Constructive Geometry and the Parallel Postulate

Euclidean geometry, as presented by Euclid, consists of straightedge-andcompass constructions and rigorous reasoning about the results of those constructions. We show that Euclidean geometry can be developed using only intuitionistic logic. This involves finding “uniform” constructions where normally a case distinction is used. For example, in finding a perpendicular to line L through point p, one usually uses two different constructions, “erecting” a perpendicular when p is on L, and “dropping” a perpendicular when p is not on L, but in constructive geometry, it must be done without a case distinction. We consider three versions of Euclid’s parallel postulate: Euclid’s own formulation in his Postulate 5; Playfair’s 1795 version, which is the one usually used in modern axiomatizations (and was used by Hilbert), and a new version we call the strong parallel postulate. These differ in that Euclid’s version and the new version both assert the existence of a point where two lines meet, while Playfair’s version makes no existence assertion. Classically, the models of Euclidean (straightedge-and-compass) geometry are planes over Euclidean fields. We prove a similar theorem for constructive Euclidean geometry, by showing how to define addition and multiplication without a case distinction about the sign of the arguments. With intuitionistic logic, there are two possible definitions of Euclidean fields, which turn out to correspond to the different versions of the parallel axiom. In this paper, we completely settle the questions about implications between the three versions of the parallel postulate: the strong parallel postulate easily implies Euclid 5, and in fact Euclid 5 also implies the strong parallel postulate, although the proof is lengthy, depending on the verification that Euclid 5 suffices to define multiplication geometrically. We show that Playfair does not imply Euclid 5, and we also give some other independence results. Our independence proofs are given without discussing the exact choice of the other axioms of geometry; all we need is that one can interpret the geometric axioms in Euclidean field theory. The proofs use Kripke models of Euclidean field theories based on carefully constructed rings of real-valued functions. “Field elements” in these models are real-valued