Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 items :

  • "Tarski’s geometry axioms" x
Clear All

Summary

Timothy Makarios (with Isabelle/HOL1) and John Harrison (with HOL-Light2) shown that “the Klein-Beltrami model of the hyperbolic plane satisfy all of Tarski’s axioms except his Euclidean axiom” [2],[3],[4],[5].

With the Mizar system [1] we use some ideas taken from Tim Makarios’s MSc thesis [10] to formalize some definitions (like the absolute) and lemmas necessary for the verification of the independence of the parallel postulate. In this article we prove that our constructed model (we prefer “Beltrami-Klein” name over “Klein-Beltrami”, which can be seen in the naming convention for Mizar functors, and even MML identifiers) satisfies the congruence symmetry, the congruence equivalence relation, and the congruence identity axioms formulated by Tarski (and formalized in Mizar as described briefly in [8]).

Summary

Timothy Makarios (with Isabelle/HOL1) and John Harrison (with HOL-Light2) shown that “the Klein-Beltrami model of the hyperbolic plane satisfy all of Tarski’s axioms except his Euclidean axiom” [2],[3],[4, 5].

With the Mizar system [1] we use some ideas taken from Tim Makarios’s MSc thesis [10] to formalize some definitions and lemmas necessary for the verification of the independence of the parallel postulate. In this article, which is the continuation of [8], we prove that our constructed model satisfies the axioms of segment construction, the axiom of betweenness identity, and the axiom of Pasch due to Tarski, as formalized in [11] and related Mizar articles.

Summary

In our earlier article , the first part of axioms of geometry proposed by Alfred Tarski was formally introduced by means of Mizar proof assistant . We defined a structure TarskiPlane with the following predicates:

  • of betweenness between (a ternary relation),
  • of congruence of segments equiv (quarternary relation),
which satisfy the following properties:
  • congruence symmetry (A1),
  • congruence equivalence relation (A2),
  • congruence identity (A3),
  • segment construction (A4),
  • SAS (A5),
  • betweenness identity (A6),
  • Pasch (A7).
Also a simple model, which satisfies these axioms, was previously constructed, and described in . In this paper, we deal with four remaining axioms, namely:
  • the lower dimension axiom (A8),
  • the upper dimension axiom (A9),
  • the Euclid axiom (A10),
  • the continuity axiom (A11).
They were introduced in the form of Mizar attributes. Additionally, the relation of congruence of triangles cong is introduced via congruence of sides (SSS).

In order to show that the structure which satisfies all eleven Tarski’s axioms really exists, we provided a proof of the registration of a cluster that the Euclidean plane, or rather a natural extension of ordinary metric structure Euclid 2 satisfies all these attributes.

Although the tradition of the mechanization of Tarski’s geometry in Mizar is not as long as in Coq , first approaches to this topic were done in Mizar in 1990 (even if this article started formal Hilbert axiomatization of geometry, and parallel development was rather unlikely at that time ). Connection with another proof assistant should be mentioned – we had some doubts about the proof of the Euclid’s axiom and inspection of the proof taken from Archive of Formal Proofs of Isabelle clarified things a bit. Our development allows for the future faithful mechanization of and opens the possibility of automatically generated Prover9 proofs which was useful in the case of lattice theory .

Summary

Tim Makarios (with Isabelle/HOL1) and John Harrison (with HOL-Light2) have shown that “the Klein-Beltrami model of the hyperbolic plane satisfy all of Tarski’s axioms except his Euclidean axiom” [, , , ].

With the Mizar system [], [] we use some ideas are taken from Tim Makarios’ MSc thesis [] for formalized some definitions (like the tangent) and lemmas necessary for the verification of the independence of the parallel postulate. This work can be also treated as a further development of Tarski’s geometry in the formal setting [9].

Summary

Tim Makarios (with Isabelle/HOL1) and John Harrison (with HOL-Light2) shown that “the Klein-Beltrami model of the hyperbolic plane satisfy all of Tarski’s axioms except his Euclidean axiom” [], [], [], [].

With the Mizar system [], [] we use some ideas are taken from Tim Makarios’ MSc thesis [] for the formalization of some definitions (like the absolute) and lemmas necessary for the verification of the independence of the parallel postulate. This work can be also treated as further development of Tarski’s geometry in the formal setting []. Note that the model presented here, may also be called “Beltrami-Klein Model”, “Klein disk model”, and the “Cayley-Klein model” [].

Summary

This is the translation of the Mizar article containing readable Mizar proofs of some axiomatic geometry theorems formulated by the great Polish mathematician Alfred Tarski [8], and we hope to continue this work.

The article is an extension and upgrading of the source code written by the first author with the help of miz3 tool; his primary goal was to use proof checkers to help teach rigorous axiomatic geometry in high school using Hilbert’s axioms.

This is largely a Mizar port of Julien Narboux’s Coq pseudo-code [6]. We partially prove the theorem of [7] that Tarski’s (extremely weak!) plane geometry axioms imply Hilbert’s axioms. Specifically, we obtain Gupta’s amazing proof which implies Hilbert’s axiom I1 that two points determine a line.

The primary Mizar coding was heavily influenced by [9] on axioms of incidence geometry. The original development was much improved using Mizar adjectives instead of predicates only, and to use this machinery in full extent, we have to construct some models of Tarski geometry. These are listed in the second section, together with appropriate registrations of clusters. Also models of Tarski’s geometry related to real planes were constructed.

Summary

In the article, we continue the formalization of the work devoted to Tarski’s geometry - the book “Metamathematische Methoden in der Geometrie” by W. Schwabhäuser, W. Szmielew, and A. Tarski. After we prepared some introductory formal framework in our two previous Mizar articles, we focus on the regular translation of underlying items faithfully following the abovementioned book (our encoding covers first seven chapters). Our development utilizes also other formalization efforts of the same topic, e.g. Isabelle/HOL by Makarios, Metamath or even proof objects obtained directly from Prover9. In addition, using the native Mizar constructions (cluster registrations) the propositions (“Satz”) are reformulated under weaker conditions, i.e. by using fewer axioms or by proposing an alternative version that uses just another axioms (ex. Satz 2.1 or Satz 2.2).