutting α′ in C. To it corresponds the line CP, and the point where this is cut by the
projecting ray through B1, perpendicular to α′, is the required point B.

Similarly any figure in the rabatted plane can be found when the plan is known; but this
is usually found in a different manner without any reference to the general theory of
parallel projection. As this method and the reasoning employed for it have their peculiar
advantages, we give it also.

Supposing the planes π1 and π2 to be in their positions in space perpendicular to each

other, we take a section of the whole figure by a plane perpendicular to the trace α′ about
which we are going to rabatt the plane α. Let this section pass through the point Q in α′.
Its traces will then be the lines QP1 and P1P2 (fig. 9). These will be at right angles, and
will therefore, together with the section QP2 of the plane α, form a right-angled triangle
QP1P2 with the right angle at P1, and having the sides P1Q and P1P2 which both are given
in their true lengths. This triangle we rabatt about its base P1Q, making P1R = P1P2. The
line QR will then give the true length of the line QP in space. If now the plane α be
turned about α′ the point P will describe a circle about Q as centre with radius QP = QR,
in a plane perpendicular to the trace α′. Hence when the plane α has been rabatted into
the horizontal plane the point P will lie in the perpendicular P1Q to α′, so that QP = QR.

If A1 is the plan of a point A in the plane α, and if A1 lies in QP1, then the point A will lie
vertically above A1 in the line QP. On turning down the triangle QP1P2, the point A will
come to A0, the line A1A0 being perpendicular to QP1. Hence A will be a point in QP
such that QA = QA0.

If B1 is the plan of another point, but such that A1B1 is parallel to α′, then the
corresponding line AB will also be parallel to α′. Hence, if through A a line AB be drawn
parallel to α′, and B1B perpendicular to α′, then their intersection gives the point B. Thus
of any point given in plan the real position in the plane α, when rabatted, can be found
by this second method. This is the one most generally given in books on geometrical
drawing. The first method explained is, however, in most cases preferable as it gives the
draughtsman a greater variety of constructions. It requires a somewhat greater amount
of theoretical knowledge.

If instead of our knowing the plan of a figure the latter is itself given, then the process of
finding the plan is the reverse of the above and needs little explanation. We give an
example.

§ 16. It is required to draw the plan and elevation of a polygon of which the real shape
and position in a given plane α are known.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 129/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

We first rabatt the plane α (fig. 46)

as before so that P1 comes to P,
hence OP1 to OP. Let the given
polygon in α be the figure ABCDE.
We project, not the vertices, but
the sides. To project the line AB,
we produce it to cut α′ in F and OP
in G, and draw GG1 perpendicular
to α′; then G1 corresponds to G,
therefore FG1 to FG. In the same
manner we might project all the
other sides, at least those which
cut OF and OP in convenient
points. It will be best, however,
first to produce all the sides to cut
OP and α′ and then to draw all the
projecting rays through A, B, C ...
perpendicular to α′, and in the
same direction the lines G, G1, &c.
By drawing FG we get the points
A1, B1 on the projecting ray
through A and B. We then join B
to the point M where BC produced
meets the trace α′. This gives C1.
So we go on till we have found E1. Fig. 46.

The line A1 E1 must then meet AE in α′, and this gives a check. If one of the sides cuts α′
or OP beyond the drawing paper this method fails, but then we may easily find the
projection of some other line, say of a diagonal, or directly the projection of a point, by
the former methods. The diagonals may also serve to check the drawing, for two
corresponding diagonals must meet in the trace α′.

Having got the plan we easily find the elevation. The elevation of G is above G1 in α″, and
that of F is at F2 in the axis. This gives the elevation F2G2 of FG and in it we get A2B2 in
the verticals through A1 and B1. As a check we have OG = OG2. Similarly the elevation of
the other sides and vertices are found.

§ 17. We proceed to give some applications of the above principles to the representation
of solids and of the solution of problems connected with them.

Of a pyramid are given its base, the length of the perpendicular from the vertex to the
base, and the point where this perpendicular cuts the base; it is required first to
develop the whole surface of the pyramid into one plane, and second to determine its
section by a plane which cuts the plane of the base in a given line and makes a given
angle with it.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 130/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

1. As the planes of projection are not given we can take them as we like, and we select
them in such a manner that the solution becomes as simple as possible. We take the
plane of the base as the horizontal plane and the vertical plane perpendicular to the
plane of the section. Let then (fig. 47) ABCD be the base of the pyramid, V1 the plan of
the vertex, then the elevations of A, B, C, D will be in the axis at A2, B2, C2, D2, and the
vertex at some point V2 above V1 at a known distance from the axis. The lines V1A, V1B,
&c., will be the plans and the lines V2A2, V2B2, &c., the elevations of the edges of the
pyramid, of which thus plan and elevation are known.

We develop the surface into the plane of the base by turning each lateral face about its
lower edge into the horizontal plane by the method used in § 14. If one face has been
turned down, say ABV to ABP, then the point Q to which the vertex of the next face BCV
comes can be got more simply by finding on the line V1Q perpendicular to BC the point
Q such that BQ = BP, for these lines represent the same edge BV of the pyramid. Next R
is found by making CR = CQ, and so on till we have got the last vertex—in this case S.
The fact that AS must equal AP gives a convenient check.

2. The plane α whose section we have to determine has its horizontal trace given
perpendicular to the axis, and its vertical trace makes the given angle with the axis. This
determines it. To find the section of the pyramid by this plane there are two methods
applicable: we find the sections of the plane either with the faces or with the edges of the
pyramid. We use the latter.

As the plane α is perpendicular to the vertical plane, the trace α″ contains the projection
of every figure in it; the points E2, F2, G2, H2 where this trace cuts the elevations of the
edges will therefore be the elevations of the points where the edges cut α. From these we
find the plans E1, F1, G1, H1, and by joining them the plan of the section. If from E1, F1
lines be drawn perpendicular to AB, these will determine the points E, F on the
developed face in which the plane α cuts it; hence also the line EF. Similarly on the other
faces. Of course BF must be the same length on BP and on BQ. If the plane α be rabatted
to the plan, we get the real shape of the section as shown in the figure in EFGH. This is
done easily by making F0F = OF2, &c. If the figure representing the development of the
pyramid, or better a copy of it, is cut out, and if the lateral faces be bent along the lines
AB, BC, &c., we get a model of the pyramid with the section marked on its faces. This
may be placed on its plan ABCD and the plane of elevation bent about the axis x. The
pyramid stands then in front of its elevations. If next the plane α with a hole cut out
representing the true section be bent along the trace α′ till its edge coincides with α″, the
edges of the hole ought to coincide with the lines EF, FG, &c., on the faces.

§ 18. Polyhedra like the pyramid in § 17 are represented by the projections of their edges
and vertices. But solids bounded by curved surfaces, or surfaces themselves, cannot be
thus represented.

For a surface we may use, as in case of the plane, its traces—that is, the curves in which
it cuts the planes of projection. We may also project points and curves on the surface. A
ray cuts the surface generally in more than one point; hence it will happen that some of

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 131/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

the rays touch the surface, if two of these points coincide. The points of contact of these
rays will form some curve on the surface, and this will appear from the centre of
projection as the boundary of the surface or of part of the surface. The outlines of all
surfaces of solids which we see about us are formed by the points at which rays through
our eye touch the surface. The projections of these contours are therefore best adapted
to give an idea of the shape of a surface.

Fig. 47.

Thus the tangents drawn from any finite centre to a sphere form a right circular cone,
and this will be cut by any plane in a conic. It is often called the projection of a sphere,
but it is better called the contour-line of the sphere, as it is the boundary of the
projections of all points on the sphere.

If the centre is at infinity the tangent cone becomes a right circular cylinder touching the
sphere along a great circle, and if the projection is, as in our case, orthographic, then the
section of this cone by a plane of projection will be a circle equal to the great circle of the
sphere. We get such a circle in the plan and another in the elevation, their centres being
plan and elevation of the centre of the sphere.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 132/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Similarly the rays touching a cone of the second order will lie in two planes which pass
through the vertex of the cone, the contour-line of the projection of the cone consists
therefore of two lines meeting in the projection of the vertex. These may, however, be
invisible if no real tangent rays can be drawn from the centre of projection; and this
happens when the ray projecting the centre of the vertex lies within the cone. In this case
the traces of the cone are of importance. Thus in representing a cone of revolution with a
vertical axis we get in the plan a circular trace of the surface whose centre is the plan of
the vertex of the cone, and in the elevation the contour, consisting of a pair of lines
intersecting in the elevation of the vertex of the cone. The circle in the plan and the pair
of lines in the elevation do not determine the surface, for an infinite number of surfaces
might be conceived which pass through the circular trace and touch two planes through
the contour lines in the vertical plane. The surface becomes only completely defined if
we write down to the figure that it shall represent a cone. The same holds for all
surfaces. Even a plane is fully represented by its traces only under the silent
understanding that the traces are those of a plane.

§ 19. Some of the simpler problems connected with the representation of surfaces are the
determination of plane sections and of the curves of intersection of two such surfaces.
The former is constantly used in nearly all problems concerning surfaces. Its solution
depends of course on the nature of the surface.

To determine the curve of intersection of two surfaces, we take a plane and determine its
section with each of the two surfaces, rabatting this plane if necessary. This gives two
curves which lie in the same plane and whose intersections will give us points on both
surfaces. It must here be remembered that two curves in space do not necessarily
intersect, hence that the points in which their projections intersect are not necessarily
the projections of points common to the two curves. This will, however, be the case if the
two curves lie in a common plane. By taking then a number of plane sections of the
surfaces we can get as many points on their curve of intersection as we like. These planes
have, of course, to be selected in such a way that the sections are curves as simple as the
case permits of, and such that they can be easily and accurately drawn. Thus when
possible the sections should be straight lines or circles. This not only saves time in
drawing but determines all points on the sections, and therefore also the points where
the two curves meet, with equal accuracy.

§ 20. We give a few examples how these sections have to be selected. A cone is cut by
every plane through the vertex in lines, and if it is a cone of revolution by planes
perpendicular to the axis in circles.

A cylinder is cut by every plane parallel to the axis in lines, and if it is a cylinder of
revolution by planes perpendicular to the axis in circles.

A sphere is cut by every plane in a circle.

Hence in case of two cones situated anywhere in space we take sections through both
vertices. These will cut both cones in lines. Similarly in case of two cylinders we may
take sections parallel to the axis of both. In case of a sphere and a cone of revolution
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 133/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

with vertical axis, horizontal sections will cut both surfaces in circles whose plans are
circles and whose elevations are lines, whilst vertical sections through the vertex of the
cone cut the latter in lines and the sphere in circles. To avoid drawing the projections of
these circles, which would in general be ellipses, we rabatt the plane and then draw the
circles in their real shape. And so on in other cases.

Special attention should in all cases be paid to those points in which the tangents to the
projection of the curve of intersection are parallel or perpendicular to the axis x, or
where these projections touch the contour of one of the surfaces. (O. H.)

IV. Analytical Geometry

1. In the name geometry there is a lasting record that the science had its origin in the
knowledge that two distances may be compared by measurement, and in the idea that
measurement must be effectual in the dissociation of different directions as well as in
the comparison of distances in the same direction. The distance from an observer’s eye
of an object seen would be specified as soon as it was ascertained that a rod, straight to
the eye and of length taken as known, could be given the direction of the line of vision,
and had to be moved along it a certain number of times through lengths equal to its own
in order to reach the object from the eye. Moreover, if a field had for two of its
boundaries lines straight to the eye, one running from south to north and the other from
west to east, the position of a point in the field would be specified if the rod, when
directed west, had to be shifted from the point one observed number of times westward
to meet the former boundary, and also, when directed south, had to be shifted another
observed number of times southward to meet the latter. Comparison by measurement,
the beginning of geometry, involved counting, the basis of arithmetic; and the science of
number was marked out from the first as of geometrical importance.

But the arithmetic of the ancients was inadequate as a science of number. Though a
length might be recognized as known when measurement certified that it was so many
times a standard length, it was not every length which could be thus specified in terms of
the same standard length, even by an arithmetic enriched with the notion of fractional
number. The idea of possible incommensurability of lengths was introduced into Europe
by Pythagoras; and the corresponding idea of irrationality of number was absent from a
crude arithmetic, while there were great practical difficulties in the way of its
introduction. Hence perhaps it arose that, till comparatively modern times, appeal to
arithmetical aid in geometrical reasoning was in all possible ways restrained. Geometry
figured rather as the helper of the more difficult science of arithmetic.

2. It was reserved for algebra to remove the disabilities of arithmetic, and to restore the
earliest ideas of the land-measurer to the position of controlling ideas in geometrical
investigation. This unified science of pure number made comparatively little headway in
the hands of the ancients, but began to receive due attention shortly after the revival of
learning. It expresses whole classes of arithmetical facts in single statements, gives to
arithmetical laws the form of equations involving symbols which may mean any known
or sought numbers, and provides processes which enable us to analyse the information
given by an equation and derive from that equation other equations, which express laws
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 134/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

that are in effect consequences or causes of a law started from, but differ greatly from it
in form. Above all, for present purposes, it deals not only with integral and fractional
number, but with number regarded as capable of continuous growth, just as distance is
capable of continuous growth. The difficulty of the arithmetical expression of irrational
number, a difficulty considered by the modern school of analysts to have been at length
surmounted (see Function), is not vital to it. It can call the ratio of the diagonal of a
square to a side, for instance, or that of the circumference of a circle to a diameter, a
number, and let a or x denote that number, just as properly as it may allow either letter
to denote any rational number which may be greater or less than the ratio in question by
a difference less than any minute one we choose to assign.

Counting only, and not the counting of objects, is of the essence of arithmetic, and of
algebra. But it is lawful to count objects, and in particular to count equal lengths by
measure. The widened idea is that even when a or x is an irrational number we may
speak of a or x unit lengths by measure. We may give concrete interpretation to an
algebraical equation by allowing its terms all to mean numbers of times the same unit
length, or the same unit area, or &c. and in any equation lawfully derived from the first
by algebraical processes we may do the same. Descartes in his Géométrie (1637) was the
first to systematize the application of this principle to the inherent first notions of
geometry; and the methods which he instituted have become the most potent methods
of all in geometrical research. It is hardly too much to say that, when known facts as to a
geometrical figure have once been expressed in algebraical terms, all strictly
consequential facts as to the figure can be deduced by almost mechanical processes.
Some may well be unexpected consequences; and in obtaining those of which there has
been suggestion beforehand the often bewildering labour of constant attention to the
figure is obviated. These are the methods of what is now called analytical, or sometimes
algebraical, geometry.

3. The modern use of the term “analytical” in geometry has obscured, but not made
obsolete, an earlier use, one as old as Plato. There is nothing algebraical in this analysis,
as distinguished from synthesis, of the Greeks, and of the expositors of pure geometry. It
has reference to an order of ideas in demonstration, or, more frequently, in discovering
means to effect the geometrical construction of a figure with an assigned special
property. We have to suppose hypothetically that the construction has been performed,
drawing a rough figure which exhibits it as nearly as is practicable. We then analyse or
critically examine the figure, treated as correct, and ascertain other properties which it
can only possess in association with the one in question. Presently one of these
properties will often be found which is of such a character that the construction of a
figure possessing it is simple. The means of effecting synthetically a construction such as
was desired is thus brought to light by what Plato called analysis. Or again, being asked
to prove a theorem A, we ascertain that it must be true if another theorem B is, that B
must be if C is, and so on, thus eventually finding that the theorem A is the consequence,
through a chain of intermediaries, of a theorem Z of which the establishment is easy.
This geometrical analysis is not the subject of the present article; but in the reasoning

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 135/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

from form to form of an equation or system of equations, with the object of basing the
algebraical proof of a geometrical fact on other facts of a more obvious character, the
same logic is utilized, and the name “analytical geometry” is thus in part explained.

4. In algebra real positive number was alone at first dealt with, and in geometry actual
signless distance. But in algebra it became of importance to say that every equation of
the first degree has a root, and the notion of negative number was introduced. The
negative unit had to be defined as what can be added to the positive unit and produce
the sum zero. The corresponding notion was readily at hand in geometry, where it was
clear that a unit distance can be measured to the left or down from the farther end of a
unit distance already measured to the right or up from a point O, with the result of
reaching O again. Thus, to give full interpretation in geometry to the algebraically
negative, it was only necessary to associate distinctness of sign with oppositeness of
direction. Later it was discovered that algebraical reasoning would be much facilitated,
and that conclusions as to the real would retain all their soundness, if a pair of
imaginary units ±√−1 of what might be called number were allowed to be contemplated,
the pair being defined, though not separately, by the two properties of having the real
sum 0 and the real product 1. Only in these two real combinations do they enter in
conclusions as to the real. An advantage gained was that every quadratic equation, and
not some quadratics only, could be spoken of as having two roots. These admissions of
new units into algebra were final, as it admitted of proof that all equations of degrees
higher than two have the full numbers of roots possible for their respective degrees in
any case, and that every root has a value included in the form a + b √−1, with a, b, real.
The corresponding enrichment could be given to geometry, with corresponding
advantages and the same absence of danger, and this was done. On a line of
measurement of distance we contemplate as existing, not only an infinite continuum of
points at real distances from an origin of measurement O, but a doubly infinite
continuum of points, all but the singly infinite continuum of real ones imaginary, and
imaginary in conjugate pairs, a conjugate pair being at imaginary distances from O,
which have a real arithmetic and a real geometric mean. To geometry enriched with this
conception all algebra has its application.

5. Actual geometry is one, two or three-dimensional, i.e. lineal, plane or solid. In one-
dimensional geometry positions and measurements in a single line only are admitted.
Now descriptive constructions for points in a line are impossible without going out of
the line. It has therefore been held that there is a sense in which no science of geometry
strictly confined to one dimension exists. But an algebra of one variable can be applied
to the study of distances along a line measured from a chosen point on it, so that the
idea of construction as distinct from measurement is not essential to a one-dimensional
geometry aided by algebra. In geometry of two dimensions, the flat of the land-
measurer, the passage from one point O to any other point, can be effected by two
successive marches, one east or west and one north or south, and, as will be seen, an
algebra of two variables suffices for geometrical exploitation. In geometry of three
dimensions, that of space, any point can be reached from a chosen one by three
marches, one east or west, one north or south, and one up or down; and we shall see that
an algebra of three variables is all that is necessary. With three dimensions actual
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 136/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

geometry stops; but algebra can supply any number of variables. Four or more variables
have been used in ways analogous to those in which one, two and three variables are
used for the purposes of one, two and three-dimensional geometry, and the results have
been expressed in quasi-geometrical language on the supposition that a higher space can
be conceived of, though not realized, in which four independent directions exist, such
that no succession of marches along three of them can effect the same displacement of a
point as a march along the fourth; and similarly for higher numbers than four. Thus
analytical, though not actual, geometries exist for four and more dimensions. They are
in fact algebras furnished with nomenclature of a geometrical cast, suggested by
convenient forms of expression which actual geometry has, in return for benefits
received, conferred on algebras of one, two and three variables.

We will confine ourselves to the dimensions of actual geometry, and will devote no space
to the one-dimensional, except incidentally as existing within the two-dimensional. The
analytical method will now be explained for the cases of two and three dimensions in
succession. The form of it originated by Descartes, and thence known as Cartesian, will
alone be considered in much detail.

I. Plane Analytical Geometry.

Fig. 48. Fig. 49.

6. Coordinates.—It is assumed that the points, lines and figures considered lie in one
and the same plane, which plane therefore need not be in any way referred to. In the
plane a point O, and two lines x′Ox, y ′Oy, intersecting in O, are taken once for all, and
regarded as fixed. O is called the origin, and x′Ox, y ′Oy the axes of x and y respectively.
Other positions in the plane are specified in relation to this fixed origin and these fixed
axes. From any point P we suppose PM drawn parallel to the axis of y to meet the axis of
x in M, and may also suppose PN drawn parallel to the axis of x to meet the axis of y in
N, so that OMPN is a parallelogram. The position of P is determined when we know OM
(= NP) and MP (= ON). If OM is x times the unit of a scale of measurement chosen at
pleasure, and MP is y times the unit, so that x and y have numerical values, we call x and
y the (Cartesian) coordinates of P. To distinguish them we often speak of y as the
ordinate, and of x as the abscissa.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 137/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

It is necessary to attend to signs; x has one sign or the other according as the point P is
on one side or the other of the axis of y, and y one sign or the other according as P is on
one side or the other of the axis of x. Using the letters N, E, S, W, as in a map, and
considering the plane as divided into four quadrants by the axes, the signs are usually
taken to be:

x y For quadrant
+ + N E
+ − S E
− + N W
− − S W
A point is referred to as the point (a, b), when its coordinates are x = a, y = b. A point
may be fixed, or it may be variable, i.e. be regarded for the time being as free to move in
the plane. The coordinates (x, y) of a variable point are algebraic variables, and are said
to be “current coordinates.”

The axes of x and y are usually (as in fig. 48) taken at right angles to one another, and
we then speak of them as rectangular axes, and of x and y as “rectangular coordinates”
of a point P; OMPN is then a rectangle. Sometimes, however, it is convenient to use axes
which are oblique to one another, so that (as in fig. 49) the angle xOy between their
positive directions is some known angle ω distinct from a right angle, and OMPN is
always an oblique parallelogram with given angles; and we then speak of x and y as
“oblique coordinates.” The coordinates are as a rule taken to be rectangular in what
follows.

7. Equations and loci. If (x, y) is the point P, and if we are given that x = 0, we are told
that, in fig. 48 or fig. 49, the point M lies at O, whatever value y may have, i.e. we are
told the one fact that P lies on the axis of y. Conversely, if P lies anywhere on the axis of
y, we have always OM = 0, i.e. x = 0. Thus the equation x = 0 is one satisfied by the
coordinates (x, y) of every point in the axis of y, and not by those of any other point. We
say that x = 0 is the equation of the axis of y, and that the axis of y is the locus
represented by the equation x = 0. Similarly y = 0 is the equation of the axis of x. An
equation x = a, where a is a constant, expresses that P lies on a parallel to the axis of y
through a point M on the axis of x such that OM = a. Every line parallel to the axis of y
has an equation of this form. Similarly, every line parallel to the axis of x has an
equation of the form y = b, where b is some definite constant.

These are simple cases of the fact that a single equation in the current coordinates of a
variable point (x, y) imposes one limitation on the freedom of that point to vary. The
coordinates of a point taken at random in the plane will, as a rule, not satisfy the
equation, but infinitely many points, and in most cases infinitely many real ones, have
coordinates which do satisfy it, and these points are exactly those which lie upon some
locus of one dimension, a straight line or more frequently a curve, which is said to be
represented by the equation. Take, for instance, the equation y = mx, where m is a given
constant. It is satisfied by the coordinates of every point P, which is such that, in fig. 48,
the distance MP, with its proper sign, is m times the distance OM, with its proper sign,
i.e. by the coordinates of every point in the straight line through O which we arrive at by
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 138/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

making a line, originally coincident with x′Ox, revolve about O in the direction opposite
to that of the hands of a watch through an angle of which m is the tangent, and by those
of no other points. That line is the locus which it represents. Take, more generally, the
equation y = φ(x), where φ(x) is any given non-ambiguous function of x. Choosing any
point M on x′Ox in fig. 1, and giving to x the value of the numerical measure of OM, the
equation determines a single corresponding y, and so determines a single point P on the
line through M parallel to y ′Oy. This is one point whose coordinates satisfy the
equation. Now let M move from the extreme left to the extreme right of the line x′Ox,
regarded as extended both ways as far as we like, i.e. let x take all real values from −∞ to
∞. With every value goes a point P, as above, on the parallel to y ′Oy through the
corresponding M; and we thus find that there is a path from the extreme left to the
extreme right of the figure, all points P along which are distinguished from other points
by the exceptional property of satisfying the equation by their coordinates. This path is a
locus; and the equation y = φ(x) represents it. More generally still, take an equation ƒ(x,
y) = 0 which involves both x and y under a functional form. Any particular value given
to x in it produces from it an equation for the determination of a value or values of y,
which go with that value of x in specifying a point or points (x, y), of which the
coordinates satisfy the equation ƒ(x, y) = 0. Here again, as x takes all values, the point or
points describe a path or paths, which constitute a locus represented by the equation.
Except when y enters to the first degree only in ƒ(x, y), it is not to be expected that all
the values of y, determined as going with a chosen value of x, will be necessarily real;
indeed it is not uncommon for all to be imaginary for some ranges of values of x. The
locus may largely consist of continua of imaginary points; but the real parts of it
constitute a real curve or real curves. Note that we have to allow x to admit of all
imaginary, as well as of all real, values, in order to obtain all imaginary parts of the
locus.

A locus or curve may be algebraically specified in another way; viz. we may be given two
equations x = ƒ(θ), y = F(θ), which express the coordinates of any point of it as two
functions of the same variable parameter θ to which all values are open. As θ takes all
values in turn, the point (x, y) traverses the curve.

It is a good exercise to trace a number of curves, taken as defined by the equations which
represent them. This, in simple cases, can be done approximately by plotting the values
of y given by the equation of a curve as going with a considerable number of values of x,
and connecting the various points (x, y) thus obtained. But methods exist for
diminishing the labour of this tentative process.

Another problem, which will be more attended to here, is that of determining the
equations of curves of known interest, taken as defined by geometrical properties. It is
not a matter for surprise that the curves which have been most and longest studied
geometrically are among those represented by equations of the simplest character.

8. The Straight Line.—This is the simplest type of locus. Also the simplest type of
equation in x and y is Ax + By + C = 0, one of the first degree. Here the coefficients A, B,
C are constants. They are, like the current coordinates, x, y, numerical. But, in giving

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 139/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

interpretation to such an equation, we must

of course refer to numbers Ax, By, C of unit
magnitudes of the same kind, of units of
counting for instance, or unit lengths or unit
squares. It will now be seen that every
straight line has an equation of the first
degree, and that every equation of the first
degree represents a straight line.

It has been seen (§ 7) that lines parallel to the

axes have equations of the first degree, free
from one of the variables. Take now a straight
line ABC inclined to both axes. Let it make a Fig. 50.
given angle α with the positive direction of the
axis of x, i.e. in fig. 50 let this be the angle through which Ax must be revolved counter-
clockwise about A in order to be made coincident with the line. Let C, of coordinates (h,
k), be a fixed point on the line, and P(x, y) any other point upon it. Draw the ordinates
CD, PM of C and P, and let the parallel to the axis of x through C meet PM, produced if
necessary, in R. The right-angled triangle CRP tells us that, with the signs appropriate to
their directions attached to CR and RP,

RP = CR tan α, i.e. MP − DC = (OM − OD) tan α,

and this gives that

y − k = tan α (x − h),
an equation of the first degree satisfied by x and y. No point not on the line satisfies the
same equation; for the line from C to any point off the line would make with CR some
angle β different from α, and the point in question would satisfy an equation y − k = tan
β(x − h), which is inconsistent with the above equation.

The equation of the line may also be written y = mx + b, where m = tan α, and b = k − h
tan α. Here b is the value obtained for y from the equation when 0 is put for x, i.e. it is
the numerical measure, with proper sign, of OB, the intercept made by the line on the
axis of y, measured from the origin. For different straight lines, m and b may have any
constant values we like.

Now the general equation of the first degree Ax + By + C = 0 may be written y = −(A/B)x
− C/B, unless B = 0, in which case it represents a line parallel to the axis of y; and −A/B,
−C/B are values which can be given to m and b, so that every equation of the first degree
represents a straight line. It is important to notice that the general equation, which in
appearance contains three constants A, B, C, in effect depends on two only, the ratios of
two of them to the third. In virtue of this last remark, we see that two distinct conditions
suffice to determine a straight line. For instance, it is easy from the above to see that

x y
+ =1
a b

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 140/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

is the equation of a straight line determined by the two conditions that it makes
intercepts OA, OB on the two axes, of which a and b are the numerical measures with
proper signs: note that in fig. 50 a is negative. Again,

y2 − y1
y − y1 = (x − x1),
x2 − x1

i.e.

(y1 − y2) x − (x1 − x2) y + x1y2 − x2y1 = 0,

represents the line determined by the data that it passes through two given points (x1,
y1) and (x2, y2). To prove this find m in the equation y − y1 = m(x − x1) of a line through
(x1, y1), from the condition that (x2, y2) lies on the line.

In this paragraph the coordinates have been assumed rectangular. Had they been
oblique, the doctrine of similar triangles would have given the same results, except that
in the forms of equation y − k = m(x − h), y = mx + b, we should not have had m = tan α.

9. The Circle.—It is easy to write down the equation of a given circle. Let (h, k) be its
given centre C, and ρ the numerical measure of its given radius. Take P (x, y) any point
on its circumference, and construct the triangle CRP, in fig. 50 as above. The fact that
this is right-angled tells us that

CR2 + RP2 = CP2,

and this at once gives the equation

(x − h)2 + (y − k)2 = ρ2.

A point not upon the circumference of the particular circle is at some distance from (h,
k) different from ρ, and satisfies an equation inconsistent with this one; which
accordingly represents the circumference, or, as we say, the circle.

The equation is of the form

x2 + y2 + 2Ax + 2By + C = 0.
Conversely every equation of this form represents a circle: we have only to take −A, −B,
A2 + B2 − C for h, k, ρ2 respectively, to obtain its centre and radius. But this statement
must appear too unrestricted. Ought we not to require A2 + B2 − C to be positive?
Certainly, if by circle we are only to mean the visible round circumference of the
geometrical definition. Yet, analytically, we contemplate altogether imaginary circles, for
which ρ2 is negative, and circles, for which ρ = 0, with all their reality condensed into
their centres. Even when ρ2 is positive, so that a visible round circumference exists, we
do not regard this as constituting the whole of the circle. Giving to x any value whatever
in (x − h)2 + (y − k)2 = ρ2, we obtain two values of y, real, coincident or imaginary, each
of which goes with the abscissa x as the ordinate of a point, real or imaginary, on what is
represented by the equation of the circle.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 141/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

The doctrine of the imaginary on a circle, and in geometry generally, is of purely

algebraical inception; but it has been in its entirety accepted by modern pure geometers,
and signal success has attended the efforts of those who, like K. G. C. von Staudt, have
striven to base its conclusions on principles not at all algebraical in form, though of
course cognate to those adopted in introducing the imaginary into algebra.

A circle with its centre at the origin has an equation x2 + y2 = ρ2.

In oblique coordinates the general equation of a circle is x2 + 2xy cos ω + y2 + 2Ax +

2By + C = 0.

10. The conic sections are the next simplest loci; and it will be seen later that they are the
loci represented by equations of the second degree. Circles are particular cases of conic
sections; and they have just been seen to have for their equations a particular class of
equations of the second degree. Another particular class of such equations is that
included in the form (Ax + By + C)(A′x + B′y + C′) = 0, which represents two straight
lines, because the product on the left vanishes if, and only if, one of the two factors does,
i.e. if, and only if, (x, y) lies on one or other of two straight lines. The condition that ax2
+ 2hxy + by2 + 2gx + 2fy + c = 0, which is often written (a, b, c, f, g, h)(x, y, I)2 = 0,
takes this form is abc + 2fgh − af2 − bg2 − ch2 = 0. Note that the two lines may, in
particular cases, be parallel or coincident.

Any equation like F1(x, y) F2(x, y) ... Fn(x, y) = 0, of which the left-hand side breaks up
into factors, represents all the loci separately represented by F1(x, y) = 0, F2(x, y) = 0, ...
Fn(x, y) = 0. In particular an equation of degree n which is free from x represents n
straight lines parallel to the axis of x, and one of degree n which is homogeneous in x
and y, i.e. one which upon division by xn, becomes an equation in the ratio y/x,
represents n straight lines through the origin.

Curves represented by equations of the third degree are called cubic curves. The general
equation of this degree will be written (*)(x, y, I)3 = 0.

11. Descriptive Geometry.—A geometrical

proposition is either descriptive or
metrical: in the former case the
statement of it is independent of the idea
of magnitude (length, inclination, &c.),
and in the latter it has reference to this
idea. The method of coordinates seems to
be by its inception essentially metrical.
Yet in dealing by this method with
descriptive propositions we are eminently
free from metrical considerations,
because of our power to use general

Fig. 51.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 142/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

equations, and to avoid all assumption that measurements implied are any particular
measurements.

12. It is worth while to illustrate this by the instance of the well-known theorem of the
radical centre of three circles. The theorem is that, given any three circles A, B, C (fig.
51), the common chords αα′, ββ′, γγ′ of the three pairs of circles meet in a point.

The geometrical proof is metrical throughout:—

Take O the point of intersection of αα′, ββ′, and joining this with γ′, suppose that γ′O
does not pass through γ, but that it meets the circles A, B in two distinct points γ2, γ1
respectively. We have then the known metrical property of intersecting chords of a
circle; viz. in circle C, where αα′, ββ′, are chords meeting at a point O,

Oα·Oα′ = Oβ·Oβ′,
where, as well as in what immediately follows, Oα, &c. denote, of course, lengths or
distances.

Similarly in circle A,

Oβ·Oβ′ = Oγ2·Oγ′,
and in circle B,

Oα·Oα′ = Oγ1·Oγ′.
Consequently Oγ1·Oγ′ = Oγ2·Oγ′, that is, Oγ1 = Oγ2, or the points γ1 and γ2 coincide; that
is, they each coincide with γ.

We contrast this with the analytical method:—

Here it only requires to be known that an equation Ax + By + C = 0 represents a line,

and an equation x2 + y2 + Ax + By + C = 0 represents a circle. A, B, C have, in the two
cases respectively, metrical significations; but these we are not concerned with. Using S
to denote the function x2 + y2 + Ax + By + C, the equation of a circle is S = o. Let the
equation of any other circle be S′, = x2 + y2 + A′x + B′y + C′ = 0; the equation S-S′ = 0 is
a linear equation (S − S′ is in fact = (A − A′)x + (B − B′)y + C-C), and it thus represents a
line; this equation is satisfied by the coordinates of each of the points of intersection of
the two circles (for at each of these points S = 0 and S′ = 0, therefore also S − S′ = 0);
hence the equation S − S′ = 0 is that of the line joining the two points of intersection of
the two circles, or say it is the equation of the common chord of the two circles.
Considering then a third circle S″, = x2 + y2 + A″x + B″y + C″ = 0, the equations of the
common chords are S − S′ = 0, S − S″ = 0, S′ − S″ = 0 (each of these a linear equation);
at the intersection of the first and second of these lines S = S′ and S = S″, therefore also
S′ = S″, or the equation of the third line is satisfied by the coordinates of the point in
question; that is, the three chords intersect in a point O, the coordinates of which are
determined by the equations S = S′ = S″.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 143/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

It further appears that if the two circles S = 0, S′ = 0 do not intersect in any real points,
they must be regarded as intersecting in two imaginary points, such that the line joining
them is the real line represented by the equation S − S′ = 0; or that two circles, whether
their intersections be real or imaginary, have always a real common chord (or radical
axis), and that for any three circles the common chords intersect in a point (of course
real) which is the radical centre. And by this very theorem, given two circles with
imaginary intersections, we can, by drawing circles which meet each of them in real
points, construct the radical axis of the first-mentioned two circles.

13. The principle employed in showing that the equation of the common chord of two
circles is S − S′ = 0 is one of very extensive application, and some more illustrations of it
may be given.

Suppose S = 0, S′ = 0 are lines (that is, let S, S′ now denote linear functions Ax + By + C,
A′x + B′y + C′), then S − kS′ = 0 (k an arbitrary constant) is the equation of any line
passing through the point of intersection of the two given lines. Such a line may be made
to pass through any given point, say the point (x0, y0); if S0, S′0 are what S, S′
respectively become on writing for (x, y) the values (x0, y0), then the value of k is k = S0
÷ S′0. The equation in fact is SS′0 − S0S′ = 0; and starting from this equation we at once
verify it a posteriori; the equation is a linear equation satisfied by the values of (x, y)
which make S = 0, S′ = 0; and satisfied also by the values (x0, y0); and it is thus the
equation of the line in question.

If, as before, S = 0, S′ = 0 represent circles, then (k being arbitrary) S − kS′ = 0 is the

equation of any circle passing through the two points of intersection of the two circles;
and to make this pass through a given point (x0, y0) we have again k = S0 ÷ S′0. In the
particular case k = 1, the circle becomes the common chord (more accurately it becomes
the common chord together with the line infinity; see § 23 below).

If S denote the general quadric function,

S = ax2 + 2hxy + by2 + 2fy + 2gx + c,

then the equation S = 0 represents a conic; assuming this, then, if S′ = 0 represents
another conic, the equation S − kS′ = 0 represents any conic through the four points of
intersection of the two conics.

14. The object still being to illustrate the

mode of working with coordinates for
descriptive purposes, we consider the
theorem of the polar of a point in regard to a
circle. Given a circle and a point O (fig. 52),
we draw through O any two lines meeting the
circle in the points A, A′ and B, B′
respectively, and then taking Q as the Fig. 52.
intersection of the lines AB′ and A′B, the theorem is that the locus of the point Q is a
right line depending only upon O and the circle, but independent of the particular lines
OAA′ and OBB′.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 144/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Taking O as the origin, and for the axes any two lines through O at right angles to each
other, the equation of the circle will be

x2 + y2 + 2Ax + 2By + C = 0;
and if the equation of the line OAA′ is taken to be y = mx, then the points A, A′ are
found as the intersections of the straight line with the circle; or to determine x we have

x2 (1 + m2) + 2x (A + Bm) + C = 0.
If (x1, y1) are the coordinates of A, and (x2, y2) of A′, then the roots of this equation are
x1, x2, whence easily

1 1 A + Bm
+ = −2 .
x1 x2 C
And similarly, if the equation of the line OBB′ is taken to be y = m′x1 and the
coordinates of B, B′ to be (x3, y3) and (x4, y4) respectively, then

1 1 A + Bm′
+ = −2 .
x3 x4 C′
We have then by § 8

x (y1 − y4) − y (x1 − x4) + x1y4 − x4y1 = 0,

x (y2 − y3) − y (x2 − x3) + x2y3 − x3y2 = 0,

as the equations of the lines AB′ and A′B respectively. Reducing by means of the
relations y1 − mx1 = 0, y2 − mx2 = 0, y3 − m′x3 = 0, y4 − m′x4 = 0, the two equations
become

x (mx1 − m′x4) − y (x1 − x4) + (m′ − m) x1x4 = 0,

x (mx2 − m′x3) − y (x2 − x3) + (m′ − m) x2x3 = 0,

and if we divide the first of these equations by x1x4, and the second by x2x3 and then
add, we obtain

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
x {m ( + ) − m′ ( x + ) }− y { x + −( + ) } + 2m′ − 2m = 0,
x3 x4 1 x2 3 x4 x1 x2

or, what is the same thing,

1 1 1 1
(x +
x2
) (y − m′x) − ( x +
x4
) (y − mx) + 2m′ − 2m = 0,
1 3

which by what precedes is the equation of a line through the point Q. Substituting herein
for 1/x1 + 1/x2, 1/x3 + 1/x4 their foregoing values, the equation becomes

−(A + Bm) (y − m′x) + (A + Bm′) (y − mx) + C (m′ − m) = 0;

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 145/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

that is,

(m − m′) (Ax + By + C) = 0;
or finally it is Ax + By + C = 0, showing that the point Q lies in a line the position of
which is independent of the particular lines OAA′, OBB′ used in the construction. It is
proper to notice that there is no correspondence to each other of the points A, A′ and B,
B′; the grouping might as well have been A, A′ and B′, B; and it thence appears that the
line Ax + By + C = 0 just obtained is in fact the line joining the point Q with the point R
which is the intersection of AB and A′B′.

15. In § 8 it has been seen that two conditions determine the equation of a straight line,
because in Ax + By + C = 0 one of the coefficients may be divided out, leaving only two
parameters to be determined. Similarly five conditions instead of six determine an
equation of the second degree (a, b, c, f, g, h)(x, y, 1)2 = 0, and nine instead of ten
determine a cubic (*)(x, y, 1)3 = 0. It thus appears that a cubic can be made to pass
through 9 given points, and that the cubic so passing through 9 given points is
completely determined. There is, however, a remarkable exception. Considering two
given cubic curves S = 0, S′ = 0, these intersect in 9 points, and through these 9 points
we have the whole series of cubics S − kS′ = 0, where k is an arbitrary constant: k may be
determined so that the cubic shall pass through a given tenth point (k = S0 ÷ S′0, if the
coordinates are (x0, y0), and S0, S′0 denote the corresponding values of S, S′). The
resulting curve SS′0 − S′S0 = 0 may be regarded as the cubic determined by the
conditions of passing through 8 of the 9 points and through the given point (x0, y0); and
from the equation it thence appears that the curve passes through the remaining one of
the 9 points. In other words, we thus have the theorem, any cubic curve which passes
through 8 of the 9 intersections of two given cubic curves passes through the 9th
intersection.

The applications of this theorem are very numerous; for instance, we derive from it
Pascal’s theorem of the inscribed hexagon. Consider a hexagon inscribed in a conic. The
three alternate sides constitute a cubic, and the other three alternate sides another
cubic. The cubics intersect in 9 points, being the 6 vertices of the hexagon, and the 3
Pascalian points, or intersections of the pairs of opposite sides of the hexagon. Drawing
a line through two of the Pascalian points, the conic and this line constitute a cubic
passing through 8 of the 9 points of intersection, and it therefore passes through the
remaining point of intersection—that is, the third Pascalian point; and since obviously
this does not lie on the conic, it must lie on the line—that is, we have the theorem that
the three Pascalian points (or points of intersection of the pairs of opposite sides) lie on
a line.

16. Metrical Theory resumed. Projections and Perpendiculars.—It is a metrical fact of

fundamental importance, already used in § 8, that, if a finite line PQ be projected on any
other line OO′ by perpendiculars PP′, QQ′ to OO′, the length of the projection P′Q′ is
equal to that of PQ multiplied by the cosine of the acute angle between the two lines.
Also the algebraical sum of the projections of the sides of any closed polygon upon any
line is zero, because as a point goes round the polygon, from any vertex A to A again, the

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 146/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

point which is its projection on the line passes from A′ the projection of A to A′ again,
i.e. traverses equal distances along the line in positive and negative senses. If we
consider the polygon as consisting of two broken lines, each extending from the same
initial to the same terminal point, the sum of the projections of the lines which compose
the one is equal, in sign and magnitude, to the sum of the projections of the lines
composing the other. Observe that the projection on a line of a length perpendicular to
the line is zero.

Let us hence find the equation of a straight line such that the perpendicular OD on it
from the origin is of length ρ taken as positive, and is inclined to the axis of x at an angle
xOD = α, measured counter-clockwise from Ox. Take any point P(x, y) on the line, and
construct OM and MP as in fig. 48. The sum of the projections of OM and MP on OD is
OD itself; and this gives the equation of the line

x cos α + y sin α = ρ.
Observe that cos α and sin α here are the sin α and −cos α, or the −sin α and cos α of § 8
according to circumstances.

We can write down an expression for the perpendicular distance from this line of any
point (x′, y ′) which does not lie upon it. If the parallel through (x′, y ′) to the line meet
OD in E, we have x′ cos α + y ′ sin α = OE, and the perpendicular distance required is OD
− OE, i.e. ρ − x′ cos α − y ′ sin α; it is the perpendicular distance taken positively or
negatively according as (x′, y ′) lies on the same side of the line as the origin or not.

The general equation Ax + By + C = 0 may be given the form x cos α + y sin α − ρ = 0 by

dividing it by √(A2 + B3). Thus (Ax′ + By ′ + C) ÷ √(A2 + B2) is in absolute value the
perpendicular distance of (x′, y ′) from the line Ax + By + C = 0. Remember, however,
that there is an essential ambiguity of sign attached to a square root. The expression
found gives the distance taken positively when (x′, y ′) is on the origin side of the line, if
the sign of C is given to √(A2 + B2).

17. Transformation of Coordinates.—We often need to adopt new axes of reference in

place of old ones; and the above principle of projections readily expresses the old
coordinates of any point in terms of the new.

Suppose, for instance, that we want to take

for new origin the point O′ of old
coordinates OA = h, AO′ = k, and for new
axes of X and Y lines through O′ obtained by
rotating parallels to the old axes of x and y
through an angle θ counter-clockwise.
Construct (fig. 53) the old and new
coordinates of any point P. Expressing that
the projections, first on the old axis of x and
secondly on the old axis of y, of OP are equal
Fig. 53.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 147/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

to the sums of the projections, on those axes respectively, of the parts of the broken line
OO′M′P, we obtain:

x = h + X cos θ + Y cos (θ + ⁠21 ⁠π) = h + X cos θ − Y sin θ,

and

y = k + X cos (⁠21 ⁠π − θ) + Y cos θ = k + X sin θ + Y cos θ.

Be careful to observe that these formulae do not apply to every conceivable change of
reference from one set of rectangular axes to another. It might have been required to
take O′X, O′Y′ for the positive directions of the new axes, so that the change of
directions of the axes could not be effected by rotation. We must then write −Y for Y in
the above.

Were the new axes oblique, making angles α, β respectively with the old axis of x, and so
inclined at the angle β − α, the same method would give the formulae

x = h + X cos α + Y cos β, y = k + X sin α + Y sin β.

18. The Conic Sections.—The conics, as they are now called, were at first defined as
curves of intersection of planes and a cone; but Apollonius substituted a definition free
from reference to space of three dimensions. This, in effect, is that a conic is the locus of
a point the distance of which from a given point, called the focus, has a given ratio to its
distance from a given line, called the directrix (see Conic Section). If e : 1 is the ratio, e
is called the eccentricity. The distances are considered signless.

Take (h, k) for the focus, and x cos α + y sin α − p = 0 for the directrix. The absolute
values of √{(x − h)2 + (y − k)2} and p − x cos α − y sin α are to have the ratio e : 1; and
this gives

(x − h)2 + (y − k)2 = e2 (p − x cos α − y sin α)2

as the general equation, in rectangular coordinates, of a conic.

It is of the second degree, and is the general equation of that degree. If, in fact, we
multiply it by an unknown λ, we can, by solving six simultaneous equations in the six
unknowns λ, h, k, e, p, α, so choose values for these as to make the coefficients in the
equation equal to those in any equation of the second degree which may be given. There
is no failure of this statement in the special case when the given equation represents two
straight lines, as in § 10, but there is speciality: if the two lines intersect, the intersection
and either bisector of the angle between them are a focus and directrix; if they are united
in one line, any point on the line and a perpendicular to it through the point are: if they
are parallel, the case is a limiting one in which e and h2 + k2 have become infinite while
e−2(h2 + k2) remains finite. In the case (§ 9) of an equation such as represents a circle
there is another instance of proceeding to a limit: e has to become 0, while ep remains
finite: moreover α is indeterminate. The centre of a circle is its focus, and its directrix
has gone to infinity, having no special direction. This last fact illustrates the necessity,
which is also forced on plane geometry by three-dimensional considerations, of treating
all points at infinity in a plane as lying on a single straight line.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 148/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Sometimes, in reducing an equation to the above focus and directrix form, we find for h,
k, e, p, tan α, or some of them, only imaginary values, as quadratic equations have to be
solved; and we have in fact to contemplate the existence of entirely imaginary conics.
For instance, no real values of x and y satisfy x2 + 2y2 + 3 = 0. Even when the locus
represented is real, we obtain, as a rule, four sets of values of h, k, e, p, of which two sets
are imaginary; a real conic has, besides two real foci and corresponding directrices, two
others that are imaginary.

In oblique as well as rectangular coordinates equations of the second degree represent

conics.

19. The three Species of Conics.—A real conic, which does not degenerate into straight
lines, is called an ellipse, parabola or hyperbola according as e <, = , or > 1. To trace the
three forms it is best so to choose the axes of reference as to simplify their equations.

In the case of a parabola, let 2c be the distance between the given focus and directrix,
and take axes referred to which these are the point (c, 0) and the line x = − c. The
equation becomes (x − c)2 + y2 = (x + c)2, i.e. y2 = 4cx.

In the other cases, take a such that a(e ~ e−1) is the distance of focus from directrix, and
so choose axes that these are (ae, 0) and x = ae−1, thus getting the equation(x − ae)2 +
y2 = e2(x − ae−1)2, i.e. (1 − e2)x2 + y2 = a2(1 − e2). When e < 1, i.e. in the case of an
ellipse, this may be written x2/a2 + y2/b2 = 1, where b2 = a2(1 − e2); and when e > 1, i.e.
in the case of an hyperbola, x2/a2 − y2/b2 = 1, where b2 = a2(e2 − 1). The axes thus
chosen for the ellipse and hyperbola are called the principal axes.

In figs. 54, 55, 56 in order, conics of the three species, thus referred, are depicted.

Fig. 54 Fig. 55

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 149/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Fig. 56.

The oblique straight lines in fig. 56 are the asymptotes x/a = ±y/b of the hyperbola,
lines to which the curve tends with unlimited closeness as it goes to infinity. The
hyperbola would have an equation of the form xy = c if referred to its asymptotes as
axes, the coordinates being then oblique, unless a = b, in which case the hyperbola is
called rectangular. An ellipse has two imaginary asymptotes. In particular a circle x2 +
y2 = a2, a particular ellipse, has for asymptotes the imaginary lines x = ±y √−1. These
run from the centre to the so-called circular points at infinity.

20. Tangents and Curvature.—Let (x′, y ′) and (x′ + h, y ′ + k) be two neighbouring

points P, P′ on a curve. The equation of the line on which both lie is h(y − y ′) = k(x − x′).
Now keep P fixed, and let P′ move towards coincidence with it along the curve. The
connecting line will tend towards a limiting position, to which it can never attain as long
as P and P′ are distinct. The line which occupies this limiting position is the tangent at P.
Now if we subtract the equation of the curve, with (x′, y ′) for the coordinates in it, from
the like equation in (x′ + h, y ′ + k), we obtain a relation in h and k, which will, as a rule,
be of the form 0 = Ah + Bk + terms of higher degrees in h and k, where A, B and the
other coefficients involve x′ and y ′. This gives k/h = −A/B + terms which tend to vanish
as h and k do, so that −A : B is the limiting value tended to by k : h. Hence the equation
of the tangent is B(y − y ′) + A(x − x′) = 0.

The normal at (x′, y ′) is the line through it at right angles to the tangent, and its
equation is A(y − y ′) − B(x − x′) = 0.

In the case of the conic (a, b, c, f, g, h) (x, y, 1)2 = 0 we find that A/B = (ax′ + hy ′ +
g)/(hx′ + by ′ + f).

We can obtain the coordinates of Q, the intersection of the normals QP, QP′ at (x′, y ′)
and (x′ + h, y ′ + k), and then, using the limiting value of k : h, deduce those of its
limiting position as P′ moves up to P. This is the centre of curvature of the curve at P
(x′, y ′), and is so called because it is the centre of the circle of closest contact with the
curve at that point. That it is so follows from the facts that the closest circle is the limit
tended to by the circle which touches the curve at P and passes through P′, and that the
arc from P to P′ of this circle lies between the circles of centre Q and radii QP, QP′,
which circles tend, not to different limits as P′ moves up to P, but to one. The distance
from P to the centre of curvature is the radius of curvature.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 150/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

21. Differential Plane Geometry.—The language and notation of the differential calculus
are very useful in the study of tangents and curvature. Denoting by (ξ, η) the current
coordinates, we find, as above, that the tangent at a point (x, y) of a curve is η − y = (ξ −
x)dy/dx, where dy/dx is found from the equation of the curve. If this be ƒ(x, y) = 0 the
tangent is (ξ − x) (∂f/∂x) + (η − y) (∂f/∂y) = 0. If ρ and (α, β) are the radius and centre of
curvature at (x, y), we find that q(α − x) = −p(1 + p2), q(β − y) = 1 + p2, q2ρ2 = (1 + p2)3,
where p, q denote dy/dx, d2y/dx2 respectively. (See Infinitesimal Calculus.)

In any given case we can, at all events in theory, eliminate x, y between the above
equations for α − x and β − y, and the equation of the curve. The resulting equation in (α,
β) represents the locus of the centre of curvature. This is the evolute of the curve.

22. Polar Coordinates.—In plane geometry the distance of any point P from a fixed
origin (or pole) O, and the inclination xOP of OP to a fixed line Ox, determine the point:
r, the numerical measure of OP, the radius vector, and θ, the circular measure of xOP,
the inclination, are called polar coordinates of P. The formulae x = r cos θ, y = r sin θ
connect Cartesian and polar coordinates, and make transition from either system to the
other easy. In polar coordinates the equations of a circle through O, and of a conic with
O as focus, take the simple forms r = 2a cos (θ − α), r{1 − e cos (θ − α)} = l. The use of
polar coordinates is very convenient in discussing curves which have properties of
symmetry akin to that of a regular polygon, such curves for instance as r = a cos m θ,
with m integral, and also the curves called spirals, which have equations giving r as
functions of θ itself, and not merely of sin θ and cos θ. In the geometry of motion under
central forces the advantage of working with polar coordinates is great.

23. Trilinear and Areal Coordinates.—Consider a fixed triangle ABC, and regard its
sides as produced without limit. Denote, as in trigonometry, by a, b, c the positive
numbers of units of a chosen scale contained in the lengths BC, CA, AB, by A, B, C the
angles, and by Δ the area, of the triangle. We might, as in § 6, take CA, CB as axes of x
and y, inclined at an angle C. Any point P (x, y) in the plane is at perpendicular distances
y sin C and x sin C from CA and CB. Call these β and α respectively. The signs of β and α
are those of y and x, i.e. β is positive or negative according as P lies on the same side of
CA as B does or the opposite, and similarly for α. An equation in (x, y) of any degree
may, upon replacing in it x and y by α cosec C and β cosec C, be written as one of the
same degree in (α, β). Now let γ be the perpendicular distance of P from the third side
AB, taken as positive or negative as P is on the C side of AB or not. The geometry of the
figure tells us that aα + bβ + cγ = 2Δ. By means of this relation in α, β, γ we can give an
equation considered countless other forms, involving two or all of α, β, γ. In particular
we may make it homogeneous in α, β, γ: to do this we have only to multiply the terms of
every degree less than the highest present in the equation by a power of (aα + bβ +
cγ)/2Δ just sufficient to raise them, in each case, to the highest degree.

We call (α, β, γ) trilinear coordinates, and an equation in them the trilinear equation of
the locus represented. Trilinear equations are, as a rule, dealt with in their homogeneous
forms. An advantage thus gained is that we need not mean by (α, β, γ) the actual

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 151/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

measures of the perpendicular distances, but any properly signed numbers which have
the same ratio two and two as these distances.

In place of α, β, γ it is lawful to use, as coordinates specifying the position of a point in

the plane of a triangle of reference ABC, any given multiples of these. For instance, we
may use x = aα/2Δ, y = bβ/2Δ, z = cγ/2Δ, the properly signed ratios of the triangular
areas PBC, PCA, PAB to the triangular area ABC. These are called the areal coordinates
of P. In areal coordinates the relation which enables us to make any equation
homogeneous takes the simple form x + y + z = 1; and, as before, we need mean by x, y,
z, in a homogeneous equation, only signed numbers in the right ratios.

Straight lines and conics are represented in trilinear and in areal, because in Cartesian,
coordinates by equations of the first and second degrees respectively, and these degrees
are preserved when the equations are made homogeneous. What must be said about
points infinitely far off in order to make universal the statement, to which there is no
exception as long as finite distances alone are considered, that every homogeneous
equation of the first degree represents a straight line? Let the point of areal coordinates
(x′, y ′, z′) move infinitely far off, and mean by x, y, z finite quantities in the ratios which
x′, y ′, z′ tend to assume as they become infinite. The relation x′ + y ′ + z′ = 1 gives that
the limiting state of things tended to is expressed by x + y + z = 0. This particular
equation of the first degree is satisfied by no point at a finite distance; but we see the
propriety of saying that it has to be taken as satisfied by all the points conceived of as
actually at infinity. Accordingly the special property of these points is expressed by
saying that they lie on a special straight line, of which the areal equation is x + y + z = 0.
In trilinear coordinates this line at infinity has for equation aα + bβ + cγ = 0.

On the one special line at infinity parallel lines are treated as meeting. There are on it
two special (imaginary) points, the circular points at infinity of § 19, through which all
circles pass in the same sense. In fact if S = O be one circle, in areal coordinates, S + (x +
y + z)(lx + my + nz) = 0 may, by proper choice of l, m, n, be made any other; since the
added terms are once lx + my + nz, and have the generality of any expression like a′x +
b′y + c′ in Cartesian coordinates. Now these two circles intersect in the two points where
either meets x + y + z = 0 as well as in two points on the radical axis lx + my + nz = 0.

24. Let us consider the perpendicular distance of a point (α′, β′, γ′) from a line lα + mβ +
nγ. We can take rectangular axes of Cartesian coordinates (for clearness as to equalities
of angle it is best to choose an origin inside ABC), and refer to them, by putting
expressions p − x cos θ − y sin θ, &c., for α &c.; we can then apply § 16 to get the
perpendicular distance; and finally revert to the trilinear notation. The result is to find
that the required distance is

(lα′ + mβ′ + nγ′) / {l, m, n},

where {l, m, n}2 = l2 + m2 + n2 − 2mn cos A − 2nl cos B − 2lm cos C.

In areal coordinates the perpendicular distance from (x′, y ′, z′) to lx + my + nz = 0 is

2Δ(lx′ + my ′ + nz′)/{al, bm, cn}. In both cases the coordinates are of course actual
values.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 152/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Now let ξ, η, ζ be the perpendiculars on the line from the vertices A, B, C, i.e. the points
(1, 0, 0), (0, 1, 0), (0, 0, 1), with signs in accord with a convention that oppositeness of
sign implies distinction between one side of the line and the other. Three applications of
the result above give

ξ/l = 2Δ / {al, bm, cn} = η/m = ζ/n;

and we thus have the important fact that ξx′ + ηy ′ + ζz′ is the perpendicular distance
between a point of areal coordinates (x′y ′z′) and a line on which the perpendiculars
from A, B, C are ξ, η, ζ respectively. We have also that ξx + ηy + ζz = 0 is the areal
equation of the line on which the perpendiculars are ξ, η, ζ; and, by equating the two
expressions for the perpendiculars from (x′, y ′, z′) on the line, that in all cases {aξ, bη,
cζ}2 = 4Δ2.

25. Line-coordinates. Duality.—A quite different order of ideas may be followed in

applying analysis to geometry. The notion of a straight line specified may precede that of
a point, and points may be dealt with as the intersections of lines. The specification of a
line may be by means of coordinates, and that of a point by an equation, satisfied by the
coordinates of lines which pass through it. Systems of line-coordinates will here be only
briefly considered. Every such system is allied to some system of point-coordinates; and
space will be saved by giving prominence to this fact, and not recommencing ab initio.

Suppose that any particular system of point-coordinates, in which lx + my + nz = 0 may

represent any straight line, is before us: notice that not only are trilinear and areal
coordinates such systems, but Cartesian coordinates also, since we may write x/z, y/z for
the Cartesian x, y, and multiply through by z. The line is exactly assigned if l, m, n, or
their mutual ratios, are known. Call (l, m, n) the coordinates of the line. Now keep x, y, z
constant, and let the coordinates of the line vary, but always so as to satisfy the equation.
This equation, which we now write xl + ym + zn = 0, is satisfied by the coordinates of
every line through a certain fixed point, and by those of no other line; it is the equation
of that point in the line-coordinates l, m, n.

Line-coordinates are also called tangential coordinates. A curve is the envelope of lines
which touch it, as well as the locus of points which lie on it. A homogeneous equation of
degree above the first in l, m, n is a relation connecting the coordinates of every line
which touches some curve, and represents that curve, regarded as an envelope. For
instance, the condition that the line of coordinates (l, m, n), i.e. the line of which the
allied point-coordinate equation is lx + my + nz = 0, may touch a conic (a, b, c, f, g, h)
(x, y, z)2 = 0, is readily found to be of the form (A, B, C, F, G, H) (l, m, n)2 = 0, i.e. to be
of the second degree in the line-coordinates. It is not hard to show that the general
equation of the second degree in l, m, n thus represents a conic; but the degenerate
conics of line-coordinates are not line-pairs, as in point-coordinates, but point-pairs.

The degree of the point-coordinate equation of a curve is the order of the curve, the
number of points in which it cuts a straight line. That of the line-coordinate equation is
its class, the number of tangents to it from a point. The order and class of a curve are
generally different when either exceeds two.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 153/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

26. The system of line-coordinates allied to the areal system of point-coordinates has
special interest.

The l, m, n of this system are the perpendiculars ξ, η, ζ of § 24; and x′ξ + y ′η + z′ζ = 0 is
the equation of the point of areal coordinates (x′, y ′, z′), i.e. is a relation which the
perpendiculars from the vertices of the triangle of reference on every line through the
point, but no other line, satisfy. Notice that a non-homogeneous equation of the first
degree in ξ, η, ζ does not, as a homogeneous one does, represent a point, but a circle. In
fact x′ξ + y ′η + z′ζ = R expresses the constancy of the perpendicular distance of the fixed
point x′ξ + y ′η + z′ζ = 0 from the variable line (ξ, η, ζ), i.e. the fact that (ξ, η, ζ) touches a
circle with the fixed point for centre. The relation in any ξ, η, ζ which enables us to make
an equation homogeneous is not linear, as in point-coordinates, but quadratic, viz. it is
the relation {aξ, bη, cζ}2 = 4Δ2 of § 24. Accordingly the homogeneous equation of the
above circle is

4Δ2 (x′ξ + y ′η + z′ζ)2 = R2 {aξ, bη, cζ}2.

Every circle has an equation of this form in the present system of line-coordinates.
Notice that the equation of any circle is satisfied by those coordinates of lines which
satisfy both x′ξ + y ′η + z′ζ = 0, the equation of its centre, and {aξ, bη, cζ}2 = 0. This last
equation, of which the left-hand side satisfies the condition for breaking up into two
factors, represents the two imaginary circular points at infinity, through which all circles
and their asymptotes pass.

There is strict duality in descriptive geometry between point-line-locus and line-point-

envelope theorems. But in metrical geometry duality is encumbered by the fact that
there is in a plane one special line only, associated with distance, while of special points,
associated with direction, there are two: moreover the line is real, and the points both
imaginary.

II. Solid Analytical Geometry.

27. Any point in space may be specified by three coordinates. We consider three fixed
planes of reference, and generally, as in all that follows, three which are at right angles
two and two. They intersect, two and two, in lines x′Ox, y ′Oy, z′Oz, called the axes of x,
y, z respectively, and divide all space into eight parts called octants. If from any point P
in space we draw PN parallel to zOz′ to meet the plane xOy in N, and then from N draw
NM parallel to yOy ′ to meet x′Ox in M, the coordinates (x, y, z) of P are the numerical
measures of OM, MN, NP; in the case of rectangular coordinates these are the
perpendicular distances of P from the three planes of reference. The sign of each
coordinate is positive or negative as P lies on one side or the other of the corresponding
plane. In the octant delineated the signs are taken all positive.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 154/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Fig. 57. Fig. 58.

In fig. 57 the delineation is on a plane of the paper taken parallel to the plane zOx, the
points of a solid figure being projected on that plane by parallels to some chosen line
through O in the positive octant. Sometimes it is clearer to delineate, as in fig. 58, by
projection parallel to that line in the octant which is equally inclined to Ox, Oy, Oz upon
a plane of the paper perpendicular to it. It is possible by parallel projection to delineate
equal scales along Ox, Oy, Oz by scales having any ratios we like along lines in a plane
having any mutual inclinations we like.

For the delineation of a surface of

simple form it frequently suffices
to delineate the sections by the
coordinate planes; and, in
particular, when the surface has
symmetry about each coordinate
plane, to delineate the quarter-
sections belonging to a single
octant. Thus fig. 59 conveniently
represents an octant of the wave
surface, which cuts each
coordinate plane in a circle and an
ellipse. Or we may delineate a
series of contour lines, i.e. sections
by planes parallel to xOy, or some Fig. 59.
other chosen plane; of course other
sections may be indicated too for greater clearness. For the delineation of a curve a good
method is to represent, as above, a series of points P thereof, each accompanied by its
ordinate PN, which serves to refer it to the plane of xy. The employment of
stereographic projection is also interesting.

28. In plane geometry, reckoning the line as a curve of the first order, we have only the
point and the curve. In solid geometry, reckoning a line as a curve of the first order, and
the plane as a surface of the first order, we have the point, the curve and the surface; but
the increase of complexity is far greater than would hence at first sight appear. In plane
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 155/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

geometry a curve is considered in connexion with lines (its tangents); but in solid
geometry the curve is considered in connexion with lines and planes (its tangents and
osculating planes), and the surface also in connexion with lines and planes (its tangent
lines and tangent planes); there are surfaces arising out of the line—cones, skew
surfaces, developables, doubly and triply infinite systems of lines, and whole classes of
theories which have nothing analogous to them in plane geometry: it is thus a very small
part indeed of the subject which can be even referred to in the present article.

In the case of a surface we have between the coordinates (x, y, z) a single, or say a
onefold relation, which can be represented by a single relation ƒ(x, y, z) = 0; or we may
consider the coordinates expressed each of them as a given function of two variable
parameters p, q; the form z = ƒ(x, y) is a particular case of each of these modes of
representation; in other words, we have in the first mode ƒ(x, y, z) = z − ƒ(x, y), and in
the second mode x = p, y = q for the expression of two of the coordinates in terms of the
parameters.

In the case of a curve we have between the coordinates (x, y, z) a twofold relation: two
equations ƒ(x, y, z) = 0, φ(x, y, z) = 0 give such a relation; i.e. the curve is here
considered as the intersection of two surfaces (but the curve is not always the complete
intersection of two surfaces, and there are hence difficulties); or, again, the coordinates
may be given each of them as a function of a single variable parameter. The form y =
φ(x), z = ψ(x), where two of the coordinates are given in terms of the third, is a particular
case of each of these modes of representation.

29. The remarks under plane geometry as to descriptive and metrical propositions, and
as to the non-metrical character of the method of coordinates when used for the proof of
a descriptive proposition, apply also to solid geometry; and they might be illustrated in
like manner by the instance of the theorem of the radical centre of four spheres. The
proof is obtained from the consideration that S and S′ being each of them a function of
the form x2 + y2 + z2 + ax + by + cz + d, the difference S−S′ is a mere linear function of
the coordinates, and consequently that S−S′ = 0 is the equation of the plane containing
the circle of intersection of the two spheres S = 0 and S′ = 0.

30. Metrical Theory.—The foundation in solid geometry of the metrical theory is in fact
the before-mentioned theorem that if a finite right line PQ be projected upon any other
line OO′ by lines perpendicular to OO′, then the length of the projection P′Q′ is equal to
the length of PQ into the cosine of its inclination to P′Q′—or (in the form in which it is
now convenient to state the theorem) the perpendicular distance P′Q′ of two parallel
planes is equal to the inclined distance PQ into the cosine of the inclination. The
principle of § 16, that the algebraical sum of the projections of the sides of any closed
polygon on any line is zero, or that the two sets of sides of the polygon which connect a
vertex A and a vertex B have the same sum of projections on the line, in sign and
magnitude, as we pass from A to B, is applicable when the sides do not all lie in one
plane.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 156/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

31. Consider the skew quadrilateral QMNP, the sides QM,

MN, NP being respectively parallel to the three rectangular
axes Ox, Oy, Oz; let the lengths of these sides be ξ, η, ζ, and
that of the side QP be = ρ; and let the cosines of the
inclinations (or say the cosine-inclinations) of ρ to the three
axes be α, β, γ; then projecting successively on the three
sides and on QP we have

ξ, η, ζ = ρα, ρβ, ργ,

and

ρ = αξ + βη + γζ,

whence ρ2 = ξ2 + η2 + ζ2, which is the relation between a

distance ρ and its projections ξ, η, ζ upon three rectangular
axes. And from the same equations we obtain α2 + β2 + γ2 =
Fig. 60.
1, which is a relation connecting the cosine-inclinations of a
line to three rectangular axes.

Suppose we have through Q any other line QT, and let the cosine-inclinations of this to
the axes be α′, β′, γ′, and δ be its cosine-inclination to QP; also let ρ be the length of the
projection of QP upon QT; then projecting on QT we have

ρ = α′ξ + β′η + γ′ζ = ρδ.

And in the last equation substituting for ξ, η, ζ their values ρα, ρβ, ργ we find

δ = αα′ + ββ′ + γγ′,

which is an expression for the mutual cosine-inclination of two lines, the cosine-
inclinations of which to the axes are α, β, γ and α′, β′, γ′ respectively. We have of course
α2 + β2 + γ2 = 1 and α′2 + β′2 + γ′2 = 1; and hence also

1 − δ2 = (α2 + β2 + γ2)(α′2 + β′2 + γ′2) − (αα′ + ββ′ + γγ′)2,

= (βγ′ − β′γ)2 + (γα′ − γ′α)2 + (αβ′ − α′β)2;

so that the sine of the inclination can only be expressed as a square root. These formulae
are the foundation of spherical trigonometry.

32. Straight Lines, Planes and Spheres.—The foregoing formulae give at once the
equations of these loci.

For first, taking Q to be a fixed point, coordinates (a, b, c), and the cosine-inclinations
(α, β, γ) to be constant, then P will be a point in the line through Q in the direction thus
determined; or, taking (x, y, z) for its coordinates, these will be the current coordinates
of a point in the line. The values of ξ, η, ζ then are x − a, y − b, z − c, and we thus have

x−a y−b z−c

= = (= ρ),
α β γ

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 157/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

which (omitting the last equation, = ρ) are the equations of the line through the point (a,
b, c), the cosine-inclinations to the axes being α, β, γ, and these quantities being
connected by the relation α2 + β2 + γ2 = 1. This equation may be omitted, and then α, β,
γ, instead of being equal, will only be proportional, to the cosine-inclinations.

Using the last equation, and writing

x, y, z = a + αρ, b + βρ, c + γρ,

these are expressions for the current coordinates in terms of a parameter ρ, which is in
fact the distance from the fixed point (a, b, c).

It is easy to see that, if the coordinates (x, y, z) are connected by any two linear
equations, these equations can always be brought into the foregoing form, and hence
that the two linear equations represent a line.

Secondly, taking for greater simplicity the point Q to be coincident with the origin, and
α′, β′, γ′, p to be constant, then p is the perpendicular distance of a plane from the origin,
and α′, β′, γ′ are the cosine-inclinations of this distance to the axes (α′2 + β′2 + γ′2 = 1). P
is any point in this plane, and taking its coordinates to be (x, y, z) then (ξ, η, ζ) are = (x,
y, z), and the foregoing equation p = α′ξ + β′η + γ′ζ becomes

α′x + β′y + γ′z = p,

which is the equation of the plane in question.

If, more generally, Q is not coincident with the origin, then, taking its coordinates to be
(a, b, c), and writing p1 instead of p, the equation is

α′ (x − a) + β′ (y − b) + γ′ (z − c) = p1;
and we thence have p1 = p − (aα′ + bβ′ + cγ′), which is an expression for the
perpendicular distance of the point (a, b, c) from the plane in question.

It is obvious that any linear equation Ax + By + Cz + D = O between the coordinates can

always be brought into the foregoing form, and hence that such an equation represents a
plane.

Thirdly, supposing Q to be a fixed point, coordinates (a, b, c), and the distance QP = ρ, to
be constant, say this is = d, then, as before, the values of ξ, η, ζ are x − a, y − b, z − c, and
the equation ξ2 + η2 + ζ2 = ρ2 becomes

(x − a)2 + (y − b)2 + (z − c)2 = d2,

which is the equation of the sphere, coordinates of the centre = (a, b, c), and radius = d.

A quadric equation wherein the terms of the second order are x2 + y2 + z2, viz. an
equation

x2 + y2 + z2 + Ax + By + Cz + D = 0,

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 158/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

can always, it is clear, be brought into the foregoing form; and it thus appears that this is
the equation of a sphere, coordinates of the centre −⁠21 ⁠A, −⁠21 ⁠B, −⁠21 ⁠C, and squared radius =
1
4
⁠(A2 + B2 + C2) − D.

33. Cylinders, Cones, ruled Surfaces.—If the two equations of a straight line involve a
parameter to which any value may be given, we have a singly infinite system of lines.
They cover a surface, and the equation of the surface is obtained by eliminating the
parameter between the two equations.

If the lines all pass through a given point, then the surface is a cone; and, in particular, if
the lines are all parallel to a given line, then the surface is a cylinder.

Beginning with this last case, suppose the lines are parallel to the line x = mz, y = nz, the
equations of a line of the system are x = mz + a, y = nz + b,—where a, b are supposed to
be functions of the variable parameter, or, what is the same thing, there is between them
a relation ƒ(a, b) = 0: we have a = x − mz, b = y − nz, and the result of the elimination of
the parameter therefore is ƒ(x − mz, y − nz) = 0, which is thus the general equation of
the cylinder the generating lines whereof are parallel to the line x = mz, y = nz. The
equation of the section by the plane z = 0 is ƒ(x, y) = 0, and conversely if the cylinder be
determined by means of its curve of intersection with the plane z = 0, then, taking the
equation of this curve to be ƒ(x, y) = 0, the equation of the cylinder is ƒ(x − mz, y − nz) =
0. Thus, if the curve of intersection be the circle (x − α)2 + (y − β)2 = γ2, we have (x − mz
− α)2 + (y − nz − β)2 = γ2 as the equation of an oblique cylinder on this base, and thus
also (x − α)2 + (y − β)2 = γ2 as the equation of the right cylinder.

If the lines all pass through a given point (a, b, c), then the equations of a line are x − a =
α(z − c), y − b = β(z − c), where α, β are functions of the variable parameter, or, what is
the same thing, there exists between them an equation ƒ(α, β) = 0; the elimination of the
x−a y−b
parameter gives, therefore, ƒ(⁠z − c ⁠, ⁠z − c )
⁠ = 0; and this equation, or, what is the same
thing, any homogeneous equation ƒ(x − a, y − b, z − c) = 0, or, taking ƒ to be a rational
and integral function of the order n, say (*) (x − a, y − b, z − c)n = 0, is the general
equation of the cone having the point (a, b, c) for its vertex. Taking the vertex to be at
the origin, the equation is (*) (x, y, z)n = 0; and, in particular, (*) (x, y, z)2 = 0 is the
equation of a cone of the second order, or quadricone, having the origin for its vertex.

34. In the general case of a singly infinite system of lines, the locus is a ruled surface (or
regulus). Now, when a line is changing its position in space, it may be looked upon as in
a state of turning about some point in itself, while that point is, as a rule, in a state of
moving out of the plane in which the turning takes place. If instantaneously it is only in
a state of turning, it is usual, though not strictly accurate, to say that it intersects its
consecutive position. A regulus such that consecutive lines on it do not intersect, in this
sense, is called a skew surface, or scroll; one on which they do is called a developable
surface or torse.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 159/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Suppose, for instance, that the equations of a line (depending on the variable parameter
x y y x z 1 y x2 z2
θ) are ⁠ ⁠ + ⁠ ⁠ = θ (1 + ⁠ )⁠ , ⁠ ⁠ − ⁠ ⁠ = ⁠ (⁠ 1 − ⁠ )⁠ ; then, eliminating θ we have ⁠ 2 ⁠ − ⁠ 2 ⁠ = 1 −
a c b a c θ b a c
y 2 x 2 y 2 z 2
2 ⁠, or say, ⁠ 2 ⁠ + ⁠ 2 ⁠ − ⁠ 2 ⁠ = 1, the equation of a quadric surface, afterwards called the
b a b c
hyperboloid of one sheet; this surface is consequently a scroll. It is to be remarked that
we have upon the surface a second singly infinite series of lines; the equations of a line
of this second system (depending on the variable parameter φ) are

x z y x z 1 y
+ = φ (1 − ), − = (1 + ).
a c b a c φ b
It is easily shown that any line of the one system intersects every line of the other
system.

Considering any curve (of double curvature) whatever, the tangent lines of the curve
form a singly infinite system of lines, each line intersecting the consecutive line of the
system,—that is, they form a developable, or torse; the curve and torse are thus
inseparably connected together, forming a single geometrical figure. An osculating plane
of the curve (see § 38 below) is a tangent plane of the torse all along a generating line.

35. Transformation of Coordinates.—There is no difficulty in changing the origin, and it

is for brevity assumed that the origin remains unaltered. We have, then, two sets of
rectangular axes, Ox, Oy, Oz, and Ox1, Oy1, Ozx1, the mutual cosine-inclinations being
shown by the diagram—

x y z
x1 α β γ
y1 α′ β′ γ′
z1 α″ β″ γ″

that is, α, β, γ are the cosine-inclinations of Ox1 to Ox, Oy, Oz; α′, β′, γ′ those of Oy1, &c.

And this diagram gives also the linear expressions of the coordinates (x1, y1, z1) or (x, y,
z) of either set in terms of those of the other set; we thus have

x1 = α x + β y + γ z, x = αx1 + α′y1 + α″z1,

y1 = α′x + β′y + γ′z, y = βx1 + β′y1 + β″z1,
z1 = α″x + β″y + γ″z, z = γx1 + γ′y1 + γ″z1,

which are obtained by projection, as above explained. Each of these equations is, in fact,
nothing else than the before-mentioned equation p = α′ξ + β′η + γ′ζ, adapted to the
problem in hand.

But we have to consider the relations between the nine coefficients. By what precedes, or
by the consideration that we must have identically x2 + y2 + z2 = x12 + y12 + z12, it
appears that these satisfy the relations—

α2 + β2 + γ2 = 1, α2 + α′2 + α″2 = 1,

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 160/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

α′2 + β′2 + γ′2 = 1, β2 + β′2 + β″2 = 1,

α″2 + β″2 + γ″2 = 1, γ2 + γ′2 + γ″2 = 1,
α′a″ + β′β″ + γ′γ″ = 0, βγ +β′γ′ + β″γ″ = 0,
α″α + β″β + γ″γ = 0, γα + γ′α′ + γ″α″ = 0,
αα′ + ββ′ + γγ′ = 0, αβ +α′β′ + α″β″ = 0,
either set of six equations being implied in the other set.

It follows that the square of the determinant

α, β, γ
α′, β′, γ′
α″, β″, γ″
is = 1; and hence that the determinant itself is = ±1. The distinction of the two cases is an
important one: if the determinant is = + 1, then the axes Ox1, Oy1, Oz1 are such that they
can by a rotation about O be brought to coincide with Ox, Oy, Oz respectively; if it is =
−1, then they cannot. But in the latter case, by measuring x1, y1, z1 in the opposite
directions we change the signs of all the coefficients and so make the determinant to be
= + 1; hence the former case need alone be considered, and it is accordingly assumed
that the determinant is = +1. This being so, it is found that we have the equality α = β′γ″
− β″γ′, and eight like ones, obtained from this by cyclical interchanges of the letters α, β,
γ, and of unaccented, singly and doubly accented letters.

36. The nine cosine-inclinations above are, as has been seen, connected by six equations.
It ought then to be possible to express them all in terms of three parameters. An elegant
means of doing this has been given by Rodrigues, who has shown that the tabular
expression of the formulae of transformation may be written

x y z
x1 1 + λ 2 − μ2 − ν 2 2(λμ − ν) 2(νλ + μ)
y1 2(λμ + ν) 1− λ2 + μ2 − ν2 2(μν + λ)
z1 2(νλ − μ) 2(μν + λ) 1 − λ 2 − μ2 + ν 2
÷ (1 + λ2 + μ2 + ν2),
the meaning being that the coefficients in the transformation are fractions, with
numerators expressed as in the table, and the common denominator.

37. The Species of Quadric Surfaces.—Surfaces represented by equations of the second

degree are called quadric surfaces. Quadric surfaces are either proper or special. The
special ones arise when the coefficients in the general equation are limited to satisfy
certain special equations; they comprise (1) plane-pairs, including in particular one
plane twice repeated, and (2) cones, including in particular cylinders; there is but one
form of cone, but cylinders may be elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic.

A discussion of the general equation of the second degree shows that the proper quadric
surfaces are of five kinds, represented respectively, when referred to the most
convenient axes of reference, by equations of the five types (a and b positive):

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 161/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

(1) x2 y2
z = ⁠2a ⁠+ ⁠2b ⁠, elliptic paraboloid.
x2 y2
(2) z = ⁠ ⁠− ⁠ ⁠, hyperbolic paraboloid.
2a 2b
x2 y2 z2
(3) ⁠a2 ⁠+ ⁠b2 ⁠+ ⁠c2 ⁠= 1, ellipsoid.
x2 y2 z2
(4) ⁠a2 ⁠+ ⁠b2 ⁠− ⁠c2 ⁠= 1, hyperboloid of one sheet.
x2 y2 z2
(5) ⁠ 2 ⁠+ ⁠ 2 ⁠− ⁠ 2 ⁠= −1, hyperboloid of two sheets.
a b c
It is at once seen that these are distinct surfaces;
and the equations also show very readily the
general form and mode of generation of the
several surfaces.

In the elliptic paraboloid (fig. 61) the sections by

the planes of zx and zy are the parabolas

x2 y2
z= , z= ,
2a 2b
having the common axes Oz; and the section by
any plane z = γ parallel to that of xy is the ellipse Fig. 61.

x2 y2
γ= + ;
2a 2b
so that the surface is generated by a variable ellipse moving parallel to itself along the
parabolas as directrices.

Fig. 62. Fig. 63.

In the hyperbolic paraboloid (figs. 62 and 63) the sections by the planes of zx, zy are the
x2 y2
parabolas z = ⁠ ⁠, z = − ⁠ ⁠, having the opposite axes Oz, Oz′, and the section by a plane
2a 2b
x2 y2
z = γ parallel to that of xy is the hyperbola γ = ⁠ ⁠ − ⁠ ⁠, which has its transverse axis
2a 2b
parallel to Ox or Oy according as γ is positive or negative. The surface is thus generated

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 162/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

by a variable hyperbola moving

parallel to itself along the parabolas as
directrices. The form is best seen from
fig. 63, which represents the sections
by planes parallel to the plane of xy, or
say the contour lines; the continuous
lines are the sections above the plane
of xy, and the dotted lines the sections
below this plane. The form is, in fact,
that of a saddle.

In the ellipsoid (fig. 64) the sections by

the planes of zx, zy, and xy are each of
them an ellipse, and the section by any Fig. 64.
parallel plane is also an ellipse. The
surface may be considered as generated by an ellipse moving parallel to itself along two
ellipses as directrices.

In the hyperboloid of one sheet (fig. 65), the sections by the planes of zx, zy are the
hyperbolas

x2 z2 y2 z2
− = 1, − = 1,
c2 c2 b2 c2

having a common conjugate axis zOz′; the section by the plane of x, y, and that by any
parallel plane, is an ellipse; and the surface may be considered as generated by a variable
ellipse moving parallel to itself along the two hyperbolas as directrices. If we imagine
two equal and parallel circular disks, their points connected by strings of equal lengths,
so that these are the generators of a right circular cylinder, and if we turn one of the
disks about its centre through an angle in its plane, the strings in their new positions will
be one system of generators of a hyperboloid of one sheet, for which a = b; and if we
turn it through the same angle in the opposite direction, we get in like manner the
generators of the other system; there will be the same general configuration when a ≠ b.
The hyperbolic paraboloid is also covered by two systems of rectilinear generators as a
method like that used in § 34 establishes without difficulty. The figures should be
studied to see how they can lie.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 163/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Fig. 65. Fig. 66.

In the hyperboloid of two sheets (fig. 66) the sections by the planes of zx and zy are the
hyperbolas

z2 x2 z2 y2
− = 1, − = 1,
c2 a2 c2 b2

having a common transverse axis along z′Oz; the section by any plane z = ±γ parallel to
that of xy is the ellipse

x2 y2 γ2
+ = − 1,
a2 b2 c2

provided γ2 > c2, and the surface, consisting of two distinct portions or sheets, may be
considered as generated by a variable ellipse moving parallel to itself along the
hyperbolas as directrices.

38. Differential Geometry of Curves.—For convenience consider the coordinates (x, y, z)

of a point on a curve in space to be given as functions of a variable parameter θ, which
may in particular be one of themselves. Use the notation x′, x″ for dx/dθ, d2x/dθ2, and
similarly as to y and z. Only a few formulae will be given. Call the current coordinates (ξ,
η, ζ).

The tangent at (x, y, z) is the line tended to as a limit by the connector of (x, y, z) and a
neighbouring point of the curve when the latter moves up to the former: its equations
are

(ξ − x)/x′ = (η − y)/y ′ = (ζ − z)/z′.

The osculating plane at (x, y, z) is the plane tended to as a limit by that through (x, y, z)
and two neighbouring points of the curve as these, remaining distinct, both move up to
(x, y, z): its one equation is

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 164/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library
(ξ − x) (y ′z″ − y″z′) + (η − y) (z′x″ − z″x′) + (ζ − z) (x′y″ − x″y ′) = 0.
The normal plane is the plane through (x, y, z) at right angles to the tangent line, i.e. the
plane

x′(ξ − x) + y ′ (η − y) + z′ (ζ − z) = 0.
It cuts the osculating plane in a line called the principal normal. Every line through (x,
y, z) in the normal plane is a normal. The normal perpendicular to the osculating plane
is called the binormal. A tangent, principal normal, and binormal are a convenient set of
rectangular axes to use as those of reference, when the nature of a curve near a point on
it is to be discussed.

Through (x, y, z) and three neighbouring points, all on the curve, passes a single sphere;
and as the three points all move up to (x, y, z) continuing distinct, the sphere tends to a
limiting size and position. The limit tended to is the sphere of closest contact with the
curve at (x, y, z); its centre and radius are called the centre and radius of spherical
curvature. It cuts the osculating plane in a circle, called the circle of absolute curvature;
and the centre and radius of this circle are the centre and radius of absolute curvature.
The centre of absolute curvature is the limiting position of the point where the principal
normal at (x, y, z) is cut by the normal plane at a neighbouring point, as that point
moves up to (x, y, z).

39. Differential Geometry of Surfaces.—Let (x, y, z) be any chosen point on a surface

ƒ(x, y, z) = 0. As a second point of the surface moves up to (x, y, z), its connector with (x,
y, z) tends to a limiting position, a tangent line to the surface at (x, y, z). All these
tangent lines at (x, y, z), obtained by approaching (x, y, z) from different directions on a
surface, lie in one plane

∂ƒ ∂ƒ ∂ƒ
(ξ − x) + (η − y) + (ζ − z) = 0.
∂x ∂y ∂z
This plane is called the tangent plane at (x, y, z). One line through (x, y, z) is at right
angles to the tangent plane. This is the normal

∂ƒ ∂ƒ ∂ƒ
(ξ − x) / = (η − y) / = (ζ − z) / .
∂x ∂y ∂z
The tangent plane is cut by the surface in a curve, real or imaginary, with a node or
double point at (x, y, z). Two of the tangent lines touch this curve at the node. They are
called the “chief tangents” (Haupt-tangenten) at (x, y, z); they have closer contact with
the surface than any other tangents.

In the case of a quadric surface the curve of intersection of a tangent and the surface is
of the second order and has a node, it must therefore consist of two straight lines.
Consequently a quadric surface is covered by two sets of straight lines, a pair through
every point on it; these are imaginary for the ellipsoid, hyperboloid of two sheets, and
elliptic paraboloid.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 165/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

A surface of any order is covered by two singly infinite systems of curves, a pair through
every point, the tangents to which are all chief tangents at their respective points of
contact. These are called chief-tangent curves; on a quadric surface they are the above
straight lines.

40. The tangents at a point of a surface which bisect the angles between the chief
tangents are called the principal tangents at the point. They are at right angles, and
together with the normal constitute a convenient set of rectangular axes to which to
refer the surface when its properties near the point are under discussion. At a special
point which is such that the chief tangents there run to the circular points at infinity in
the tangent plane, the principal tangents are indeterminate; such a special point is called
an umbilic of the surface.

There are two singly infinite systems of curves on a surface, a pair cutting one another at
right angles through every point upon it, all tangents to which are principal tangents of
the surface at their respective points of contact. These are called lines of curvature,
because of a property next to be mentioned.

As a point Q moves in an arbitrary direction on a surface from coincidence with a chosen

point P, the normal at it, as a rule, at once fails to meet the normal at P; but, if it takes
the direction of a line of curvature through P, this is instantaneously not the case. We
have thus on the normal two centres of curvature, and the distances of these from the
point on the surface are the two principal radii of curvature of the surface at that point;
these are also the radii of curvature of the sections of the surface by planes through the
normal and the two principal tangents respectively; or say they are the radii of curvature
of the normal sections through the two principal tangents respectively. Take at the point
the axis of z in the direction of the normal, and those of x and y in the directions of the
principal tangents respectively, then, if the radii of curvature be a, b (the signs being
such that the coordinates of the two centres of curvature are z = a and z = b
respectively), the surface has in the neighbourhood of the point the form of the
paraboloid

x2 y2
z= + ,
2a 2b

x2 y2
and the chief-tangents are determined by the equation 0 = ⁠ ⁠ + ⁠ ⁠. The two centres of
2a 2b
curvature may be on the same side of the point or on opposite sides; in the former case a
and b have the same sign, the paraboloid is elliptic, and the chief-tangents are
imaginary; in the latter case a and b have opposite signs, the paraboloid is hyperbolic,
and the chief-tangents are real.

The normal sections of the surface and the paraboloid by the same plane have the same
radius of curvature; and it thence readily follows that the radius of curvature of a normal
section of the surface by a plane inclined at an angle θ to that of zx is given by the
equation

1 = cos2θ + sin2θ .

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 166/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

ρ a b

The section in question is that by a plane through the normal and a line in the tangent
plane inclined at an angle θ to the principal tangent along the axis of x. To complete the
theory, consider the section by a plane having the same trace upon the tangent plane,
but inclined to the normal at an angle φ; then it is shown without difficulty (Meunier’s
theorem) that the radius of curvature of this inclined section of the surface is = ρ cos φ.

Authorities.—The above article is largely based on that by Arthur Cayley in the 9th
edition of this work. Of early and important recent publications on analytical geometry,
special mention is to be made of R. Descartes, Géométrie (Leyden, 1637); John Wallis,
Tractatus de sectionibus conicis nova methodo expositis (1655, Opera mathematica, i.,
Oxford, 1695); de l’Hospital, Traité analytique des sections coniques (Paris, 1720);
Leonhard Euler, Introductio in analysin infinitorum, ii. (Lausanne, 1748); Gaspard
Monge, “Application d’algèbre à la géométrie” (Journ. École Polytech., 1801); Julius
Plücker, Analytisch-geometrische Entwickelungen, 3 Bde. (Essen, 1828–1831); System
der analytischen Geometrie (Berlin, 1835); G. Salmon, A Treatise on Conic Sections
(Dublin, 1848; 6th ed., London, 1879); Ch. Briot and J. Bouquet, Leçons de géométrie
analytique (Paris, 1851; 16th ed., 1897); M. Chasles, Traité de géométrie supérieure
(Paris, 1852); Wilhelm Fiedler, Analytische Geometrie der Kegelschnitte nach G.
Salmon frei bearbeitet (Leipzig, 5te Aufl., 1887–1888); N. M. Ferrers, An Elementary
Treatise on Trilinear Coordinates (London, 1861); Otto Hesse, Vorlesungen aus der
analytischen Geometrie (Leipzig, 1865, 1881); W. A. Whitworth, Trilinear Coordinates
and other Methods of Modern Analytical Geometry (Cambridge, 1866); J. Booth, A
Treatise on Some New Geometrical Methods (London, i., 1873; ii., 1877); A. Clebsch-F.
Lindemann, Vorlesungen über Geometrie, Bd. i. (Leipzig, 1876, 2te Aufl., 1891); R.
Baltser, Analytische Geometrie (Leipzig, 1882); Charlotte A. Scott, Modern Methods of
Analytical Geometry (London, 1894); G. Salmon, A Treatise on the Analytical
Geometry of three Dimensions (Dublin, 1862; 4th ed., 1882); Salmon-Fiedler,
Analytische Geometrie des Raumes (Leipzig, 1863; 4te Aufl., 1898); P. Frost, Solid
Geometry (London, 3rd ed., 1886; 1st ed., Frost and J. Wolstenholme). See also E.
Pascal, Repertorio di matematiche superiori, II. Geometria (Milan, 1900), and articles
now appearing in the Encyklopädie der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Bd. iii. 1, 2.
(E. B. El.)

V. Line Geometry

Line geometry is the name applied to those geometrical investigations in which the
straight line replaces the point as element. Just as ordinary geometry deals primarily
with points and systems of points, this theory deals in the first instance with straight
lines and systems of straight lines. In two dimensions there is no necessity for a special
line geometry, inasmuch as the straight line and the point are interchangeable by the
principle of duality; but in three dimensions the straight line is its own reciprocal, and
for the better discussion of systems of lines we require some new apparatus, e.g., a
system of coordinates applicable to straight lines rather than to points. The essential
features of the subject are most easily elucidated by analytical methods: we shall
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 167/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

therefore begin with the notion of line coordinates, and in order to emphasize the merits
of the system of coordinates ultimately adopted, we first notice a system without these
advantages, but often useful in special investigations.

In ordinary Cartesian coordinates the two equations of a straight line may be reduced to
the form y = rx + s, z = tx + u, and r, s, t, u may be regarded as the four coordinates of
the line. These coordinates lack symmetry: moreover, in changing from one base of
reference to another the transformation is not linear, so that the degree of an equation is
deprived of real significance. For purposes of the general theory we employ
homogeneous coordinates; if x1y1z1w1 and x2y2z2w2 are two points on the line, it is
easily verified that the six determinants of the array

x 1 y 1 z 1 w1
x 2 y 2 z 2 w2

are in the same ratios for all point-pairs on the line, and further, that when the point
coordinates undergo a linear transformation so also do these six determinants. We
therefore adopt these six determinants for the coordinates of the line, and express them
by the symbols l, λ, m, μ, n, ν where l = x1w2 − x2w1, λ = y1z2 − y2z1, &c. There is the
further advantage that if a1b1c1d1 and a2b2c2d2 be two planes through the line, the six
determinants

a1 b1 c 1 d1
a2 b2 c 2 d2

are in the same ratios as the foregoing, so that except as regards a factor of
proportionality we have λ = b1c2 − b2c1, l = c1d2 − c2d1, &c. The identical relation lλ +
mμ + nν = 0 reduces the number of independent constants in the six coordinates to four,
for we are only concerned with their mutual ratios; and the quadratic character of this
relation marks an essential difference between point geometry and line geometry. The
condition of intersection of two lines is

lλ′ + l′λ + mμ′ + m′μ + nν′ + n′ν = 0

where the accented letters refer to the second line. If the coordinates are Cartesian and l,
m, n are direction cosines, the quantity on the left is the mutual moment of the two
lines.

Since a line depends on four constants, there are three distinct types of configurations
arising in line geometry—those containing a triply-infinite, a doubly-infinite and a
singly-infinite number of lines; they are called Complexes, Congruences, and Ruled
Surfaces or Skews respectively. A Complex is thus a system of lines satisfying one
condition—that is, the coordinates are connected by a single relation; and the degree of
the complex is the degree of this equation supposing it to be algebraic. The lines of a
complex of the nth degree which pass through any point lie on a cone of the nth degree,
those which lie in any plane envelop a curve of the nth class and there are n lines of the
complex in any plane pencil; the last statement combines the former two, for it shows
that the cone is of the nth degree and the curve is of the nth class. To find the lines
common to four complexes of degrees n1, n2, n3, n4, we have to solve five equations, viz.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 168/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

the four complex equations together with the quadratic equation connecting the line
coordinates, therefore the number of common lines is 2n1n2n3n4. As an example of
complexes we have the lines meeting a twisted curve of the nth degree, which form a
complex of the nth degree.

A Congruence is the set of lines satisfying two conditions: thus a finite number m of the
lines pass through any point, and a finite number n lie in any plane; these numbers are
called the degree and class respectively, and the congruence is symbolically written (m,
n).

The simplest example of a congruence is the system of lines constituted by all those that
pass through m points and those that lie in n planes; through any other point there pass
m of these lines, and in any other plane there lie n, therefore the congruence is of degree
m and class n. It has been shown by G. H. Halphen that the number of lines common to
two congruences is mm′ + nn′, which may be verified by taking one of them to be of this
simple type. The lines meeting two fixed lines form the general (1, 1) congruence; and
the chords of a twisted cubic form the general type of a (1, 3) congruence; Halphen’s
result shows that two twisted cubics have in general ten common chords. As regards the
analytical treatment, the difficulty is of the same nature as that arising in the theory of
curves in space, for a congruence is not in general the complete intersection of two
complexes.

A Ruled Surface, Regulus or Skew is a configuration of lines which satisfy three

conditions, and therefore depend on only one parameter. Such lines all lie on a surface,
for we cannot draw one through an arbitrary point; only one line passes through a point
of the surface; the simplest example, that of a quadric surface, is really two skews on the
same surface.

The degree of a ruled surface qua line geometry is the number of its generating lines
contained in a linear complex. Now the number which meets a given line is the degree of
the surface qua point geometry, and as the lines meeting a given line form a particular
case of linear complex, it follows that the degree is the same from whichever point of
view we regard it. The lines common to three complexes of degrees, n1n2n3, form a ruled
surface of degree 2n1n2n3; but not every ruled surface is the complete intersection of
three complexes.

In the case of a complex of the first degree (or linear complex) the lines through a fixed
point lie in a plane called the polar plane or nul-plane of that point, and those lying in a
fixed plane pass through a point called the nul-point or pole of the plane. If the nul-
Linear plane of A pass through B, then the nul-plane of B will pass through A; the
complex. nul-planes of all points on one line l1 pass through another line l2. The
relation between l1 and l2 is reciprocal; any line of the complex that meets
one will also meet the other, and every line meeting both belongs to the complex. They
are called conjugate or polar lines with respect to the complex. On these principles can
be founded a theory of reciprocation with respect to a linear complex.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 169/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

This may be aptly illustrated by an elegant example due to A. Voss. Since a twisted cubic
can be made to satisfy twelve conditions, it might be supposed that a finite number
could be drawn to touch four given lines, but this is not the case. For, suppose one such
can be drawn, then its reciprocal with respect to any linear complex containing the four
lines is a curve of the third class, i.e. another twisted cubic, touching the same four lines,
which are unaltered in the process of reciprocation; as there is an infinite number of
complexes containing the four lines, there is an infinite number of cubics touching the
four lines, and the problem is poristic.

The following are some geometrical constructions relating to the unique linear complex
that can be drawn to contain five arbitrary lines:

To construct the nul-plane of any point O, we observe that the two lines which meet any
four of the given five are conjugate lines of the complex, and the line drawn through O to
meet them is therefore a ray of the complex; similarly, by choosing another four we can
find another ray through O: these rays lie in the nul-plane, and there is clearly a result
involved that the five lines so obtained all lie in one plane. A reciprocal construction will
enable us to find the nul-point of any plane. Proceeding now to the metrical properties
and the statical and dynamical applications, we remark that there is just one line such
that the nul-plane of any point on it is perpendicular to it. This is called the central axis;
if d be the shortest distance, θ the angle between it and a ray of the complex, then d tan θ
= p, where p is a constant called the pitch or parameter. Any system of forces can be
reduced to a force R along a certain line, and a couple G perpendicular to that line; the
lines of nul-moment for the system form a linear complex of which the given line is the
central axis and the quotient G/R is the pitch. Any motion of a rigid body can be reduced
to a screw motion about a certain line, i.e. to an angular velocity ω about that line
combined with a linear velocity u along the line. The plane drawn through any point
perpendicular to the direction of its motion is its nul-plane with respect to a linear
complex having this line for central axis, and the quotient u/ω for pitch (cf. Sir R. S. Ball,
Theory of Screws).

The following are some properties of a configuration of two linear complexes:

The lines common to the two-complexes also belong to an infinite number of linear
complexes, of which two reduce to single straight lines. These two lines are conjugate
lines with respect to each of the complexes, but they may coincide, and then some
simple modifications are required. The locus of the central axis of this system of
complexes is a surface of the third degree called the cylindroid, which plays a leading
part in the theory of screws as developed synthetically by Ball. Since a linear complex
has an invariant of the second degree in its coefficients, it follows that two linear
complexes have a lineo-linear invariant. This invariant is fundamental: if the complexes
be both straight lines, its vanishing is the condition of their intersection as given above;
if only one of them be a straight line, its vanishing is the condition that this line should
belong to the other complex. When it vanishes for any two complexes they are said to be
in involution or apolar; the nul-points P, Q of any plane then divide harmonically the
points in which the plane meets the common conjugate lines, and each complex is its

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 170/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

own reciprocal with respect to the other. As regards a configuration of these linear
complexes, the common lines from one system of generators of a quadric, and the
doubly infinite system of complexes containing the common lines, include an infinite
number of straight lines which form the other system of generators of the same quadric.

If the equation of a linear complex is Al + Bm + Cn + Dλ + Eμ + Fν = 0, then for a line

not belonging to the complex we may regard the expression on the left-hand side as a
multiple of the moment of the line with respect to the complex, the word moment being
General line used in the statical sense; and we infer that when the coordinates are
coordinates. replaced by linear functions of themselves the new coordinates are
multiples of the moments of the line with respect to six fixed complexes.
The essential features of this coordinate system are the same as those of the original one,
viz. there are six coordinates connected by a quadratic equation, but this relation has in
general a different form. By suitable choice of the six fundamental complexes, as they
may be called, this connecting relation may be brought into other simple forms of which
we mention two: (i.) When the six are mutually in involution it can be reduced to x12 +
x22 + x32 + x42 + x52 + x62 = 0; (ii.) When the first four are in involution and the other
two are the lines common to the first four it is x12 + x22 + x32 + x42 − 2x5x6 = 0. These
generalized coordinates might be explained without reference to actual magnitude, just
as homogeneous point coordinates can be; the essential remark is that the equation of
any coordinate to zero represents a linear complex, a point of view which includes our
original system, for the equation of a coordinate to zero represents all the lines meeting
an edge of the fundamental tetrahedron.

The system of coordinates referred to six complexes mutually in involution was

introduced by Felix Klein, and in many cases is more useful than that derived directly
from point coordinates; e.g. in the discussion of quadratic complexes: by means of it
Klein has developed an analogy between line geometry and the geometry of spheres as
treated by G. Darboux and others. In fact, in that geometry a point is represented by five
coordinates, connected by a relation of the same type as the one just mentioned when
the five fundamental spheres are mutually at right angles and the equation of a sphere is
of the first degree. Extending this to four dimensions of space, we obtain an exact
analogue of line geometry, in which (i.) a point corresponds to a line; (ii.) a linear
complex to a hypersphere; (iii.) two linear complexes in involution to two orthogonal
hyperspheres; (iv.) a linear complex and two conjugate lines to a hypersphere and two
inverse points. Many results may be obtained by this principle, and more still are
suggested by trying to extend the properties of circles to spheres in three and four
dimensions. Thus the elementary theorem, that, given four lines, the circles
circumscribed to the four triangles formed by them are concurrent, may be extended to
six hyperplanes in four dimensions; and then we can derive a result in line geometry by
translating the inverse of this theorem. Again, just as there is an infinite number of
spheres touching a surface at a given point, two of them having contact of a closer
nature, so there is an infinite number of linear complexes touching a non-linear complex
at a given line, and three of these have contact of a closer nature (cf. Klein, Math. Ann.
v.).

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 171/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Sophus Lie has pointed out a different analogy with sphere geometry. Suppose, in fact,
that the equation of a sphere of radius r is

x2 + y2 + z2 + 2ax + 2by + 2cz + d = 0,

so that r2 = a2 + b2 + c2 − d; then introducing the quantity e to make this equation
homogeneous, we may regard the sphere as given by the six coordinates a, b, c, d, e, r
connected by the equation a2 + b2 + c2 − r2 − de = 0, and it is easy to see that two
spheres touch, if the polar form 2aa1 + 2bb1 + 2cc1 − 2rr1 − de1 − d1e vanishes.
Comparing this with the equation x12 + x22 + x32 + x42 − 2x5x6 = 0 given above, it
appears that this sphere geometry and line geometry are identical, for we may write a =
x1, b = x2, c = x3, r = x4δ − 1, d = x5, e = ⁠21 ⁠x6; but it is to be noticed that a sphere is really
replaced by two lines whose coordinates only differ in the sign of x4, so that they are
polar lines with respect to the complex x4 = 0. Two spheres which touch correspond to
two lines which intersect, or more accurately to two pairs of lines (p, p′) and (q, q′), of
which the pairs (p, q) and (p′, q′) both intersect. By this means the problem of
describing a sphere to touch four given spheres is reduced to that of drawing a pair of
lines (t, t′) (of which t intersects one line of the four pairs (pp′), (qq′), (rr′), (ss′), and t′
intersects the remaining four). We may, however, ignore the accented letters in
translating theorems, for a configuration of lines and its polar with respect to a linear
complex have the same projective properties. In Lie’s transformation a linear complex
corresponds to the totality of spheres cutting a given sphere at a given angle. A most
remarkable result is that lines of curvature in the sphere geometry become asymptotic
lines in the line geometry.

Some of the principles of line geometry may be brought into clearer light by admitting
the ideas of space of four and five dimensions.

Thus, regarding the coordinates of a line as homogeneous coordinates in five

dimensions, we may say that line geometry is equivalent to geometry on a quadric
surface in five dimensions. A linear complex is represented by a hyperplane section; and
if two such complexes are in involution, the corresponding hyperplanes are conjugate
with respect to the fundamental quadric. By projecting this quadric stereographically
into space of four dimensions we obtain Klein’s analogy. In the same way geometry in a
linear complex is equivalent to geometry on a quadric in four dimensions; when two
lines intersect the representative points are on the same generator of this quadric.
Stereographic projection, therefore, converts a curve in a linear complex, i.e. one whose
tangents all belong to the complex, into one whose tangents intersect a fixed conic: when
this conic is the imaginary circle at infinity the curve is what Lie calls a minimal curve.
Curves in a linear complex have been extensively studied. The osculating plane at any
point of such a curve is the nul-plane of the point with respect to the complex, and
points of superosculation always coincide in pairs at the points of contact of stationary
tangents. When a point of such a curve is given, the osculating plane is determined,
hence all the curves through a given point with the same tangent have the same torsion.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 172/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

The lines through a given point that belong to a complex of the nth degree lie on a cone
of the nth degree: if this cone has a double line the point is said to be a singular point.
Non-linear Similarly, a plane is said to be singular when the envelope of the lines in it
complexes. has a double tangent. It is very remarkable that the same surface is the
locus of the singular points and the envelope of the singular planes: this
surface is called the singular surface, and both its degree and class are in general 2n(n −
1)2, which is equal to four for the quadratic complex.

The singular lines of a complex F = 0 are the lines common to F and the complex

δF δF δF δF δF δF
+ + = 0.
δl δλ δm δμ δn δν
As already mentioned, at each line l of a complex there is an infinite number of tangent
linear complexes, and they all contain the lines adjacent to l. If now l be a singular line,
these complexes all reduce to straight lines which form a plane pencil containing the line
l. Suppose the vertex of the pencil is A, its plane a, and one of its lines ξ, then l′ being a
complex line near l, meets ξ, or more accurately the mutual moment of l′, and is of the
second order of small quantities. If P be a point on l, a line through P quite near l in the
plane a will meet ξ and is therefore a line of the complex; hence the complex-cones of all
points on l touch a and the complex-curves of all planes through l touch l at A. It follows
that l is a double line of the complex-cone of A, and a double tangent of the complex-
curve of a. Conversely, a double line of a cone or curve is a singular line, and a singular
line clearly touches the curves of all planes through it in the same point. Suppose now
that the consecutive line l′ is also a singular line, A′ being the allied singular point, a′ the
singular plane and ξ′ any line of the pencil (A′, a′) so that ξ′ is a tangent line at l′ to the
complex: the mutual moments of the pairs l′, ξ and l, ξ are each of the second order;
hence the plane a′ meets the lines l and ξ′ in two points very near A. This being true for
all singular planes, near a the point of contact of a with its envelope is in A, i.e. the locus
of singular points is the same as the envelope of singular planes. Further, when a line
touches a complex it touches the singular surface, for it belongs to a plane pencil like
(Aa), and thus in Klein’s analogy the analogue of a focus of a hyper-surface being a
bitangent line of the complex is also a bitangent line of the singular surface. The theory
of cosingular complexes is thus brought into line with that of confocal surfaces in four
dimensions, and guided by these principles the existence of cosingular quadratic
complexes can easily be established, the analysis required being almost the same as that
invented for confocal cyclides by Darboux and others. Of cosingular complexes of higher
degree nothing is known.

Following J. Plücker, we give an account of the lines of a quadratic complex that meet a
given line.

The cones whose vertices are on the given line all pass through eight fixed points and
envelop a surface of the fourth degree; the conics whose planes contain the given line all
lie on a surface of the fourth class and touch eight fixed planes. It is easy to see by
elementary geometry that these two surfaces are identical. Further, the given line
contains four singular points A1, A2, A3, A4, and the planes into which their cones

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 173/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

degenerate are the eight common tangent planes mentioned above; similarly, there are
four singular planes, a1, a2, a3, a4, through the line, and the eight points into which their
conics degenerate are the eight common points above. The locus of the pole of the line
with respect to all the conics in planes through it is a straight line called the polar line of
the given one; and through this line passes the polar plane of the given line with respect
to each of the cones. The name polar is applied in the ordinary analytical sense; any line
has an infinite number of polar complexes with respect to the given complex, for the
equation of the latter can be written in an infinite number of ways; one of these polars is
a straight line, and is the polar line already introduced. The surface on which lie all the
conics through a line l is called the Plücker surface of that line: from the known
properties of (2, 2) correspondences it can be shown that the Plücker surface of l cuts l1
in a range of the same cross ratio as that of the range in which the Plücker surface of l1
cuts l. Applying this to the case in which l1 is the polar of l, we find that the cross ratios
of (A1, A2, A3, A4) and (a1, a2, a3, a4) are equal. The identity of the locus of the A′s with
the envelope of the a′s follows at once; moreover, a line meets the singular surface in
four points having the same cross ratio as that of the four tangent planes drawn through
the line to touch the surface. The Plücker surface has eight nodes, eight singular tangent
planes, and is a double line. The relation between a line and its polar line is not a
reciprocal one with respect to the complex; but W. Stahl has pointed out that the
relation is reciprocal as far as the singular surface is concerned.

To facilitate the discussion of the general quadratic complex we introduce Klein’s

canonical form. We have, in fact, to deal with two quadratic equations in six variables;
Quadratic and by suitable linear transformations these can be reduced to the form
complexes.

a1 x 1 2 + a2 x 2 2 + a3 x 3 2 + a4 x 4 2 + a5 x 5 2 + a6 x 6 2 = 0
x 12 + x 22 + x 32 + x 42 + x 52 + x 62 = 0

subject to certain exceptions, which will be mentioned later.

Taking the first equation to be that of the complex, we remark that both equations are
unaltered by changing the sign of any coordinate; the geometrical meaning of this is,
that the quadratic complex is its own reciprocal with respect to each of the six
fundamental complexes, for changing the sign of a coordinate is equivalent to taking the
polar of a line with respect to the corresponding fundamental complex. It is easy to
establish the existence of six systems of bitangent linear complexes, for the complex l1x1
+ l2x2 + l3x3 + l4x4 + l5x5 + l6x6 = 0 is a bitangent when

l22 l32 l42 l52 l62

l1 = 0, and + + + + = 0,
a2 − a1 a3 − a1 a4 − a1 a5 − a1 a6 − a1

and its lines of contact are conjugate lines with respect to the first fundamental complex.
We therefore infer the existence of six systems of bitangent lines of the complex, of
which the first is given by

x1 = 0, x 22 + x 32 + x 42 + x 52 + x 62 = 0,

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 174/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

a2 − a1 a3 − a1 a4 − a1 a5 − a1 a6 − a1

Each of these lines is a bitangent of the singular surface, which is therefore completely
determined as being the focal surface of the (2, 2) congruence above. It is thence easy to
verify that the two complexes Σax2 = 0 and Σbx2 = 0 are cosingular if br = ar λ + μ/arν +
ρ.

The singular surface of the general quadratic complex is the famous quartic, with sixteen
nodes and sixteen singular tangent planes, first discovered by E. E. Kümmer.

We cannot give a full account of its properties here, but we deduce at once from the
above that its bitangents break up into six (2, 2) congruences, and the six linear
complexes containing these are mutually in involution. The nodes of the singular surface
are points whose complex cones are coincident planes, and the complex conic in a
singular tangent plane consists of two coincident points. This configuration of sixteen
points and planes has many interesting properties; thus each plane contains six points
which lie on a conic, while through each point there pass six planes which touch a
quadric cone. In many respects the Kümmer quartic plays a part in three dimensions
analogous to the general quartic curve in two; it further gives a natural representation of
certain relations between hyperelliptic functions (cf. R. W. H. T. Hudson, Kümmer’s
Quartic, 1905).

As might be expected from the magnitude of a form in six variables, the number of
projectivally distinct varieties of quadratic complexes is very great; and in fact Adolf
Weiler, by whom the question was first systematically studied on lines indicated by
ClassificationKlein, enumerated no fewer than forty-nine different types. But the
of principle of the classification is so important, and withal so simple, that we
quadratic give a brief sketch which indicates its essential features.
complexes.

We have practically to study the intersection of two quadrics F and F′ in six variables,
and to classify the different cases arising we make use of the results of Karl Weierstrass
on the equivalence conditions of two pairs of quadratics. As far as at present required,
they are as follows: Suppose that the factorized form of the determinantal equation Disct
(F + λF′) = 0 is

(λ − α)s1 + s2 + s3 . . . (λ − β)t1 + t2 + t3 + . . . . . .
where the root α occurs s1 + s2 + s3 . . . times in the determinant, s2 + s3 . . . times in
every first minor, s3 + . . . times in every second minor, and so on; the meaning of each
exponent is then perfectly definite. Every factor of the type (λ − α)s is called an
elementartheil (elementary divisor) of the determinant, and the condition of
equivalence of two pairs of quadratics is simply that their determinants have the same
elementary divisors. We write the pair of forms symbolically thus [(s1s2 . . .), (t1t2 . . .), . .
.], letters in the inner brackets referring to the same factor. Returning now to the two
quadratics representing the complex, the sum of the exponents will be six, and two
complexes are put in the same class if they have the same symbolical expression; i.e. the
actual values of the roots of the determinantal equation need not be the same for both,
but their manner of occurrence, as far as here indicated, must be identical in the two.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 175/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

The enumeration of all possible cases is thus reduced to a simple question in

combinatorial analysis, and the actual study of any particular case is much facilitated by
a useful rule of Klein’s for writing down in a simple form two quadratics belonging to a
given class—one of which, of course, represents the equation connecting line
coordinates, and the other the equation of the complex. The general complex is naturally
[111111]; the complex of tangents to a quadric is [(111), (111)] and that of lines meeting a
conic is [(222)]. Full information will be found in Weiler’s memoir, Math. Ann. vol. vii.

The detailed study of each variety of complex opens up a vast subject; we only mention
two special cases, the harmonic complex and the tetrahedral complex.

The harmonic complex, first studied by Battaglini, is generated in an infinite number of

ways by the lines cutting two quadrics harmonically. Taking the most general case, and
referring the quadrics to their common self-conjugate tetrahedron, we can find its
equation in a simple form, and verify that this complex really depends only on seventeen
constants, so that it is not the most general quadratic complex. It belongs to the general
type in so far as it is discussed above, but the roots of the determinant are in involution.
The singular surface is the “tetrahedroid” discussed by Cayley. As a particular case, from
a metrical point of view, we have L. F. Painvin’s complex generated by the lines of
intersection of perpendicular tangent planes of a quadric, the singular surface now being
Fresnel’s wave surface. The tetrahedral or Reye complex is the simplest and best known
of proper quadratic complexes. It is generated by the lines which cut the faces of a
tetrahedron in a constant cross ratio, and therefore by those subtending the same cross
ratio at the four vertices. The singular surface is made up of the faces or the vertices of
the fundamental tetrahedron, and each edge of this tetrahedron is a double line of the
complex. The complex was first discussed by K. T. Reye as the assemblage of lines
joining corresponding points in a homographic transformation of space, and this point
of view leads to many important and elegant properties. A (metrically) particular case of
great interest is the complex generated by the normals to a family of confocal quadrics,
and for many investigations it is convenient to deal with this complex referred to the
principal axes. For example, Lie has developed the theory of curves in a Reye complex
(i.e. curves whose tangents belong to the complex) as solutions of a differential equation
of the form (b − c)xdydz + (c − a)ydzdx + (a − b)zdxdy = 0, and we can simplify this
equation by a logarithmic transformation. Many theorems connecting complexes with
differential equations have been given by Lie and his school. A line complex, in fact,
corresponds to a Mongian equation having ∞3 line integrals.

As the coordinates of a line belonging to a congruence are functions of two independent

parameters, the theory of congruences is analogous to that of surfaces, and we may
regard it as a fundamental inquiry to find the simplest form of surface into which a given
Congruences. congruence can be transformed. Most of those whose properties have been
extensively discussed can be represented on a plane by a birational
transformation. But in addition to the difficulties of the theory of algebraic surfaces, a
subject still in its infancy, the theory of congruences has other difficulties in that a
congruence is seldom completely represented, even by two equations.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 176/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

A fundamental theorem is that the lines of a congruence are in general bitangents of a

surface; in fact, since the condition of intersection of two consecutive straight lines is ldλ
+ dmdμ + dndν = 0, a line l of the congruence meets two adjacent lines, say l1 and l2.
Suppose l, l1 lie in the plane pencil (A1a1) and l, l2 in the plane pencil (A2a2), then the
locus of the A′s is the same as the envelope of the a′s, but a2 is the tangent plane at A1
and a1 at A2. This surface is called the focal surface of the congruence, and to it all the
lines l are bitangent. The distinctive property of the points A is that two of the
congruence lines through them coincide, and in like manner the planes a each contain
two coincident lines. The focal surface consists of two sheets, but one or both may
degenerate into curves; thus, for example, the normals to a surface are bitangents of the
surface of centres, and in the case of Dupin’s cyclide this surface degenerates into two
conics.

In the discussion of congruences it soon becomes necessary to introduce another

number r, called the rank, which expresses the number of plane pencils each of which
contains an arbitrary line and two lines of the congruence. The order of the focal surface
is 2m(n − 1) − 2r, and its class is m(m − 1) − 2r. Our knowledge of congruences is almost
exclusively confined to those in which either m or n does not exceed two. We give a brief
account of those of the second order without singular lines, those of order unity not
being especially interesting. A congruence generally has singular points through which
an infinite number of lines pass; a singular point is said to be of order r when the lines
through it lie on a cone of the rth degree. By means of formulae connecting the number
of singular points and their orders with the class m of quadratic congruence Kümmer
proved that the class cannot exceed seven. The focal surface is of degree four and class
2m; this kind of quartic surface has been extensively studied by Kümmer, Cayley, Rohn
and others. The varieties (2, 2), (2, 3), (2, 4), (2, 5) all belong to at least one Reye
complex; and so also does the most important class of (2, 6) congruences which includes
all the above as special cases. The congruence (2, 2) belongs to a linear complex and
forty different Reye complexes; as above remarked, the singular surface is Kümmer’s
sixteen-nodal quartic, and the same surface is focal for six different congruences of this
variety. The theory of (2, 2) congruences is completely analogous to that of the surfaces
called cyclides in three dimensions. Further particulars regarding quadratic congruences
will be found in Kümmer’s memoir of 1866, and the second volume of Sturm’s treatise.
The properties of quadratic congruences having singular lines, i.e. degenerate focal
surfaces, are not so interesting as those of the above class; they have been discussed by
Kümmer, Sturm and others.

Since a ruled surface contains only ∞¹ elements, this theory is practically the same as
that of curves. If a linear complex contains more than n generators of a ruled surface of
Ruled the nth degree, it contains all the generators, hence for n = 2 there are
surfaces. three linearly independent complexes, containing all the generators, and
this is a well-known property of quadric surfaces. In ruled cubics the
generators all meet two lines which may or may not coincide; these two cases
correspond to the two main classes of cubics discussed by Cayley and Cremona. As
regards ruled quartics, the generators must lie in one and may lie in two linear
complexes. The first class is equivalent to a quartic in four dimensions and is always
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 177/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

rational, but the latter class has to be subdivided into the elliptic and the rational, just
like twisted quartic curves. A quintic skew may not lie in a linear complex, and then it is
unicursal, while of sextics we have two classes not in a linear complex, viz. the elliptic
variety, having thirty-six places where a linear complex contains six consecutive
generators, and the rational, having six such places.

The general theory of skews in two linear complexes is identical with that of curves on a
quadric in three dimensions and is known. But for skews lying in only one linear
complex there are difficulties; the curve now lies in four dimensions, and we represent it
in three by stereographic projection as a curve meeting a given plane in n points on a
conic. To find the maximum deficiency for a given degree would probably be difficult,
but as far as degree eight the space-curve theory of Halphen and Nöther can be
translated into line geometry at once. When the skew does not lie in a linear complex at
all the theory is more difficult still, and the general theory clearly cannot advance until
further progress is made in the study of twisted curves.

References.—The earliest works of a general nature are Plücker, Neue Geometrie des
Raumes (Leipzig, 1868); and Kümmer, “Über die algebraischen Strahlensysteme,”
Berlin Academy (1866). Systematic development on purely synthetic lines will be found
in the three volumes of Sturm, Liniengeometrie (Leipzig, 1892, 1893, 1896); vol. i. deals
with the linear and Reye complexes, vols. ii. and iii. with quadratic congruences and
complexes respectively. For a highly suggestive review by Gino Loria see Bulletin des
sciences mathématiques (1893, 1897). A shorter treatise, giving a very interesting
account of Klein’s coordinates, is the work of Koenigs, La Géométrie réglée et ses
applications (Paris, 1898). English treatises are C. M. Jessop, Treatise on the Line
Complex (1903); R. W. H. T. Hudson, Kümmer’s Quartic (1905). Many references to
memoirs on line geometry will be found in Hagen, Synopsis der höheren Mathematik,
ii. (Berlin, 1894); Loria, Il passato ed il presente delle principali teorie geometriche
(Milan, 1897); a clear résumé of the principal results is contained in the very elegant
volume of Pascal, Repertorio di mathematiche superiori, ii. (Milan, 1900). Another
treatise dealing extensively with line geometry is Lie, Geometrie der
Berührungstransformationen (Leipzig, 1896). Many memoirs on the subject have
appeared in the Mathematische Annalen; a full list of these will be found in the index to
the first fifty volumes, p. 115. Perhaps the two memoirs which have left most impression
on the subsequent development of the subject are Klein, “Zur Theorie der
Liniencomplexe des ersten und zweiten Grades,” Math. Ann. ii.; and Lie, “Über
Complexe, insbesondere Linien- und Kugelcomplexe,” Math. Ann. v. (J. H. Gr.)
VI. Non-Euclidean Geometry

The various metrical geometries are concerned with the properties of the various types
of congruence-groups, which are defined in the study of the axioms of geometry and of
their immediate consequences. But this point of view of the subject is the outcome of
recent research, and historically the subject has a different origin. Non-Euclidean
geometry arose from the discussion, extending from the Greek period to the present day,
of the various assumptions which are implicit in the traditional Euclidean system of
geometry. In the course of these investigations it became evident that metrical
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 178/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

geometries, each internally consistent but inconsistent in many respects with each other
and with the Euclidean system, could be developed. A short historical sketch will explain
this origin of the subject, and describe the famous and interesting progress of thought
on the subject. But previously a description of the chief characteristic properties of
elliptic and of hyperbolic geometries will be given, assuming the standpoint arrived at
below under VII. Axioms of Geometry.

First assume the equation to the absolute (cf. loc. cit.) to be w2 − x2 − y2 − z2 = 0. The
absolute is then real, and the geometry is hyberbolic.

The distance (d12) between the two points (x1, y1, z1, w1) and (x2, y2, z2, w2) is given by

cosh (d12/γ) = (w1w2 − x1x2 − y1y2 − z1z2) / {(w12 − x12 − y12 − z12)
1 (1)
(w22 − x22 − y22 − z22)}⁠2 ⁠

The only points to which the metrical geometry applies are those within the region
enclosed by the quadric; the other points are “improper ideal points.” The angle (θ12)
between two planes, l1x + m1y + n1z + r1w = 0 and l2x + m2y + n2z + r2w = 0, is given
by

cos θ12 = (l1l2 + m1m2 + n1n2 − r1r2) / {(l12 + m12 + n12 − r12)
1 (2)
(l22 + m22 + n22 − r22)}⁠2 ⁠

These planes only have a real angle of inclination if they possess a line of intersection
within the actual space, i.e. if they intersect. Planes which do not intersect possess a
shortest distance along a line which is perpendicular to both of them. If this shortest
distance is δ12, we have

cosh (δ12/γ) = (l1l2 + m1m2 + n1n2 − r1r2) / {(l12 + m12 + n12 − r12)
1
(3)
(l22 + m22 + n22 − r22)}⁠2 ⁠

Thus in the case of the two planes one and

only one of the two, θ12 and δ12, is real. The
same considerations hold for coplanar
straight lines (see VII. Axioms of Geometry).
Let O (fig. 67) be the point (0, 0, 0, 1), OX the
line y = 0, z = 0, OY the line z = 0, x = 0, and
OZ the line x = 0, y = 0. These are the
coordinate axes and are at right angles to
each other. Let P be any point, and let ρ be the
distance OP, θ the angle POZ, and φ the angle
between the planes ZOX and ZOP. Then the Fig. 67.
coordinates of P can be taken to be

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 179/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library
sinh (ρ/γ) sin θ cos φ, sinh (ρ/γ) sin θ
sin φ, sinh (ρ/γ) cos θ, cosh (ρ/γ).

If ABC is a triangle, and the sides and angles are named according to the usual
convention, we have

sinh (a/γ) / sin A = sinh (b/γ) / sin B = sinh (c/γ) / sin C, (4)

and also

cosh (a/γ) = cosh (b/γ) cosh (c/γ) − sinh (b/γ) sinh (c/γ) cos A, (5)

with two similar equations. The sum of the three

angles of a triangle is always less than two right
angles. The area of the triangle ABC is λ2(π − A − B
− C). If the base BC of a triangle is kept fixed and
Fig. 68. the vertex A moves in the fixed plane ABC so that
the area ABC is constant, then the locus of A is a
line of equal distance from BC. This locus is not a straight line. The whole theory of
similarity is inapplicable; two triangles are either congruent, or their angles are not
equal two by two. Thus the elements of a triangle are determined when its three angles
are given. By keeping A and B and the line BC fixed, but by making C move off to infinity
along BC, the lines BC and AC become parallel, and the sides a and b become infinite.
Hence from equation (5) above, it follows that two parallel lines (cf. Section VII. Axioms
of Geometry) must be considered as making a zero angle with each other. Also if B be a
right angle, from the equation (5), remembering that, in the limit,

cosh (a/γ) / cosh (b/γ) = cosh (a/γ) / sinh (b/γ) = 1,

we have .... (6).

The angle A is called by N. I. Lobatchewsky the “angle of parallelism.”

The whole theory of lines and planes at right angles to each other is simply the theory of
conjugate elements with respect to the absolute, where ideal lines and planes are
introduced.

Thus if l and l′ be any two conjugate lines with respect to the absolute (of which one of
the two must be improper, say l′), then any plane through l′ and containing proper
points is perpendicular to l. Also if p is any plane containing proper points, and P is its
pole, which is necessarily improper, then the lines through P are the normals to P. The
equation of the sphere, centre (x1, y1, z1, w1) and radius ρ, is

. (7).

The equation of the surface of equal distance (σ) from the plane lx + my + nz + rw = 0 is

(l2 + m2 + n2 − r2) (w2 − x2 − y2 − z2) sinh2 (σ/γ) = (rw + lx + my + nz)2 (8).

A surface of equal distance is a sphere whose centre is improper; and both types of
surface are included in the family
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 180/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

k2 (w2 − x2 − y2 − z2) = (ax + by + cz + dw)2 (9).

But this family also includes a third type of surfaces, which can be looked on either as
the limits of spheres whose centres have approached the absolute, or as the limits of
surfaces of equal distance whose central planes have approached a position tangential to
the absolute. These surfaces are called limit-surfaces. Thus (9) denotes a limit-surface, if
d2 − a2 − b2 − c2 = 0. Two limit-surfaces only differ in position. Thus the two limit-
surfaces which touch the plane YOZ at O, but have their concavities turned in opposite
directions, have as their equations

w2 − x2 − y2 − z2 = (w ± x)2.
The geodesic geometry of a sphere is elliptic, that of a surface of equal distance is
hyperbolic, and that of a limit-surface is parabolic (i.e. Euclidean). The equation of the
surface (cylinder) of equal distance (δ) from the line OX is

(w2 − x2) tanh2 (δ/γ) − y2 − z2 = 0.

This is not a ruled surface. Hence in this geometry it is not possible for two straight lines
to be at a constant distance from each other.

Secondly, let the equation of the absolute be x2 + y2 + z2 + w2 = 0. The absolute is now

imaginary and the geometry is elliptic.

The distance (d12) between the two points (x1, y1, z1, w1) and (x2, y2, z2, w2) is given by

cos (d12/γ) = ± (x1x2 + y1y2 + z1z2 + w1w2) /

1
(10).
{(x12 + y12 + z12 + w12) (x22 + y22 + z22 + w22)}⁠2 ⁠

Thus there are two distances between the points, and if one is d12, the other is πγ-d12.
Every straight line returns into itself, forming a closed series. Thus there are two
segments between any two points, together forming the whole line which contains them;
one distance is associated with one segment, and the other distance with the other
segment. The complete length of every straight line is πγ.

The angle between the two planes l1x + m1y + n1z + r + 1w = 0 and l2x + m2y + n2z +
r2w = 0 is

cos θ12 = (l1l2 + m1m2 + n1n2 + r1r2) /

1
(11).
{(l12 + m12 + n12 +r12) (l22 + m22 + n22 + r22)}⁠2 ⁠

The polar plane with respect to the absolute of the point (x1, y1, z1, w1) is the real plane
x1x + y1y + z1z + w1w = 0, and the pole of the plane l1x + m1y + n1z + r1w = 0 is the
point (l1, m1, n1, r1). Thus (from equations 10 and 11) it follows that the angle between
the polar planes of the points (x1, ...) and (x2, ...) is d12/γ, and that the distance between
the poles of the planes (l1, ...) and (l2, ...) is γθ12. Thus there is complete reciprocity
between points and planes in respect to all properties. This complete reign of the

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 181/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

principle of duality is one of the great beauties of this geometry. The theory of lines and
planes at right angles is simply the theory of conjugate elements with respect to the
absolute. A tetrahedron self-conjugate with respect to the absolute has all its
intersecting elements (edges and planes) at right angles. If l and l′ are two conjugate
lines, the planes through one are the planes perpendicular to the other. If P is the pole of
the plane p, the lines through P are the normals to the plane p. The distance from P to p
is ⁠21 ⁠πγ. Thus every sphere is also a surface of equal distance from the polar of its centre,
and conversely. A plane does not divide space; for the line joining any two points P and
Q only cuts the plane once, in L say, then it is always possible to go from P to Q by the
segment of the line PQ which does not contain L. But P and Q may be said to be
separated by a plane p, if the point in which PQ cuts p lies on the shortest segment
between P and Q. With this sense of “separation,” it is possible[2] to find three points P,
Q, R such that P and Q are separated by the plane p, but P and R are not separated by p,
nor are Q and R.

Let A, B, C be any three non-collinear points, then four triangles are defined by these
points. Thus if a, b, c and A, B, C are the elements of any one triangle, then the four
triangles have as their elements:

(1) a, b, c, A, B, C.
(2) a, πγ − b, πγ − c, A, π − B, π − C.
(3) πγ − a, b, πγ − c, π − A, B, π − C.
(4) πγ − a, πγ − b, c, π − A, π − B, C.
The formulae connecting the elements are

sin A/sin (a/γ) = sin B/sin (b/γ) = sin C/sin (c/γ), (12).

and

cos (a/γ) = cos (b/γ) cos (c/γ) + sin (b/γ) sin (c/γ) cos A, (13).

with two similar equations.

Two cases arise, namely (I.) according as one of the four triangles has as its sides the
shortest segments between the angular points, or (II.) according as this is not the case.
When case I. holds there is said to be a “principal triangle.”[3] If all the figures
considered lie within a sphere of radius ⁠41 ⁠πγ only case I. can hold, and the principal
triangle is the triangle wholly within this sphere, also the peculiarities in respect to the
separation of points by a plane cannot then arise. The sum of the three angles of a
triangle ABC is always greater than two right angles, and the area of the triangle is γ2(A
+ B + C − π). Thus as in hyperbolic geometry the theory of similarity does not hold, and
the elements of a triangle are determined when its three angles are given. The
coordinates of a point can be written in the form

sin (ρ/γ) sin Φ cos φ, sin (ρ/γ) sin Φ sin φ, sin (ρ/γ) cos Φ, cos (ρ/γ),
where ρ, Φ and φ have the same meanings as in the corresponding formulae in
hyperbolic geometry. Again, suppose a watch is laid on the plane OXY, face upwards
with its centre at O, and the line 12 to 6 (as marked on dial) along the line YOY. Let the
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 182/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

watch be continually pushed along the plane along the line OX, that is, in the direction 9
to 3. Then the line XOX being of finite length, the watch will return to O, but at its first
return it will be found to be face downwards on the other side of the plane, with the line
12 to 6 reversed in direction along the line YOY. This peculiarity was first pointed out by
Felix Klein. The theory of parallels as it exists in hyperbolic space has no application in
elliptic geometry. But another property of Euclidean parallel lines holds in elliptic
geometry, and by the use of it parallel lines are defined. For the equation of the surface
(cylinder) of equal distance (δ) from the line XOX is

(x2 + w2) tan2 (δ/γ) − (y2 + z2) = 0.

This is also the surface of equal distance, ⁠21 ⁠πγ−δ, from the line conjugate to XOX. Now
from the form of the above equation this is a ruled surface, and through every point of it
two generators pass. But these generators are lines of equal distance from XOX. Thus
throughout every point of space two lines can be drawn which are lines of equal distance
from a given line l. This property was discovered by W. K. Clifford. The two lines are
called Clifford’s right and left parallels to l through the point. This property of
parallelism is reciprocal, so that if m is a left parallel to l, then l is a left parallel to m.
Note also that two parallel lines l and m are not coplanar. Many of those properties of
Euclidean parallels, which do not hold for Lobatchewsky’s parallels in hyperbolic
geometry, do hold for Clifford’s parallels in elliptic geometry. The geodesic geometry of
spheres is elliptic, the geodesic geometry of surfaces of equal distance from lines
(cylinders) is Euclidean, and surfaces of revolution can be found[4] of which the geodesic
geometry is hyperbolic. But it is to be noticed that the connectivity of these surfaces is
different to that of a Euclidean plane. For instance there are only ∞2 congruence
transformations of the cylindrical surfaces of equal distance into themselves, instead of
the ∞3 for the ordinary plane. It would obviously be possible to state “axioms” which
these geodesics satisfy, and thus to define independently, and not as loci, quasi-spaces of
these peculiar types. The existence of such Euclidean quasi-geometries was first pointed
out by Clifford.[5]
In both elliptic and hyperbolic geometry the spherical geometry, i.e. the relations
between the angles formed by lines and planes passing through the same point, is the
same as the “spherical trigonometry” in Euclidean geometry. The constant γ, which
appears in the formulae both of hyperbolic and elliptic geometry, does not by its
variation produce different types of geometry. There is only one type of elliptic geometry
and one type of hyperbolic geometry; and the magnitude of the constant γ in each case
simply depends upon the magnitude of the arbitrary unit of length in comparison with
the natural unit of length which each particular instance of either geometry presents.
The existence of a natural unit of length is a peculiarity common both to hyperbolic and
elliptic geometries, and differentiates them from Euclidean geometry. It is the reason for
the failure of the theory of similarity in them. If γ is very large, that is, if the natural unit
is very large compared to the arbitrary unit, and if the lengths involved in the figures
considered are not large compared to the arbitrary unit, then both the elliptic and
hyperbolic geometries approximate to the Euclidean. For from formulae (4) and (5) and
also from (12) and (13) we find, after retaining only the lowest powers of small
quantities, as the formulae for any triangle ABC,
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 183/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

a/ sin A = b/ sin B = c/ sin C,

and

a2 = b2+c2 − 2bc cos A,

with two similar equations. Thus the geometries of small figures are in both types
Euclidean.

History.—“In pulcherrimo Geometriae corpore,” wrote Sir Henry Savile in 1621, “duo
sunt naevi, duae labes nec quod sciam plures, in quibus eluendis et emaculendis cum
veterum tum recentiorum ... vigilavit industria.” These two blemishes are the theory of
Theory of parallels and the theory of proportion. The “industry of the moderns,” in
parallels both respects, has given rise to important branches of mathematics, while
before at the same time showing that Euclid is in these respects more free from
Gauss.
blemish than had been previously credible. It was from endeavours to
improve the theory of parallels that non-Euclidean geometry arose; and though it has
now acquired a far wider scope, its historical origin remains instructive and interesting.
Euclid’s “axiom of parallels” appears as Postulate V. to the first book of his Elements,
and is stated thus, “And that, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the
angles, internal and on the same side, less than two right angles, the two straight lines,
being produced indefinitely, meet on the side on which are the angles less than two right
angles.” The original Greek is καὶ ἐὰν εἰς δύο εὐθείας εὐθεῖα ἐμπίπτουσα τὰς ἐντὸς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ
αὐτὰ μέρη γωνίας δύο ὀρθῶν ἐλάσσονας ποιῇ, ἐκβαλλομένας τὰς δύο εὐθείας ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον
συμπίπτειν, ἐφ᾽ ἃ μέρη εἰσὶν αἱ τῶν δύο ὀρθῶν ἐλάσσονες.

To Euclid’s successors this axiom had signally failed to appear self-evident, and had
failed equally to appear indemonstrable. Without the use of the postulate its converse is
proved in Euclid’s 28th proposition, and it was hoped that by further efforts the
postulate itself could be also proved. The first step consisted in the discovery of
equivalent axioms. Christoph Clavius in 1574 deduced the axiom from the assumption
that a line whose points are all equidistant from a straight line is itself straight. John
Wallis in 1663 showed that the postulate follows from the possibility of similar triangles
on different scales. Girolamo Saccheri (1733) showed that it is sufficient to have a single
triangle, the sum of whose angles is two right angles. Other equivalent forms may be
obtained, but none shows any essential superiority to Euclid’s. Indeed plausibility,
which is chiefly aimed at, becomes a positive demerit where it conceals a real
assumption.

A new method, which, though it failed to lead to the desired goal, proved in the end
immensely fruitful, was invented by Saccheri, in a work entitled Euclides ab omni naevo
Saccheri. vindicatus (Milan, 1733). If the postulate of parallels is involved in
Euclid’s other assumptions, contradictions must emerge when it is denied
while the others are maintained. This led Saccheri to attempt a reductio ad absurdum,
in which he mistakenly believed himself to have succeeded. What is interesting,
however, is not his fallacious conclusion, but the non-Euclidean results which he obtains
in the process. Saccheri distinguishes three hypotheses (corresponding to what are now
known as Euclidean or parabolic, elliptic and hyperbolic geometry), and proves that

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 184/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

some one of the three must be universally true. His three hypotheses are thus obtained:
equal perpendiculars AC, BD are drawn from a straight line AB, and CD are joined. It is
shown that the angles ACD, BDC are equal. The first hypothesis is that these are both
right angles; the second, that they are both obtuse; and the third, that they are both
acute. Many of the results afterwards obtained by Lobatchewsky and Bolyai are here
developed. Saccheri fails to be the founder of non-Euclidean geometry only because he
does not perceive the possible truth of his non-Euclidean hypotheses.

Some advance is made by Johann Heinrich Lambert in his Theorie der Parallellinien
(written 1766; posthumously published 1786). Though he still believed in the necessary
Lambert. truth of Euclidean geometry, he confessed that, in all his attempted
proofs, something remained undemonstrated. He deals with the same
three hypotheses as Saccheri, showing that the second holds on a sphere, while the third
would hold on a sphere of purely imaginary radius. The second hypothesis he succeeds
in condemning, since, like all who preceded Bernhard Riemann, he is unable to conceive
of the straight line as finite and closed. But the third hypothesis, which is the same as
Lobatchewsky’s, is not even professedly refuted.[6]

Non-Euclidean geometry proper begins with Karl Friedrich Gauss. The advance which
he made was rather philosophical than mathematical: it was he (probably) who first
recognized that the postulate of parallels is possibly false, and should be empirically
Three tested by measuring the angles of large triangles. The history of non-
periods of Euclidean geometry has been aptly divided by Felix Klein into three very
non- distinct periods. The first—which contains only Gauss, Lobatchewsky and
Euclidean
Bolyai—is characterized by its synthetic method and by its close relation to
geometry.
Euclid. The attempt at indirect proof of the disputed postulate would seem
to have been the source of these three men’s discoveries; but when the postulate had
been denied, they found that the results, so far from showing contradictions, were just
as self-consistent as Euclid. They inferred that the postulate, if true at all, can only be
proved by observations and measurements. Only one kind of non-Euclidean space is
known to them, namely, that which is now called hyperbolic. The second period is
analytical, and is characterized by a close relation to the theory of surfaces. It begins
with Riemann’s inaugural dissertation, which regards space as a particular case of a
manifold; but the characteristic standpoint of the period is chiefly emphasized by
Eugenio Beltrami. The conception of measure of curvature is extended by Riemann from
surfaces to spaces, and a new kind of space, finite but unbounded (corresponding to the
second hypothesis of Saccheri and Lambert), is shown to be possible. As opposed to the
second period, which is purely metrical, the third period is essentially projective in its
method. It begins with Arthur Cayley, who showed that metrical properties are
projective properties relative to a certain fundamental quadric, and that different
geometries arise according as this quadric is real, imaginary or degenerate. Klein, to
whom the development of Cayley’s work is due, showed further that there are two forms
of Riemann’s space, called by him the elliptic and the spherical. Finally, it has been
shown by Sophus Lie, that if figures are to be freely movable throughout all space in ∞6
ways, no other three-dimensional spaces than the above four are possible.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 185/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Gauss published nothing on the theory of parallels, and it was not generally known until
after his death that he had interested himself in that theory from a very early date. In
1799 he announces that Euclidean geometry would follow from the assumption that a
Gauss. triangle can be drawn greater than any given triangle. Though unwilling to
assume this, we find him in 1804 still hoping to prove the postulate of
parallels. In 1830 he announces his conviction that geometry is not an a priori science;
in the following year he explains that non-Euclidean geometry is free from
contradictions, and that, in this system, the angles of a triangle diminish without limit
when all the sides are increased. He also gives for the circumference of a circle of radius
the formula , where is a constant depending upon the nature of the
space. In 1832, in reply to the receipt of Bolyai’s Appendix, he gives an elegant proof that
the amount by which the sum of the angles of a triangle falls short of two right angles is
proportional to the area of the triangle. From these and a few other remarks it appears
that Gauss possessed the foundations of hyperbolic geometry, which he was probably
the first to regard as perhaps true. It is not known with certainty whether he influenced
Lobatchewsky and Bolyai, but the evidence we possess is against such a view.[7]

The first to publish a non-Euclidean geometry was Nicholas Lobatchewsky, professor of

mathematics in the new university of Kazañ.[8] In the place of the disputed postulate he
puts the following: “All straight lines which, in a plane, radiate from a given point, can,
Lobatchewsky.with respect to any other straight line in the same plane, be divided into
two classes, the intersecting and the non-intersecting. The boundary line
of the one and the other class is called parallel to the given line.” It follows that there are
two parallels to the given line through any point, each meeting the line at infinity, like a
Euclidean parallel. (Hence a line has two distinct points at infinity, and not one only as
in ordinary geometry.) The two parallels to a line through a point make equal acute
angles with the perpendicular to the line through the point. If p be the length of the
perpendicular, either of these angles is denoted by Π(p). The determination of Π(p) is the
chief problem (cf. equation (6) above); it appears finally that, with a suitable choice of
the unit of length,

tan .

Before obtaining this result it is shown that spherical trigonometry is unchanged, and
that the normals to a circle or a sphere still pass through its centre. When the radius of
the circle or sphere becomes infinite all these normals become parallel, but the circle or
sphere does not become a straight line or plane. It becomes what Lobatchewsky calls a
limit-line or limit-surface. The geometry on such a surface is shown to be Euclidean,
limit-lines replacing Euclidean straight lines. (It is, in fact, a surface of zero measure of
curvature.) By the help of these propositions Lobatchewsky obtains the above value of
Π(p), and thence the solution of triangles. He points out that his formulae result from
those of spherical trigonometry by substituting ia, ib, ic, for the sides a, b, c.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 186/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

John Bolyai, a Hungarian, obtained results closely corresponding to those of

Lobatchewsky. These he published in an appendix to a work by his father, entitled
Appendix Scientiam spatii absolute veram exhibens: a veritate aut falsitate Axiomatis
Bolyai. XI. Euclidei (a priori haud unquam decidenda) independentem: adjecta
ad casum falsitatis, quadratura circuli geometrica.[9] This work was
published in 1831, but its conception dates from 1823. It reveals a profounder
appreciation of the importance of the new ideas, but otherwise differs little from
Lobatchewsky’s. Both men point out that Euclidean geometry as a limiting case of their
own more general system, that the geometry of very small spaces is always
approximately Euclidean, that no a priori grounds exist for a decision, and that
observation can only give an approximate answer. Bolyai gives also, as his title indicates,
a geometrical construction, in hyperbolic space, for the quadrature of the circle, and
shows that the area of the greatest possible triangle, which has all its sides parallel and
all its angles zero, is πi2, where i is what we should now call the space-constant.

The works of Lobatchewsky and Bolyai, though known and valued by Gauss, remained
obscure and ineffective until, in 1866, they were translated into French by J. Hoüel. But
at this time Riemann’s dissertation, Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu
Riemann. Grunde liegen,[10] was already about to be published. In this work
Riemann, without any knowledge of his predecessors in the same field,
inaugurated a far more profound discussion, based on a far more general standpoint;
and by its publication in 1867 the attention of mathematicians and philosophers was at
last secured. (The dissertation dates from 1854, but owing to changes which Riemann
wished to make in it, it remained unpublished until after his death.)

Riemann’s work contains two fundamental conceptions, that of a manifold and that of
the measure of curvature of a continuous manifold possessed of what he calls flatness in
the smallest parts. By means of these conceptions space is made to appear at the end of a
Definition of gradual series of more and more specialized conceptions. Conceptions of
a manifold. magnitude, he explains, are only possible where we have a general
conception capable of determination in various ways. The manifold
consists of all these various determinations, each of which is an element of the manifold.
The passage from one element to another may be discrete or continuous; the manifold is
called discrete or continuous accordingly. Where it is discrete two portions of it can be
compared, as to magnitude, by counting; where continuous, by measurement. But
measurement demands superposition, and consequently some magnitude independent
of its place in the manifold. In passing, in a continuous manifold, from one element to
another in a determinate way, we pass through a series of intermediate terms, which
form a one-dimensional manifold. If this whole manifold be similarly caused to pass
over into another, each of its elements passes through a one-dimensional manifold, and
thus on the whole a two-dimensional manifold is generated. In this way we can proceed
to n dimensions. Conversely, a manifold of n dimensions can be analysed into one of one
dimension and one of (n − 1) dimensions. By repetitions of this process the position of
an element may be at last determined by n magnitudes. We may here stop to observe
that the above conception of a manifold is akin to that due to Hermann Grassmann in
the first edition (1847) of his Ausdehnungslehre.[11]
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 187/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Both concepts have been elaborated and superseded by the modern procedure in respect
to the axioms of geometry, and by the conception of abstract geometry involved therein.
Riemann proceeds to specialize the manifold by considerations as to measurement. If
Measure of measurement is to be possible, some magnitude, we saw, must be
curvature. independent of position; let us consider manifolds in which lengths of
lines are such magnitudes, so that every line is measurable by every
other. The coordinates of a point being x1, x2, ... xn, let us confine ourselves to lines
along which the ratios dx1 : dx2 : ... : dxn alter continuously. Let us also assume that the
element of length, ds, is unchanged (to the first order) when all its points undergo the
same infinitesimal motion. Then if all the increments dx be altered in the same ratio, ds
is also altered in this ratio. Hence ds is a homogeneous function of the first degree of the
increments dx. Moreover, ds must be unchanged when all the dx change sign. The
simplest possible case is, therefore, that in which ds is the square root of a quadratic
function of the dx. This case includes space, and is alone considered in what follows. It is
called the case of flatness in the smallest parts. Its further discussion depends upon the
measure of curvature, the second of Riemann’s fundamental conceptions. This
conception, derived from the theory of surfaces, is applied as follows. Any one of the
shortest lines which issue from a given point (say the origin) is completely determined
by the initial ratios of the dx. Two such lines, defined by dx and δx say, determine a
pencil, or one-dimensional series, of shortest lines, any one of which is defined by λdx +
μδx, where the parameter λ : μ may have any value. This pencil generates a two-
dimensional series of points, which may be regarded as a surface, and for which we may
apply Gauss’s formula for the measure of curvature at any point. Thus at every point of
our manifold there is a measure of curvature corresponding to every such pencil; but all
these can be found when n·n − 1/2 of them are known. If figures are to be freely
movable, it is necessary and sufficient that the measure of curvature should be the same
for all points and all directions at each point. Where this is the case, if α be the measure
of curvature, the linear element can be put into the form

ds = √(Σdx2) / (1 + ⁠41 ⁠αΣx2).

If α be positive, space is finite, though still unbounded, and every straight line is closed—
a possibility first recognized by Riemann. It is pointed out that, since the possible values
of a form a continuous series, observations cannot prove that our space is strictly
Euclidean. It is also regarded as possible that, in the infinitesimal, the measure of
curvature of our space should be variable.

There are four points in which this profound and epoch-making work is open to
criticism or development—(1) the idea of a manifold requires more precise
determination; (2) the introduction of coordinates is entirely unexplained and the
requisite presuppositions are unanalysed; (3) the assumption that ds is the square root
of a quadratic function of dx1, dx2, ... is arbitrary; (4) the idea of superposition, or
congruence, is not adequately analysed. The modern solution of these difficulties is
properly considered in connexion with the general subject of the axioms of geometry.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 188/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

The publication of Riemann’s dissertation was closely followed by two works of

Hermann von Helmholtz,[12] again undertaken in ignorance of the work of predecessors.
Helmholtz. In these a proof is attempted that ds must be a rational integral quadratic
function of the increments of the coordinates. This proof has since been
shown by Lie to stand in need of correction (see VII. Axioms of Geometry). Helmholtz’s
remaining works on the subject[13] are of almost exclusively philosophical interest. We
shall return to them later.

The only other writer of importance in the second period is Eugenio Beltrami, by whom
Riemann’s work was brought into connexion with that of Lobatchewsky and Bolyai. As
Beltrami. he gave, by an elegant method, a convenient Euclidean interpretation of
hyperbolic plane geometry, his results will be stated at some length[14].
The Saggio shows that Lobatchewsky’s plane geometry holds in Euclidean geometry on
surfaces of constant negative curvature, straight lines being replaced by geodesics. Such
surfaces are capable of a conformal representation on a plane, by which geodesics are
represented by straight lines. Hence if we take, as coordinates on the surface, the
Cartesian coordinates of corresponding points on the plane, the geodesics must have
linear equations.

Hence it follows that

ds2 = R2w−4 {(a2 − v2) du2 + 2uvdudv + (a2 − u2)dv2}

where w2 = a2 − u2 − v2, and −1/R2 is the measure of curvature of our surface (note that
k = γ as used above). The angle between two geodesics u = const., v = const. is θ, where

cos θ = uv / √{(a2 − u2) (a2 − v2)}, sin θ = aw / √ {(a2 − u2) (a2 − v2)}.
Thus u = 0 is orthogonal to all geodesies v = const., and vice versa. In order that sin θ
may be real, w2 must be positive; thus geodesics have no real intersection when the
corresponding straight lines intersect outside the circle u2 + v2 = α2. When they
intersect on this circle, θ = 0. Thus Lobatchewsky’s parallels are represented by straight
lines intersecting on the circle. Again, transforming to polar coordinates u = r cos μ, v =
r sin μ, and calling ρ the geodesic distance of u, v from the origin, we have, for a geodesic
through the origin,

a+r ρ
dρ = Radr /(a2 − r2), ρ = ⁠21 ⁠R log⁠ ⁠, r = a tanh ⁠ ⁠).
a−r R
Thus points on the surface corresponding to points in the plane on the limiting circle r =
a, are all at an infinite distance from the origin. Again, considering r constant, the arc of
a geodesic circle subtending an angle μ at the origin is

σ = Rrμ / √ (a2 − r2) = μR sinh (ρ/R),

whence the circumference of a circle of radius ρ is 2πR sinh (ρ/R). Again, if α be the
angle between any two geodesics

V − v = m (U − u), V − v = n (U − u),
then

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 189/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

tan α = a (n − m)w / {(1 + mn)a2 − (v − mu) (v − nu)}.

Thus α is imaginary when u, v is outside the limiting circle, and is zero when, and only
when, u, v is on the limiting circle. All these results agree with those of Lobatchewsky
and Bolyai. The maximum triangle, whose angles are all zero, is represented in the
auxiliary plane by a triangle inscribed in the limiting circle. The angle of parallelism is
also easily obtained. The perpendicular to v = 0 at a distance δ from the origin is u = a
tanh (δ/R), and the parallel to this through the origin is u = v sinh (δ/R). Hence Π (δ),
the angle which this parallel makes with v = 0, is given by

tan Π(δ) . sinh (δ/R) = 1, or tan ⁠21 ⁠Π(δ) = e−δ/R

which is Lobatchewsky’s formula. We also obtain easily for the area of a triangle the
formula R2(π − A − B − C).

Beltrami’s treatment connects two curves which, in the earlier treatment, had no
connexion. These are limit-lines and curves of constant distance from a straight line.
Both may be regarded as circles, the first having an infinite, the second an imaginary
radius. The equation to a circle of radius ρ and centre u0v0 is

(a2 − uu0 − vv0)2 = cosh2 (ρ/R) w02w2 = C2w2 (say).

This equation remains real when ρ is a pure imaginary, and remains finite when w0 = 0,
provided ρ becomes infinite in such a way that w0 cosh (ρ/R) remains finite. In the latter
case the equation represents a limit-line. In the former case, by giving different values to
C, we obtain concentric circles with the imaginary centre u0v0. One of these, obtained by
putting C = 0, is the straight line a2 − uu0 − vv0 = 0. Hence the others are each
throughout at a constant distance from this line. (It may be shown that all motions in a
hyperbolic plane consist, in a general sense, of rotations; but three types must be
distinguished according as the centre is real, imaginary or at infinity. All points describe,
accordingly, one of the three types of circles.)

The above Euclidean interpretation fails for three or more dimensions. In the Teoria
fondamentale, accordingly, where n dimensions are considered, Beltrami treats
hyperbolic space in a purely analytical spirit. The paper shows that Lobatchewsky’s
space of any number of dimensions has, in Riemann’s sense, a constant negative
measure of curvature. Beltrami starts with the formula (analogous to that of the Saggio)

ds2 = R2x−2 (dx2 + dx12 + dx22 + . . . + dxn2)

where

x2 + x12 + x22 + ... + xn2 = a2.

He shows that geodesics are represented by linear equations between x1, x2, ..., xn, and
that the geodesic distance ρ between two points x and x′ is given by

ρ a2 − x1x′1 − x2x′2 − ... − xnx′n

cosh = 1
R {(a2 − x12 − x22 − ... − xn2) (a2 − x′12 − x′22 − ... − x′n2)} ⁄2

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 190/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

(a formula practically identical with Cayley’s, though obtained by a very different

method). In order to show that the measure of curvature is constant, we make the
substitutions

x1 = rλ1, x2 = rλ2 ... xn = rλn, where Σλ2 = 1.

Hence ds2 = (Radr / a2 − r2)2 + R2r2dΔ2 / (a2 − r2).
where dΔ2 = Σdλ2.
Also calling ρ the geodesic distance from the origin, we have

a r
cos h (ρ/R) = , sinh (ρ/R) = .
√(a2 − r2) √(a2 − r2)
Hence ds2 = dρ2 + (R sinh (ρ/R))2 dΔ2.
Putting z1 = ρλ1, z2 = ρλ2, ... zn = ρλn,
we obtain

1 R ρ 2
ds2 = Σdz2 + { ( sinh ) − 1 } Σ (zidzk − zkdzi)2.
ρ2 ρ R
Hence when ρ is small, we have approximately

1
ds2 = Σdz2 +⁠3R2 ⁠Σ (zidzk − zkdzi)2 (1).

Considering a surface element through the origin, we may choose our axes so that, for
this element,

z3 = z4 = ... = zn = 0.
Thus

1
ds2 = dz12+dz22+⁠3R2 ⁠(z1dz2 − z2dz1)2 (2).

Now the area of the triangle whose vertices are (0, 0), (z1, z2), (dz1, dz2) is ⁠21 ⁠(z1, dz2 −
z2dz1). Hence the quotient when the terms of the fourth order in (2) are divided by the
square of this triangle is 4/3R2; hence, returning to general axes, the same is the
quotient when the terms of the fourth order in (1) are divided by the square of the
triangle whose vertices are (0, 0, . . . 0), (z1, z2, z3, . . . zn), (dz1, dz2, dz3 . . . dzn). But −⁠43 ⁠
of this quotient is defined by Riemann as the measure of curvature.[15] Hence the
measure of curvature is −1/R2, i.e. is constant and negative. The properties of parallels,
triangles, &c., are as in the Saggio. It is also shown that the analogues of limit surfaces
have zero curvature; and that spheres of radius ρ have constant positive curvature 1/R2
sinh2 (ρ/R), so that spherical geometry may be regarded as contained in the pseudo-
spherical (as Beltrami calls Lobatchewsky’s system).
The Saggio, as we saw, gives a Euclidean interpretation confined to two dimensions. But
a consideration of the auxiliary plane suggests a different interpretation, which may be
extended to any number of dimensions. If, instead of referring to the pseudosphere, we
merely define distance and angle, in the Euclidean plane, as those functions of the
coordinates which gave us distance and angle on the pseudosphere, we find that the
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 191/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Transition geometry of our plane has become Lobatchewsky’s. All the points of the
to the limiting circle are now at infinity, and points beyond it are imaginary. If
projective we give our circle an imaginary radius the geometry on the plane becomes
method.
elliptic. Replacing the circle by a sphere, we obtain an analogous
representation for three dimensions. Instead of a circle or sphere we may take any conic
or quadric. With this definition, if the fundamental quadric be Σxx = 0, and if Σxx′ be the
polar form of Σxx, the distance ρ between x and x′ is given by the projective formula

1
cos(ρ/k) = Σxx′ / {Σxx·Σx′x′}⁠2 ⁠.
That this formula is projective is rendered evident by observing that e−2iρ/k is the
anharmonic ratio of the range consisting of the two points and the intersections of the
line joining them with the fundamental quadric. With this we are brought to the third or
projective period. The method of this period is due to Cayley; its application to previous
non-Euclidean geometry is due to Klein. The projective method contains a
generalization of discoveries already made by Laguerre[16] in 1853 as regards Euclidean
geometry. The arbitrariness of this procedure of deriving metrical geometry from the
properties of conics is removed by Lie’s theory of congruence. We then arrive at the
stage of thought which finds its expression in the modern treatment of the axioms of
geometry.

The projective method leads to a discrimination, first made by Klein,[17] of two varieties
of Riemann’s space; Klein calls these elliptic and spherical. They are also called the polar
and antipodal forms of elliptic space. The latter names will here be used. The difference
The two is strictly analogous to that between the diameters and the points of a
kinds of sphere. In the polar form two straight lines in a plane always intersect in
elliptic one and only one point; in the antipodal form they intersect always in two
space.
points, which are antipodes. According to the definition of geometry
adopted in section VII. (Axioms of Geometry), the antipodal form is not to be termed
“geometry,” since any pair of coplanar straight lines intersect each other in two points. It
may be called a “quasi-geometry.” Similarly in the antipodal form two diameters always
determine a plane, but two points on a sphere do not determine a great circle when they
are antipodes, and two great circles always intersect in two points. Again, a plane does
not form a boundary among lines through a point: we can pass from any one such line to
any other without passing through the plane. But a great circle does divide the surface of
a sphere. So, in the polar form, a complete straight line does not divide a plane, and a
plane does not divide space, and does not, like a Euclidean plane, have two sides.[18]
But, in the antipodal form, a plane is, in these respects, like a Euclidean plane.

It is explained in section VII. in what sense the metrical geometry of the material world
can be considered to be determinate and not a matter of arbitrary choice. The scientific
question as to the best available evidence concerning the nature of this geometry is one
beset with difficulties of a peculiar kind. We are obstructed by the fact that all existing
physical science assumes the Euclidean hypothesis. This hypothesis has been involved in
all actual measurements of large distances, and in all the laws of astronomy and physics.
The principle of simplicity would therefore lead us, in general, where an observation

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 192/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

conflicted with one or more of those laws, to ascribe this anomaly, not to the falsity of
Euclidean geometry, but to the falsity of the laws in question. This applies especially to
astronomy. On the earth our means of measurement are many and direct, and so long as
no great accuracy is sought they involve few scientific laws. Thus we acquire, from such
direct measurements, a very high degree of probability that the space-constant, if not
infinite, is yet large as compared with terrestrial distances. But astronomical distances
and triangles can only be measured by means of the received laws of astronomy and
optics, all of which have been established by assuming the truth of the Euclidean
hypothesis. It therefore remains possible (until a detailed proof of the contrary is
forthcoming) that a large but finite space-constant, with different laws of astronomy and
optics, would have equally explained the phenomena. We cannot, therefore, accept the
measurements of stellar parallaxes, &c., as conclusive evidence that the space-constant
is large as compared with stellar distances. For the present, on grounds of simplicity, we
may rightly adopt this view; but it must remain possible that, in view of some hitherto
undiscovered discrepancy, a slight correction of the sort suggested might prove the
simplest alternative. But conversely, a finite parallax for very distant stars, or a negative
parallax for any star, could not be accepted as conclusive evidence that our geometry is
non-Euclidean, unless it were shown—and this seems scarcely possible—that no
modification of astronomy or optics could account for the phenomenon. Thus although
we may admit a probability that the space-constant is large in comparison with stellar
distances, a conclusive proof or disproof seems scarcely possible.

Finally, it is of interest to note that, though it is theoretically possible to prove, by

scientific methods, that our geometry is non-Euclidean, it is wholly impossible to prove
by such methods that it is accurately Euclidean. For the unavoidable errors of
observation must always leave a slight margin in our measurements. A triangle might be
found whose angles were certainly greater, or certainly less, than two right angles; but to
prove them exactly equal to two right angles must always be beyond our powers. If,
therefore, any man cherishes a hope of proving the exact truth of Euclid, such a hope
must be based, not upon scientific, but upon philosophical considerations.

Bibliography.—The bibliography appended to section VII. should be consulted in this

connexion. Also, in addition to the citations already made, the following works may be
mentioned.

For Lobatchewsky’s writings, cf. Urkunden zur Geschichte der nichteuklidischen

Geometrie, i., Nikolaj Iwanowitsch Lobatschefsky, by F. Engel and P. Stäckel (Leipzig,
1898). For John Bolyai’s Appendix, cf. Absolute Geometrie nach Johann Bolyai, by J.
Frischauf (Leipzig, 1872), and also the new edition of his father’s large work, Tentamen .
. ., published by the Mathematical Society of Budapest; the second volume contains the
appendix. Cf. also J. Frischauf, Elemente der absoluten Geometrie (Leipzig, 1876); M. L.
Gérard, Sur la géométrie non-Euclidienne (thesis for doctorate) (Paris, 1892); de Tilly,
Essai sur les principes fondamentales de la géométrie et de la mécanique (Bordeaux,
1879); Sir R. S. Ball, “On the Theory of Content,” Trans. Roy. Irish Acad. vol. xxix.
(1889); F. Lindemann, “Mechanik bei projectiver Maasbestimmung,” Math. Annal. vol.
vii.; W. K. Clifford, “Preliminary Sketch of Biquaternions,” Proc. of Lond. Math. Soc.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 193/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

(1873), and Coll. Works; A. Buchheim, “On the Theory of Screws in Elliptic Space,” Proc.
Lond. Math. Soc. vols. xv., xvi., xvii.; H. Cox, “On the Application of Quaternions and
Grassmann’s Algebra to different Kinds of Uniform Space,” Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc.
(1882); M. Dehn, “Die Legendarischen Sätze über die Winkelsumme im Dreieck,” Math.
Ann. vol. 53 (1900), and “Über den Rauminhalt,” Math. Annal. vol. 55 (1902).

For expositions of the whole subject, cf. F. Klein, Nicht-Euklidische Geometrie

(Göttingen, 1893); R. Bonola, La Geometria non-Euclidea (Bologna, 1906); P. Barbarin,
La Géométrie non-Euclidienne (Paris, 1902); W. Killing, Die nicht-Euklidischen
Raumformen in analytischer Behandlung (Leipzig, 1885). The last-named work also
deals with geometry of more than three dimensions; in this connexion cf. also G.
Veronese, Fondamenti di geometria a più dimensioni ed a più specie di unità rettilinee
. . . (Padua, 1891, German translation, Leipzig, 1894); G. Fontené, L’Hyperespace à (n −
1) dimensions (Paris, 1892); and A. N. Whitehead, loc. cit. Cf. also E. Study, “Über nicht-
Euklidische und Liniengeometrie,” Jahr. d. Deutsch. Math. Ver. vol. xv. (1906); W.
Burnside, “On the Kinematics of non-Euclidean Space,” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. vol. xxvi.
(1894). A bibliography on the subject up to 1878 has been published by G. B. Halsted,
Amer. Journ. of Math. vols. i. and ii.; and one up to 1900 by R. Bonola, Index operum
ad geometriam absolutam spectantium . . . (1902, and Leipzig, 1903).
(B. A. W. R.; A. N. W.)

VII. Axioms of Geometry

Until the discovery of the non-Euclidean geometries (Lobatchewsky, 1826 and 1829; J.
Bolyai, 1832; B. Riemann, 1854), geometry was universally considered as being
exclusively the science of existent space. (See section VI. Non-Euclidean Geometry.) In
Theories respect to the science, as thus conceived, two controversies may be
of space. noticed. First, there is the controversy respecting the absolute and
relational theories of space. According to the absolute theory, which is the
traditional view (held explicitly by Newton), space has an existence, in some sense
whatever it may be, independent of the bodies which it contains. The bodies occupy
space, and it is not intrinsically unmeaning to say that any definite body occupies this
part of space, and not that part of space, without reference to other bodies occupying
space. According to the relational theory of space, of which the chief exponent was
Leibnitz,[19] space is nothing but a certain assemblage of the relations between the
various particular bodies in space. The idea of space with no bodies in it is absurd.
Accordingly there can be no meaning in saying that a body is here and not there, apart
from a reference to the other bodies in the universe. Thus, on this theory, absolute
motion is intrinsically unmeaning. It is admitted on all hands that in practice only
relative motion is directly measurable. Newton, however, maintains in the Principia
(scholium to the 8th definition) that it is indirectly measurable by means of the effects of
“centrifugal force” as it occurs in the phenomena of rotation. This irrelevance of absolute
motion (if there be such a thing) to science has led to the general adoption of the
relational theory by modern men of science. But no decisive argument for either view
has at present been elaborated.[20] Kant’s view of space as being a form of perception at
first sight appears to cut across this controversy. But he, saturated as he was with the
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 194/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

spirit of the Newtonian physics, must (at least in both editions of the Critique) be
classed with the upholders of the absolute theory. The form of perception has a type of
existence proper to itself independently of the particular bodies which it contains. For
example he writes:[21] “Space does not represent any quality of objects by themselves, or
objects in their relation to one another, i.e. space does not represent any determination
which is inherent in the objects themselves, and would remain, even if all subjective
conditions of intuition were removed.”

The second controversy is that between the view that the axioms applicable to space are
known only from experience, and the view that in some sense these axioms are given a
Axioms. priori. Both these views, thus broadly stated, are capable of various subtle
modifications, and a discussion of them would merge into a general
treatise on epistemology. The cruder forms of the a priori view have been made quite
untenable by the modern mathematical discoveries. Geometers now profess ignorance
in many respects of the exact axioms which apply to existent space, and it seems unlikely
that a profound study of the question should thus obliterate a priori intuitions.

Another question irrelevant to this article, but with some relevance to the above
controversy, is that of the derivation of our perception of existent space from our various
types of sensation. This is a question for psychology.[22]

Definition of Abstract Geometry.—Existent space is the subject matter of only one of the
applications of the modern science of abstract geometry, viewed as a branch of pure
mathematics. Geometry has been defined[23] as “the study of series of two or more
dimensions.” It has also been defined[24] as “the science of cross classification.” These
definitions are founded upon the actual practice of mathematicians in respect to their
use of the term “Geometry.” Either of them brings out the fact that geometry is not a
science with a determinate subject matter. It is concerned with any subject matter to
which the formal axioms may apply. Geometry is not peculiar in this respect. All
branches of pure mathematics deal merely with types of relations. Thus the fundamental
ideas of geometry (e.g. those of points and of straight lines) are not ideas of determinate
entities, but of any entities for which the axioms are true. And a set of formal
geometrical axioms cannot in themselves be true or false, since they are not determinate
propositions, in that they do not refer to a determinate subject matter. The axioms are
propositional functions.[25] When a set of axioms is given, we can ask (1) whether they
are consistent, (2) whether their “existence theorem” is proved, (3) whether they are
independent. Axioms are consistent when the contradictory of any axiom cannot be
deduced from the remaining axioms. Their existence theorem is the proof that they are
true when the fundamental ideas are considered as denoting some determinate subject
matter, so that the axioms are developed into determinate propositions. It follows from
the logical law of contradiction that the proof of the existence theorem proves also the
consistency of the axioms. This is the only method of proof of consistency. The axioms of
a set are independent of each other when no axiom can be deduced from the remaining
axioms of the set. The independence of a given axiom is proved by establishing the
consistency of the remaining axioms of the set, together with the contradictory of the

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 195/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

given axiom. The enumeration of the axioms is simply the enumeration of the
hypotheses[26] (with respect to the undetermined subject matter) of which some at least
occur in each of the subsequent propositions.

Any science is called a “geometry” if it investigates the theory of the classification of a set
of entities (the points) into classes (the straight lines), such that (1) there is one and only
one class which contains any given pair of the entities, and (2) every such class contains
more than two members. In the two geometries, important from their relevance to
existent space, axioms which secure an order of the points on any line also occur. These
geometries will be called “Projective Geometry” and “Descriptive Geometry.” In
projective geometry any two straight lines in a plane intersect, and the straight lines are
closed series which return into themselves, like the circumference of a circle. In
descriptive geometry two straight lines in a plane do not necessarily intersect, and a
straight line is an open series without beginning or end. Ordinary Euclidean geometry is
a descriptive geometry; it becomes a projective geometry when the so-called “points at
infinity” are added.

Projective Geometry.

Projective geometry may be developed from two undefined fundamental ideas, namely,
that of a “point” and that of a “straight line.” These undetermined ideas take different
specific meanings for the various specific subject matters to which projective geometry
can be applied. The number of the axioms is always to some extent arbitrary, being
dependent upon the verbal forms of statement which are adopted. They will be
presented[27] here as twelve in number, eight being “axioms of classification,” and four
being “axioms of order.”

Axioms of Classification.—The eight axioms of classification are as follows:

1. Points form a class of entities with at least two members.

2. Any straight line is a class of points containing at least three members.

3. Any two distinct points lie in one and only one straight line.

4. There is at least one straight line which does not contain all the points.

5. If A, B, C are non-collinear points, and A′ is on the straight line BC, and B′ is on the
straight line CA, then the straight lines AA′ and BB′ possess a point in common.

Definition.—If A, B, C are any three non-collinear points, the plane ABC is the class of
points lying on the straight lines joining A with the various points on the straight line
BC.

6. There is at least one plane which does not contain all the points.

7. There exists a plane α, and a point A not incident in α, such that any point lies in some
straight line which contains both A and a point in α.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 196/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

Definition.—Harm. (ABCD) symbolizes the following conjoint statements: (1) that the
points A, B, C, D are collinear, and (2) that a quadrilateral can be found with one pair of
opposite sides intersecting at A, with the other pair intersecting at C, and with its
diagonals passing through B and D respectively. Then B and D are said to be “harmonic
conjugates” with respect to A and C.

8. Harm. (ABCD) implies that B and D are distinct points.

In the above axioms 4 secures at least two dimensions, axiom 5 is the fundamental
axiom of the plane, axiom 6 secures at least three dimensions, and axiom 7 secures at
most three dimensions. From axioms 1-5 it can be proved that any two distinct points in
a straight line determine that line, that any three non-collinear points in a plane
determine that plane, that the straight line containing any two points in a plane lies
wholly in that plane, and that any two straight lines in a plane intersect. From axioms 1-
6 Desargue’s well-known theorem on triangles in perspective can be proved.

The enunciation of this theorem is as follows: If ABC and A′B′C′ are two coplanar
triangles such that the lines AA′, BB′, CC′ are concurrent, then the three points of
intersection of BC and B′C′ of CA and C′A′, and of AB and A′B′ are collinear; and
conversely if the three points of intersection are collinear, the three lines are concurrent.
The proof which can be applied is the usual projective proof by which a third triangle
A″B″C″ is constructed not coplanar with the other two, but in perspective with each of
them.

It has been proved[28] that Desargues’s theorem cannot be deduced from axioms 1-5,
that is, if the geometry be confined to two dimensions. All the proofs proceed by the
method of producing a specification of “points” and “straight lines” which satisfies
axioms 1-5, and such that Desargues’s theorem does not hold.

It follows from axioms 1-5 that Harm. (ABCD) implies Harm. (ADCB) and Harm.
(CBAD), and that, if A, B, C be any three distinct collinear points, there exists at least
one point D such that Harm. (ABCD). But it requires Desargues’s theorem, and hence
axiom 6, to prove that Harm. (ABCD) and Harm. (ABCD′) imply the identity of D and
D′.

The necessity for axiom 8 has been proved by G. Fano,[29] who has produced a three
dimensional geometry of fifteen points, i.e. a method of cross classification of fifteen
entities, in which each straight line contains three points, and each plane contains seven
straight lines. In this geometry axiom 8 does not hold. Also from axioms 1-6 and 8 it
follows that Harm. (ABCD) implies Harm. (BCDA).

Definitions.—When two plane figures can be derived from one another by a single
projection, they are said to be in perspective. When two plane figures can be derived one
from the other by a finite series of perspective relations between intermediate figures,
they are said to be projectively related. Any property of a plane figure which necessarily
also belongs to any projectively related figure, is called a projective property.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 197/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

The following theorem, known from its importance as “the fundamental theorem of
projective geometry,” cannot be proved[30] from axioms 1-8. The enunciation is: “A
projective correspondence between the points on two straight lines is completely
determined when the correspondents of three distinct points on one line are determined
on the other.” This theorem is equivalent[31] (assuming axioms 1-8) to another theorem,
known as Pappus’s Theorem, namely: “If l and l ′ are two distinct coplanar lines, and A,
B, C are three distinct points on l, and A′, B′, C′ are three distinct points on l ′, then the
three points of intersection of AA′ and B′C, of A′B and CC′, of BB′ and C′A, are
collinear.” This theorem is obviously Pascal’s well-known theorem respecting a hexagon
inscribed in a conic, for the special case when the conic has degenerated into the two
lines l and l ′. Another theorem also equivalent (assuming axioms 1-8) to the
fundamental theorem is the following:[32] If the three collinear pairs of points, A and A′,
B and B′, C and C′, are such that the three pairs of opposite sides of a complete
quadrangle pass respectively through them, i.e. one pair through A and A′ respectively,
and so on, and if also the three sides of the quadrangle which pass through A, B, and C,
are concurrent in one of the corners of the quadrangle, then another quadrangle can be
found with the same relation to the three pairs of points, except that its three sides
which pass through A, B, and C, are not concurrent.

Thus, if we choose to take any one of these three theorems as an axiom, all the theorems
of projective geometry which do not require ordinal or metrical ideas for their
enunciation can be proved. Also a conic can be defined as the locus of the points found
by the usual construction, based upon Pascal’s theorem, for points on the conic through
five given points. But it is unnecessary to assume here any one of the suggested axioms;
for the fundamental theorem can be deduced from the axioms of order together with
axioms 1-8.
Axioms of Order.—It is possible to define (cf. Pieri, loc. cit.) the property upon which the
order of points on a straight line depends. But to secure that this property does in fact
range the points in a serial order, some axioms are required. A straight line is to be a
closed series; thus, when the points are in order, it requires two points on the line to
divide it into two distinct complementary segments, which do not overlap, and together
form the whole line. Accordingly the problem of the definition of order reduces itself to
the definition of these two segments formed by any two points on the line; and the
axioms are stated relatively to these segments.

Definition.—If A, B, C are three collinear points, the points on the segment ABC are
defined to be those points such as X, for which there exist two points Y and Y′ with the
property that Harm. (AYCY′) and Harm. (BYXY′) both hold. The supplementary
segment ABC is defined to be the rest of the points on the line. This definition is
elucidated by noticing that with our ordinary geometrical ideas, if B and X are any two
points between A and C, then the two pairs of points, A and C, B and X, define an
involution with real double points, namely, the Y and Y′ of the above definition. The
property of belonging to a segment ABC is projective, since the harmonic relation is
projective.

The first three axioms of order (cf. Pieri, loc. cit.) are:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 198/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

9. If A, B, C are three distinct collinear points, the supplementary segment ABC is

contained within the segment BCA.

10. If A, B, C are three distinct collinear points, the common part of the segments BCA
and CAB is contained in the supplementary segment ABC.

11. If A, B, C are three distinct collinear points, and D lies In the segment ABC, then the
segment ADC is contained within the segment ABC.

From these axioms all the usual properties of a closed order follow. It will be noticed
that, if A, B, C are any three collinear points, C is necessarily traversed in passing from A
to B by one route along the line, and is not traversed in passing from A to B along the
other route. Thus there is no meaning, as referred to closed straight lines, in the simple
statement that C lies between A and B. But there may be a relation of separation
between two pairs of collinear points, such as A and C, and B and D. The couple B and D
is said to separate A and C, if the four points are collinear and D lies in the segment
complementary to the segment ABC. The property of the separation of pairs of points by
pairs of points is projective. Also it can be proved that Harm. (ABCD) implies that B and
D separate A and C.

Definitions.—A series of entities arranged in a serial order, open or closed, is said to be

compact, if the series contains no immediately consecutive entities, so that in traversing
the series from any one entity to any other entity it is necessary to pass through entities
distinct from either. It was the merit of R. Dedekind and of G. Cantor explicitly to
formulate another fundamental property of series. The Dedekind property[33] as applied
to an open series can be defined thus: An open series possesses the Dedekind property,
if, however, it be divided into two mutually exclusive classes u and v, which (1) contain
between them the whole series, and (2) are such that every member of u precedes in the
serial order every member of v, there is always a member of the series, belonging to one
of the two, u or v, which precedes every member of v (other than itself if it belong to v),
and also succeeds every member of u (other than itself if it belong to u). Accordingly in
an open series with the Dedekind property there is always a member of the series
marking the junction of two classes such as u and v. An open series is continuous if it is
compact and possesses the Dedekind property. A closed series can always be
transformed into an open series by taking any arbitrary member as the first term and by
taking one of the two ways round as the ascending order of the series. Thus the
definitions of compactness and of the Dedekind property can be at once transferred to a
closed series.

12. The last axiom of order is that there exists at least one straight line for which the
point order possesses the Dedekind property.

It follows from axioms 1-12 by projection that the Dedekind property is true for all lines.
Again the harmonic system ABC, where A, B, C are collinear points, is defined[34] thus:
take the harmonic conjugates A′, B′, C′ of each point with respect to the other two, again
take the harmonic conjugates of each of the six points A, B, C, A′, B′, C′ with respect to
each pair of the remaining five, and proceed in this way by an unending series of steps.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 199/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

The set of points thus obtained is called the harmonic system ABC. It can be proved that
a harmonic system is compact, and that every segment of the line containing it possesses
members of it. Furthermore, it is easy to prove that the fundamental theorem holds for
harmonic systems, in the sense that, if A, B, C are three points on a line l, and A′, B′, C′
are three points on a line l′, and if by any two distinct series of projections A, B, C are
projected into A′, B′, C′, then any point of the harmonic system ABC corresponds to the
same point of the harmonic system A′B′C′ according to both the projective relations
which are thus established between l and l′. It now follows immediately that the
fundamental theorem must hold for all the points on the lines l and l′, since (as has been
pointed out) harmonic systems are “everywhere dense” on their containing lines. Thus
the fundamental theorem follows from the axioms of order.

A system of numerical coordinates can now be introduced, possessing the property that
linear equations represent planes and straight lines. The outline of the argument by
which this remarkable problem (in that “distance” is as yet undefined) is solved, will
now be given. It is first proved that the points on any line can in a certain way be
definitely associated with all the positive and negative real numbers, so as to form with
them a one-one correspondence. The arbitrary elements in the establishment of this
relation are the points on the line associated with 0, 1 and ∞.

This association[35] is most easily effected by considering a class of projective relations

of the line with itself, called by F. Schur (loc. cit.) prospectivities.

Let l (fig. 69) be the given line, m and n any two

lines intersecting at U on l, S and S′ two points on
n. Then a projective relation between l and itself is
formed by projecting l from S on to m, and then by
projecting m from S′ back on to l. All such
projective relations, however m, n, S and S′ be
varied, are called “prospectivities,” and U is the
double point of the prospectivity. If a point O on l is Fig. 69.
related to A by a prospectivity, then all
prospectivities, which (1) have the same double
point U, and (2) relate O to A, give the same
correspondent (Q, in figure) to any point P on the
line l; in fact they are all the same prospectivity,
however m, n, S, and S′ may have been varied
subject to these conditions. Such a prospectivity
will be denoted by (OAU2).

The sum of two prospectivities, written (OAU2) + Fig. 70.

(OBU2), is defined to be that transformation of the
line l into itself which is obtained by first applying
the prospectivity (OAU2) and then applying the

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 200/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

prospectivity (OBU2). Such a transformation, when

the two summands have the same double point, is
itself a prospectivity with that double point.

With this definition of addition it can be proved

that prospectivities with the same double point
satisfy all the axioms of magnitude. Accordingly
they can be associated in a one-one correspondence Fig. 71.
with the positive and negative real numbers. Let E
(fig. 70) be any point on l, distinct from O and U.
Then the prospectivity (OEU2) is associated with
unity, the prospectivity (OOU2) is associated with
zero, and (OUU2) with ∞. The prospectivities of the
type (OPU2), where P is any point on the segment
OEU, correspond to the positive numbers; also if P′
is the harmonic conjugate of P with respect to O
and U, the prospectivity (OP′U2) is associated with Fig. 72.
the corresponding negative number. (The
subjoined figure explains this relation of the positive and negative prospectivities.) Then
any point P on l is associated with the same number as is the prospectivity (OPU2).

It can be proved that the order of the numbers in algebraic order of magnitude agrees
with the order on the line of the associated points. Let the numbers, assigned according
to the preceding specification, be said to be associated with the points according to the
“numeration-system (OEU).” The introduction of a coordinate system for a plane is now
managed as follows: Take any triangle OUV in the plane, and on the lines OU and OV
establish the numeration systems (OE1U) and (OE2V), where E1 and E2 are arbitrarily
chosen. Then (cf. fig. 71) if M and N are associated with the numbers x and y according
to these systems, the coordinates of P are x and y. It then follows that the equation of a
straight line is of the form ax + by + c = 0. Both coordinates of any point on the line UV
are infinite. This can be avoided by introducing homogeneous coordinates X, Y, Z, where
x = X/Z, and y = Y/Z, and Z = 0 is the equation of UV.

The procedure for three dimensions is similar. Let OUVW (fig. 72) be any tetrahedron,
and associate points on OU, OV, OW with numbers according to the numeration
systems (OE1U), (OE2V), and (OE3W). Let the planes VWP, WUP, UVP cut OU, OV, OW
in L, M, N respectively; and let x, y, z be the numbers associated with L, M, N
respectively. Then P is the point (x, y, z). Also homogeneous coordinates can be
introduced as before, thus avoiding the infinities on the plane UVW.

The cross ratio of a range of four collinear points can now be defined as a number
characteristic of that range. Let the coordinates of any point Pr of the range P1 P2 P3 P4
be

λra + μr + a′ λrb + μrb′ λrc + μrc′

, , , (r = 1, 2, 3, 4)
λ r + μr λ r + μr λ r + μr

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 201/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

and let (λrμs) be written for λrμs −λsμr. Then the cross ratio {P1 P2 P3 P4} is defined to
be the number (λ1μ2)(λ3μ4) / (λ1μ4)(λ3μ2). The equality of the cross ratios of the ranges
(P1 P2 P3 P4) and (Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4) is proved to be the necessary and sufficient condition
for their mutual projectivity. The cross ratios of all harmonic ranges are then easily seen
to be all equal to −1, by comparing with the range (OE1UE′1) on the axis of x.

Thus all the ordinary propositions of geometry in which distance and angular measure
do not enter otherwise than in cross ratios can now be enunciated and proved.
Accordingly the greater part of the analytical theory of conics and quadrics belongs to
geometry at this stage The theory of distance will be considered after the principles of
descriptive geometry have been developed.
Descriptive Geometry.
Descriptive geometry is essentially the science of multiple order for open series. The first
satisfactory system of axioms was given by M. Pasch.[36] An improved version is due to
G. Peano.[37] Both these authors treat the idea of the class of points constituting the
segment lying between two points as an undefined fundamental idea. Thus in fact there
are in this system two fundamental ideas, namely, of points and of segments. It is then
easy enough to define the prolongations of the segments, so as to form the complete
straight lines. D. Hilbert’s[38] formulation of the axioms is in this respect practically
based on the same fundamental ideas. His work is justly famous for some of the
mathematical investigations contained in it, but his exposition of the axioms is distinctly
inferior to that of Peano. Descriptive geometry can also be considered[39] as the science
of a class of relations, each relation being a two-termed serial relation, as considered in
the logic of relations, ranging the points between which it holds into a linear open order.
Thus the relations are the straight lines, and the terms between which they hold are the
points. But a combination of these two points of view yields[40] the simplest statement
of all. Descriptive geometry is then conceived as the investigation of an undefined
fundamental relation between three terms (points); and when the relation holds
between three points A, B, C, the points are said to be “in the [linear] order ABC.”

O. Veblen’s axioms and definitions, slightly modified, are as follows:—

1. If the points A, B, C are in the order ABC, they are in the order CBA.

2. If the points A, B, C are in the order ABC, they are not in the order BCA.

3. If the points A, B, C are in the order ABC, A is distinct from C.

4. If A and B are any two distinct points, there exists a point C such that A, B, C are in
the order ABC.

Definition.—The line (A ± B) consists of A and B, and of all points X in one of the

possible orders, ABX, AXB, XAB. The points X in the order AXB constitute the segment
AB.

5. If points C and D (C ± D) lie on the line AB, then A lies on the line CD.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 202/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

6. There exist three distinct points A, B, C not in any of the orders ABC, BCA, CAB.

7. If three distinct points A, B, C (fig. 73) do not lie

on the same line, and D and E are two distinct
points in the orders BCD and CEA, then a point F
exists in the order AFB, and such that D, E, F are
collinear.

Definition.—If A, B, C are three non-collinear

points, the plane ABC is the class of points which Fig. 73.
lie on any one of the lines joining any two of the points belonging to the boundary of the
triangle ABC, the boundary being formed by the segments BC, CA and AB. The interior
of the triangle ABC is formed by the points in segments such as PQ, where P and Q are
points respectively on two of the segments BC, CA, AB.

8. There exists a plane ABC, which does not contain all the points.

Definition.—If A, B, C, D are four non-coplanar points, the space ABCD is the class of
points which lie on any of the lines containing two points on the surface of the
tetrahedron ABCD, the surface being formed by the interiors of the triangles ABC, BCD,
DCA, DAB.

9. There exists a space ABCD which contains all the points.

10. The Dedekind property holds for the order of the points on any straight line.

It follows from axioms 1-9 that the points on any straight line are arranged in an open
serial order. Also all the ordinary theorems respecting a point dividing a straight line
into two parts, a straight line dividing a plane into two parts, and a plane dividing space
into two parts, follow.

Again, in any plane α consider a line l and a point A (fig. 74).

Let any point B divide l into two half-lines l1 and l2.

Then it can be proved that the set of half-lines,
emanating from A and intersecting l1 (such as m),
are bounded by two half-lines, of which ABC is one.
Let r be the other. Then it can be proved that r does
not intersect l1. Similarly for the half-line, such as n,
intersecting l2. Let s be its bounding half-line. Then
Fig. 74. two cases are possible. (1) The half-lines r and s are
collinear, and together form one complete line. In
this case, there is one and only one line (viz. r + s) through A and lying in α which does
not intersect l. This is the Euclidean case, and the assumption that this case holds is the
Euclidean parallel axiom. But (2) the half-lines r and s may not be collinear. In this case
there will be an infinite number of lines, such as k for instance, containing A and lying in
α, which do not intersect l. Then the lines through A in α are divided into two classes by

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 203/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

reference to l, namely, the secant lines which intersect l, and the non-secant lines which
do not intersect l. The two boundary non-secant lines, of which r and s are respectively
halves, may be called the two parallels to l through A.

The perception of the possibility of case 2 constituted the starting-point from which
Lobatchewsky constructed the first explicit coherent theory of non-Euclidean geometry,
and thus created a revolution in the philosophy of the subject. For many centuries the
speculations of mathematicians on the foundations of geometry were almost confined to
hopeless attempts to prove the “parallel axiom” without the introduction of some
equivalent axiom.[41]
Associated Projective and Descriptive Spaces.—A region of a projective space, such that
one, and only one, of the two supplementary segments between any pair of points within
it lies entirely within it, satisfies the above axioms (1-10) of descriptive geometry, where
the points of the region are the descriptive points, and the portions of straight lines
within the region are the descriptive lines. If the excluded part of the original projective
space is a single plane, the Euclidean parallel axiom also holds, otherwise it does not
hold for the descriptive space of the limited region. Again, conversely, starting from an
original descriptive space an associated projective space can be constructed by means of
the concept of ideal points.[42] These are also called projective points, where it is
understood that the simple points are the points of the original descriptive space. An
ideal point is the class of straight lines which is composed of two coplanar lines a and b,
together with the lines of intersection of all pairs of intersecting planes which
respectively contain a and b, together with the lines of intersection with the plane ab of
all planes containing any one of the lines (other than a or b) already specified as
belonging to the ideal point. It is evident that, if the two original lines a and b intersect,
the corresponding ideal point is nothing else than the whole class of lines which are
concurrent at the point ab. But the essence of the definition is that an ideal point has an
existence when the lines a and b do not intersect, so long as they are coplanar. An ideal
point is termed proper, if the lines composing it intersect; otherwise it is improper.

A theorem essential to the whole theory is the following: if any two of the three lines a,
b, c are coplanar, but the three lines are not all coplanar, and similarly for the lines a, b,
d, then c and d are coplanar. It follows that any two lines belonging to an ideal point can
be used as the pair of guiding lines in the definition. An ideal point is said to be coherent
with a plane, if any of the lines composing it lie in the plane. An ideal line is the class of
ideal points each of which is coherent with two given planes. If the planes intersect, the
ideal line is termed proper, otherwise it is improper. It can be proved that any two
planes, with which any two of the ideal points are both coherent, will serve as the
guiding planes used in the definition. The ideal planes are defined as in projective
geometry, and all the other definitions (for segments, order, &c.) of projective geometry
are applied to the ideal elements. If an ideal plane contains some proper ideal points, it
is called proper, otherwise it is improper. Every ideal plane contains some improper
ideal points.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 204/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

It can now be proved that all the axioms of projective geometry hold of the ideal
elements as thus obtained; and also that the order of the ideal points as obtained by the
projective method agrees with the order of the proper ideal points as obtained from that
of the associated points of the descriptive geometry. Thus a projective space has been
constructed out of the ideal elements, and the proper ideal elements correspond element
by element with the associated descriptive elements. Thus the proper ideal elements
form a region in the projective space within which the descriptive axioms hold.
Accordingly, by substituting ideal elements, a descriptive space can always be
considered as a region within a projective space. This is the justification for the ordinary
use of the “points at infinity” in the ordinary Euclidean geometry; the reasoning has
been transferred from the original descriptive space to the associated projective space of
ideal elements; and with the Euclidean parallel axiom the improper ideal elements
reduce to the ideal points on a single improper ideal plane, namely, the plane at
infinity.[43]

Congruence and Measurement.—The property of physical space which is expressed by

the term “measurability” has now to be considered. This property has often been
considered as essential to the very idea of space. For example, Kant writes,[44] “Space is
represented as an infinite given quantity.” This quantitative aspect of space arises from
the measurability of distances, of angles, of surfaces and of volumes. These four types of
quantity depend upon the two first among them as fundamental. The measurability of
space is essentially connected with the idea of congruence, of which the simplest
examples are to be found in the proofs of equality by the method of superposition, as
used in elementary plane geometry. The mere concepts of “part” and of “whole” must of
necessity be inadequate as the foundation of measurement, since we require the
comparison as to quantity of regions of space which have no portions in common. The
idea of congruence, as exemplified by the method of superposition in geometrical
reasoning, appears to be founded upon that of the “rigid body,” which moves from one
position to another with its internal spatial relations unchanged. But unless there is a
previous concept of the metrical relations between the parts of the body, there can be no
basis from which to deduce that they are unchanged.

It would therefore appear as if the idea of the congruence, or metrical equality, of two
portions of space (as empirically suggested by the motion of rigid bodies) must be
considered as a fundamental idea incapable of definition in terms of those geometrical
concepts which have already been enumerated. This was in effect the point of view of
Pasch.[45] It has, however, been proved by Sophus Lie[46] that congruence is capable of
definition without recourse to a new fundamental idea. This he does by means of his
theory of finite continuous groups (see Groups, Theory of), of which the definition is
possible in terms of our established geometrical ideas, remembering that coordinates
have already been introduced. The displacement of a rigid body is simply a mode of
defining to the senses a one-one transformation of all space into itself. For at any point
of space a particle may be conceived to be placed, and to be rigidly connected with the
rigid body; and thus there is a definite correspondence of any point of space with the
new point occupied by the associated particle after displacement. Again two successive
displacements of a rigid body from position A to position B, and from position B to
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 205/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

position C, are the same in effect as one displacement from A to C. But this is the
characteristic “group” property. Thus the transformations of space into itself defined by
displacements of rigid bodies form a group.

Call this group of transformations a congruence-group. Now according to Lie a

congruence-group is defined by the following characteristics:—

1. A congruence-group is a finite continuous group of one-one transformations,

containing the identical transformation.

2. It is a sub-group of the general projective group, i.e. of the group of which any
transformation converts planes into planes, and straight lines into straight lines.

3. An infinitesimal transformation can always be found satisfying the condition that, at

least throughout a certain enclosed region, any definite line and any definite point on
the line are latent, i.e. correspond to themselves.

4. No infinitesimal transformation of the group exists, such that, at least in the region
for which (3) holds, a straight line, a point on it, and a plane through it, shall all be
latent.

The property enunciated by conditions (3) and (4), taken together, is named by Lie “Free
mobility in the infinitesimal.” Lie proves the following theorems for a projective space:—

1. If the above four conditions are only satisfied by a group throughout part of projective
space, this part either (α) must be the region enclosed by a real closed quadric, or (β)
must be the whole of the projective space with the exception of a single plane. In case (α)
the corresponding congruence group is the continuous group for which the enclosing
quadric is latent; and in case (β) an imaginary conic (with a real equation) lying in the
latent plane is also latent, and the congruence group is the continuous group for which
the plane and conic are latent.

2. If the above four conditions are satisfied by a group throughout the whole of
projective space, the congruence group is the continuous group for which some
imaginary quadric (with a real equation) is latent.

By a proper choice of non-homogeneous co-ordinates the equation of any quadrics of the

types considered, either in theorem 1 (α), or in theorem 2, can be written in the form 1 +
c(x2 + y2 + z2) = 0, where c is negative for a real closed quadric, and positive for an
imaginary quadric. Then the general infinitesimal transformation is defined by the three
equations:

dx/dt = u − ω3y + ω2z + cx (ux + vy + wz),

dy/dt = v − ω1z + ω3x + cy (ux + vy + wz), (A)
dz/dt = w − ω2x + ω1y + cz (ux + vy + wz).

In the ease considered in theorem 1 (β), with the proper choice of co-ordinates the three
equations defining the general infinitesimal transformation are:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 206/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

dx/dt = u − ω3y + ω2z,

dy/dt = v − ω1z + ω3x, (B)
dz/dt = w − ω2x + ω1y.

In this case the latent plane is the plane for which at least one of x, y, z are infinite, that
is, the plane 0.x + 0.y + 0.z + a = 0; and the latent conic is the conic in which the cone x2
+ y2 + z2 = 0 intersects the latent plane.
It follows from theorems 1 and 2 that there is not one unique congruence-group, but an
indefinite number of them. There is one congruence-group corresponding to each closed
real quadric, one to each imaginary quadric with a real equation, and one to each
imaginary conic in a real plane and with a real equation. The quadric thus associated
with each congruence-group is called the absolute for that group, and in the degenerate
case of 1 (β) the absolute is the latent plane together with the latent imaginary conic. If
the absolute is real, the congruence-group is hyperbolic; if imaginary, it is elliptic; if the
absolute is a plane and imaginary conic, the group is parabolic. Metrical geometry is
simply the theory of the properties of some particular congruence-group selected for
study.

The definition of distance is connected with the corresponding congruence-group by two

considerations in respect to a range of five points (A1, A2, P1, P2, P3), of which A1 and A2
are on the absolute.

Let {A1P1A2P2} stand for the cross ratio (as defined above) of the range (A1P1A2P2), with
a similar notation for the other ranges. Then

(1) log {A1P1A2P2} + log {A1P2A2P3} = log {A1P1A2P3},

and

(2), if the points A1, A2, P1, P2 are transformed into A′1, A′2, P′1, P′2 by any
transformation of the congruence-group, (α) {A1P1A2P2} = {A′1P′1A′2P′2}, since the
transformation is projective, and (β) A′1, A′2 are on the absolute since A1 and A2 are on
it. Thus if we define the distance P1P2 to be ⁠21 ⁠k log {A1P1A2P2}, where A1 and A2 are the
points in which the line P1P2 cuts the absolute, and k is some constant, the two
characteristic properties of distance, namely, (1) the addition of consecutive lengths on a
straight line, and (2) the invariability of distances during a transformation of the
congruence-group, are satisfied. This is the well-known Cayley-Klein projective
definition[47] of distance, which was elaborated in view of the addition property alone,
previously to Lie’s discovery of the theory of congruence-groups. For a hyperbolic group
when P1 and P2 are in the region enclosed by the absolute, log {A1P1A2P2} is real, and
therefore k must be real. For an elliptic group A1 and A2 are conjugate imaginaries, and
log {A1P1A2P2} is a pure imaginary, and k is chosen to be κ/ι, where κ is real and ι = √ −.

Similarly the angle between two planes, p1 and p2, is defined to be (1/2ι) log (t1p1t2p2),
where t1 and t2 are tangent planes to the absolute through the line p1p2. The planes t1
and t2 are imaginary for an elliptic group, and also for an hyperbolic group when the

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 207/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

planes p1 and p2 intersect at points within the region enclosed by the absolute. The
development of the consequences of these metrical definitions is the subject of non-
Euclidean geometry.

The definitions for the parabolic case can be arrived at as limits of those obtained in
either of the other two cases by making k ultimately to vanish. It is also obvious that, if
P1 and P2 be the points (x1, y1, z1) and (x2, y2, z2), it follows from equations (B) above
1
that {(x1 − x2)2 + (y1 − y2)2 + (z1 − z2)2}⁠2 ⁠ is unaltered by a congruence transformation
and also satisfies the addition property for collinear distances. Also the previous
definition of an angle can be adapted to this case, by making t1 and t2 to be the tangent
planes through the line p1p2 to the imaginary conic. Similarly if p1 and p2 are
intersecting lines, the same definition of an angle holds, where t1 and t2 are now the
lines from the point p1p2 to the two points where the plane p1p2 cuts the imaginary
conic. These points are in fact the “circular points at infinity” on the plane. The
development of the consequences of these definitions for the parabolic case gives the
ordinary Euclidean metrical geometry.
Thus the only metrical geometry for the whole of projective space is of the elliptic type.
But the actual measure-relations (though not their general properties) differ according
to the elliptic congruence-group selected for study. In a descriptive space a congruence-
group should possess the four characteristics of such a group throughout the whole of
the space. Then form the associated ideal projective space. The associated congruence-
group for this ideal space must satisfy the four conditions throughout the region of the
proper ideal points. Thus the boundary of this region is the absolute. Accordingly there
can be no metrical geometry for the whole of a descriptive space unless its boundary (in
the associated ideal space) is a closed quadric or a plane. If the boundary is a closed
quadric, there is one possible congruence-group of the hyperbolic type. If the boundary
is a plane (the plane at infinity), the possible congruence-groups are parabolic; and there
is a congruence-group corresponding to each imaginary conic in this plane, together
with a Euclidean metrical geometry corresponding to each such group. Owing to these
alternative possibilities, it would appear to be more accurate to say that systems of
quantities can be found in a space, rather than that space is a quantity.

Lie has also deduced[48] the same results with respect to congruence-groups from
another set of defining properties, which explicitly assume the existence of a
quantitative relation (the distance) between any two points, which is invariant for any
transformation of the congruence-group.[49]

The above results, in respect to congruence and metrical geometry, considered in

relation to existent space, have led to the doctrine[50] that it is intrinsically unmeaning
to ask which system of metrical geometry is true of the physical world. Any one of these
systems can be applied, and in an indefinite number of ways. The only question before
us is one of convenience in respect to simplicity of statement of the physical laws. This
point of view seems to neglect the consideration that science is to be relevant to the
definite perceiving minds of men; and that (neglecting the ambiguity introduced by the
invariable slight inexactness of observation which is not relevant to this special doctrine)

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 208/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

we have, in fact, presented to our senses a definite set of transformations forming a

congruence-group, resulting in a set of measure relations which are in no respect
arbitrary. Accordingly our scientific laws are to be stated relevantly to that particular
congruence-group. Thus the investigation of the type (elliptic, hyperbolic or parabolic)
of this special congruence-group is a perfectly definite problem, to be decided by
experiment. The consideration of experiments adapted to this object requires some
development of non-Euclidean geometry (see section VI., Non-Euclidean Geometry).
But if the doctrine means that, assuming some sort of objective reality for the material
universe, beings can be imagined, to whom either all congruence-groups are equally
important, or some other congruence-group is specially important, the doctrine appears
to be an immediate deduction from the mathematical facts. Assuming a definite
congruence-group, the investigation of surfaces (or three-dimensional loci in space of
four dimensions) with geodesic geometries of the form of metrical geometries of other
types of congruence-groups forms an important chapter of non-Euclidean geometry.
Arising from this investigation there is a widely-spread fallacy, which has found its way
into many philosophic writings, namely, that the possibility of the geometry of existent
three-dimensional space being other than Euclidean depends on the physical existence
of Euclidean space of four or more dimensions. The foregoing exposition shows the
baselessness of this idea.

Bibliography.—For an account of the investigations on the axioms of geometry during

the Greek period, see M. Cantor, Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Mathematik, Bd.
i. and iii.; T. L. Heath, The Thirteen Books of Euclid’s Elements, a New Translation
from the Greek, with Introductory Essays and Commentary, Historical, Critical, and
Explanatory (Cambridge, 1908)—this work is the standard source of information; W. B.
Frankland, Euclid, Book I., with a Commentary (Cambridge, 1905)—the commentary
contains copious extracts from the ancient commentators. The next period of really
substantive importance is that of the 18th century. The leading authors are: G. Saccheri,
S.J., Euclides ab omni naevo vindicatus (Milan, 1733). Saccheri was an Italian Jesuit
who unconsciously discovered non-Euclidean geometry in the course of his efforts to
prove its impossibility. J. H. Lambert, Theorie der Parallellinien (1766); A. M. Legendre,
Éléments de géométrie (1794). An adequate account of the above authors is given by P.
Stäckel and F. Engel, Die Theorie der Parallellinien von Euklid bis auf Gauss (Leipzig,
1895). The next period of time (roughly from 1800 to 1870) contains two streams of
thought, both of which are essential to the modern analysis of the subject. The first
stream is that which produced the discovery and investigation of non-Euclidean
geometries, the second stream is that which has produced the geometry of position,
comprising both projective and descriptive geometry not very accurately discriminated.
The leading authors on non-Euclidean geometry are K. F. Gauss, in private letters to
Schumacher, cf. Stäckel and Engel, loc. cit.; N. Lobatchewsky, rector of the university of
Kazan, to whom the honour of the effective discovery of non-Euclidean geometry must
be assigned. His first publication was at Kazan in 1826. His various memoirs have been
re-edited by Engel; cf. Urkunden zur Geschichte der nichteuklidischen Geometrie by
Stäckel and Engel, vol. i. “Lobatchewsky.” J. Bolyai discovered non-Euclidean geometry
apparently in independence of Lobatchewsky. His memoir was published in 1831 as an
appendix to a work by his father W. Bolyai, Tentamen juventutem.... This memoir has
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 209/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

been separately edited by J. Frischauf, Absolute Geometrie nach J. Bolyai (Leipzig,

1872); B. Riemann, Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen
(1854); cf. Gesamte Werke, a translation in The Collected Papers of W. K. Clifford. This
is a fundamental memoir on the subject and must rank with the work of Lobatchewsky.
Riemann discovered elliptic metrical geometry, and Lobatchewsky hyperbolic geometry.
A full account of Riemann’s ideas, with the subsequent developments due to Clifford, F.
Klein and W. Killing, will be found in The Boston Colloquium for 1903 (New York,
1905), article “Forms of Non-Euclidean Space,” by F. S. Woods. A. Cayley, loc. cit.
(1859), and F. Klein, “Über die sogenannte nichteuklidische Geometrie,” Math. Annal.
vols. iv. and vi. (1871 and 1872), between them elaborated the projective theory of
distance; H. Helmholtz, “Über die thatsächlichen Grundlagen der Geometrie” (1866),
and “Über die Thatsachen, die der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen” (1868), both in his
Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, vol. ii., and S. Lie, loc. cit. (1890 and 1893), between
them elaborated the group theory of congruence.

The numberless works which have been written to suggest equivalent alternatives to
Euclid’s parallel axioms may be neglected as being of trivial importance, though many of
them are marvels of geometric ingenuity.

The second stream of thought confined itself within the circle of ideas of Euclidean
geometry. Its origin was mainly due to a succession of great French mathematicians, for
example, G. Monge, Géométrie descriptive (1800); J. V. Poncelet, Traité des proprietés
projectives des figures (1822); M. Chasles, Aperçu historique sur l’origine et le
développement des méthodes en géométrie (Bruxelles, 1837), and Traité de géométrie
supérieure (Paris, 1852); and many others. But the works which have been, and are still,
of decisive influence on thought as a store-house of ideas relevant to the foundations of
geometry are K. G. C. von Staudt’s two works, Geometrie der Lage (Nürnberg, 1847);
and Beiträge zur Geometrie der Lage (Nürnberg, 1856, 3rd ed. 1860).

The final period is characterized by the successful production of exact systems of

axioms, and by the final solution of problems which have occupied mathematicians for
two thousand years. The successful analysis of the ideas involved in serial continuity is
due to R. Dedekind, Stetigkeit und irrationale Zahlen (1872), and to G. Cantor,
Grundlagen einer allgemeinen Mannigfaltigkeitslehre (Leipzig, 1883), and Acta math.
vol. 2.

Complete systems of axioms have been stated by M. Pasch, loc. cit.; G. Peano, loc. cit.;
M. Pieri, loc. cit.; B. Russell, Principles of Mathematics; O. Veblen, loc. cit.; and by G.
Veronese in his treatise, Fondamenti di geometria (Padua, 1891; German transl. by A.
Schepp, Grundzüge der Geometrie, Leipzig, 1894). Most of the leading memoirs on
special questions involved have been cited in the text; in addition there may be
mentioned M. Pieri, “Nuovi principii di geometria projettiva complessa,” Trans. Accad.
R. d. Sci. (Turin, 1905); E. H. Moore, “On the Projective Axioms of Geometry,” Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc., 1902; O. Veblen and W. H. Bussey, “Finite Projective Geometries,”
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 1905; A. B. Kempe, “On the Relation between the Logical
Theory of Classes and the Geometrical Theory of Points,” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., 1890;

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 210/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

J. Royce, “The Relation of the Principles of Logic to the Foundations of Geometry,”

Trans. of Amer. Math. Soc., 1905; A. Schoenflies, “Über die Möglichkeit einer
projectiven Geometrie bei transfiniter (nichtarchimedischer) Massbestimmung,”
Deutsch. M.-V. Jahresb., 1906.

For general expositions of the bearings of the above investigations, cf. Hon. Bertrand
Russell, loc. cit.; L. Couturat, Les Principes des mathématiques (Paris, 1905); H.
Poincaré, loc. cit.; Russell and Whitehead, Principia mathematica (Cambridge, Univ.
Press). The philosophers whose views on space and geometric truth deserve especial
study are Descartes, Leibnitz, Hume, Kant and J. S. Mill. (A. N. W.)

1. For Egyptian geometry see Egypt, § Science and Mathematics.

2. Cf. A. N. Whitehead, Universal Algebra, Bk. vi. (Cambridge, 1898).
3. Cf. A. N. Whitehead, loc. cit.
4. Cf. A. N. Whitehead, “The Geodesic Geometry of Surfaces in non-Euclidean Space,”
Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. vol. xxix.
5. Cf. Klein, “Zur nicht-Euklidischen Geometrie,” Math. Annal. vol. xxxvii.
6. On the theory of parallels before Lobatchewsky, see Stäckel und Engel, Theorie der
Parallellinien von Euklid bis auf Gauss (Leipzig, 1895). The foregoing remarks are
based upon the materials collected in this work.
7. See Stäckel und Engel, op. cit., and “Gauss, die beiden Bolyai, und die nicht-
Euklidische Geometrie,” Math. Annalen, Bd. xlix.; also Engel’s translation of
Lobatchewsky (Leipzig, 1898), pp. 378 ff.
8. Lobatchewsky’s works on the subject are the following:—“On the Foundations of
Geometry,” Kazañ Messenger, 1829–1830; “New Foundations of Geometry, with a
complete Theory of Parallels,” Proceedings of the University of Kazañ, 1835 (both in
Russian, but translated into German by Engel, Leipzig, 1898); “Géométrie
imaginaire,” Crelle’s Journal, 1837; Theorie der Parallellinien (Berlin, 1840; 2nd ed.,
1887; translated by Halsted, Austin, Texas, 1891). His results appear to have been
set forth in a paper (now lost) which he read at Kazañ in 1826.
9. Translated by Halsted (Austin, Texas, 4th ed., 1896.)
10. Abhandlungen d. Königl. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen, Bd. xiii.; Ges. math. Werke, pp.
254-269; translated by Clifford, Collected Mathematical Papers.
11. Cf. Gesamm. math. und phys. Werke, vol. i. (Leipzig, 1894).
12. Wiss. Abh. vol. ii. pp. 610, 618 (1866, 1868).
13. Mind, O.S., vols. i. and iii.; Vorträge und Reden, vol. ii. pp. 1, 256.
14. His papers are “Saggio di interpretazione della geometria non-Euclidea,” Giornale di
matematiche, vol. vi. (1868); “Teoria fondamentale degli spazii di curvatura
costante,” Annali di matematica, vol. ii. (1868–1869). Both were translated into
French by J. Hoüel, Annales scientifiques de l’École Normale supérieure, vol. vi.
(1869).
15. Beltrami shows also that this definition agrees with that of Gauss.
16. “Sur la théorie des foyers,” Nouv. Ann. vol. xii.
17. Math. Annalen, iv. vi., 1871–1872.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 211/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

18. For an investigation of these and similar properties, see Whitehead, Universal
Algebra (Cambridge, 1898), bk. vi. ch. ii. The polar form was independently
discovered by Simon Newcomb in 1877.
19. For an analysis of Leibnitz’s ideas on space, cf. B. Russell, The Philosophy of
Leibnitz, chs. viii.-x.
20. Cf. Hon. Bertrand Russell, “Is Position in Time and Space Absolute or Relative?”
Mind, n.s. vol. 10 (1901), and A. N. Whitehead, “Mathematical Concepts of the
Material World,” Phil. Trans. (1906), p. 205.
21. Cf. Critique of Pure Reason, 1st section: “Of Space,” conclusion A, Max Müller’s
translation.
22. Cf. Ernst Mach, Erkenntniss und Irrtum (Leipzig); the relevant chapters are
translated by T. J. McCormack, Space and Geometry (London, 1906); also A.
Meinong, Über die Stellung der Gegenstandstheorie im System der Wissenschaften
(Leipzig, 1907).
23. Cf. Russell, Principles of Mathematics, § 352 (Cambridge, 1903).
24. Cf. A. N. Whitehead, The Axioms of Projective Geometry, § 3 (Cambridge, 1906).
25. Cf. Russell, Princ. of Math., ch. i.
26. Cf. Russell, loc. cit., and G. Frege, “Über die Grundlagen der Geometrie,” Jahresber.
der Deutsch. Math. Ver. (1906).
27. This formulation—though not in respect to number—is in all essentials that of M.
Pieri, cf. “I principii della Geometria di Posizione,” Accad. R. di Torino (1898); also cf.
Whitehead, loc. cit.
28. Cf. G. Peano, “Sui fondamenti della Geometria,” p. 73, Rivista di matematica, vol. iv.
(1894), and D. Hilbert, Grundlagen der Geometrie (Leipzig, 1899); and R. F. Moulton,
“A Simple non-Desarguesian Plane Geometry,” Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. iii.
(1902).
29. Cf. “Sui postulati fondamentali della geometria projettiva,” Giorn. di matematica, vol.
xxx. (1891); also of Pieri, loc. cit., and Whitehead, loc. cit.
30. Cf. Hilbert, loc. cit.; for a fuller exposition of Hilbert’s proof cf. K. T. Vahlen, Abstrakte
Geometrie (Leipzig, 1905), also Whitehead, loc. cit.
31. Cf. H. Wiener, Jahresber. der Deutsch. Math. Ver. vol. i. (1890); and F. Schur, “Über
den Fundamentalsatz der projectiven Geometrie,” Math. Ann. vol. li. (1899).
32. Cf. Hilbert, loc. cit., and Whitehead, loc. cit.
33. Cf. Dedekind, Stetigkeit und irrationale Zahlen (1872).
34. Cf. v. Staudt, Geometrie der Lage (1847).
35. Cf. Pasch, Vorlesungen über neuere Geometrie (Leipzig, 1882), a classic work; also
Fiedler, Die darstellende Geometrie (1st ed., 1871, 3rd ed., 1888); Clebsch,
Vorlesungen über Geometrie, vol. iii.; Hilbert, loc. cit.; F. Schur, Math. Ann. Bd. lv.
(1902); Vahlen, loc. cit.; Whitehead, loc. cit.
36. Cf. loc. cit.
37. Cf. I Principii di geometria (Turin, 1889) and “Sui fondamenti della geometria,” Rivista
di mat. vol. iv. (1894).
38. Cf. loc. cit.
39. Cf. Vailati, Rivista di mat. vol. iv. and Russell, loc. cit. § 376.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 212/213
5/12/25, 2:30 PM 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geometry - Wikisource, the free online library

40. Cf. O. Veblen, “On the Projective Axioms of Geometry,” Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. vol.
iii. (1902).
41. Cf. P. Stäckel and F. Engel, Die Theorie der Parallellinien von Euklid bis auf Gauss
(Leipzig, 1895).
42. Cf. Pasch, loc. cit., and R. Bonola, “Sulla introduzione degli enti improprii in
geometria projettive,” Giorn. di mat. vol. xxxviii. (1900); and Whitehead, Axioms of
Descriptive Geometry (Cambridge, 1907).
43. The original idea (confined to this particular case) of ideal points is due to von Staudt
(loc. cit.).
44. Cf. Critique, “Trans. Aesth.” Sect. I.
45. Cf. loc. cit.
46. Cf. Über die Grundlagen der Geometrie (Leipzig, Ber., 1890); and Theorie der
Transformationsgruppen (Leipzig, 1893), vol. iii.
47. Cf. A. Cayley, “A Sixth Memoir on Quantics,” Trans. Roy. Soc., 1859, and Coll.
Papers, vol. ii.; and F. Klein, Math. Ann. vol. iv., 1871.
48. Cf. loc. cit.
49. For similar deductions from a third set of axioms, suggested in essence by Peano,
Riv. mat. vol. iv. loc. cit. cf. Whitehead, Desc. Geom. loc. cit.
50. Cf. H. Poincaré, La Science et l’hypothèse, ch. iii.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry&oldid=9635315"

←Geometrical Continuity Return to the top of the page. Geoponici→

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Geometry 213/213