Euclidean geometry

The parallel postulate (Postulate 5): If two lines intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough.

Euclidean geometry is an axiomatic system, in which all theorems ("true statements") are derived from a small number of simple axioms. Until the advent of non-Euclidean geometry, these axioms were considered to be obviously true in the physical world, so that all the theorems would be equally true. However, Euclid's reasoning from assumptions to conclusions remains valid independent of their physical reality.[4]

Near the beginning of the first book of the Elements, Euclid gives five postulates (axioms) for plane geometry, stated in terms of constructions (as translated by Thomas Heath):[5]

Let the following be postulated:

1. To draw a straight line from any point to any point.
2. To produce (extend) a finite straight line continuously in a straight line.
3. To describe a circle with any centre and distance (radius).
4. That all right angles are equal to one another.
5. [The parallel postulate]: That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles are less than two right angles.

Although Euclid explicitly only asserts the existence of the constructed objects, in his reasoning he also implicitly assumes them to be unique.

The Elements also include the following five "common notions":

1. Things that are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another (the transitive property of a Euclidean relation).
2. If equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal (Addition property of equality).
3. If equals are subtracted from equals, then the differences are equal (subtraction property of equality).
4. Things that coincide with one another are equal to one another (reflexive property).
5. The whole is greater than the part.

Modern scholars agree that Euclid's postulates do not provide the complete logical foundation that Euclid required for his presentation.[6] Modern treatments use more extensive and complete sets of axioms.

To the ancients, the parallel postulate seemed less obvious than the others. They aspired to create a system of absolutely certain propositions, and to them, it seemed as if the parallel line postulate required proof from simpler statements. It is now known that such a proof is impossible since one can construct consistent systems of geometry (obeying the other axioms) in which the parallel postulate is true, and others in which it is false.[7] Euclid himself seems to have considered it as being qualitatively different from the others, as evidenced by the organization of the Elements: his first 28 propositions are those that can be proved without it.

Many alternative axioms can be formulated which are logically equivalent to the parallel postulate (in the context of the other axioms). For example, Playfair's axiom states:

In a plane, through a point not on a given straight line, at most one line can be drawn that never meets the given line.

The "at most" clause is all that is needed since it can be proved from the remaining axioms that at least one parallel line exists.

A proof from Euclid's Elements that, given a line segment, one may construct an equilateral triangle that includes the segment as one of its sides: an equilateral triangle ΑΒΓ is made by drawing circles Δ and Ε centered on the points Α and Β, and taking one intersection of the circles as the third vertex of the triangle.

Euclidean Geometry is constructive. Postulates 1, 2, 3, and 5 assert the existence and uniqueness of certain geometric figures, and these assertions are of a constructive nature: that is, we are not only told that certain things exist, but are also given methods for creating them with no more than a compass and an unmarked straightedge.[8] In this sense, Euclidean geometry is more concrete than many modern axiomatic systems such as set theory, which often assert the existence of objects without saying how to construct them, or even assert the existence of objects that cannot be constructed within the theory.[9] Strictly speaking, the lines on paper are models of the objects defined within the formal system, rather than instances of those objects. For example, a Euclidean straight line has no width, but any real drawn line will. Though nearly all modern mathematicians consider nonconstructive methods just as sound as constructive ones, Euclid's constructive proofs often supplanted fallacious nonconstructive ones—e.g., some of the Pythagoreans' proofs that involved irrational numbers, which usually required a statement such as "Find the greatest common measure of ..."[10]

Euclid often used proof by contradiction. Euclidean geometry also allows the method of superposition, in which a figure is transferred to another point in space. For example, proposition I.4, side-angle-side congruence of triangles, is proved by moving one of the two triangles so that one of its sides coincides with the other triangle's equal side, and then proving that the other sides coincide as well. Some modern treatments add a sixth postulate, the rigidity of the triangle, which can be used as an alternative to superposition.[11]

Points are customarily named using capital letters of the alphabet. Other figures, such as lines, triangles, or circles, are named by listing a sufficient number of points to pick them out unambiguously from the relevant figure, e.g., triangle ABC would typically be a triangle with vertices at points A, B, and C.

Angles whose sum is a right angle are called complementary. Complementary angles are formed when a ray shares the same vertex and is pointed in a direction that is in between the two original rays that form the right angle. The number of rays in between the two original rays is infinite.

Angles whose sum is a straight angle are supplementary. Supplementary angles are formed when a ray shares the same vertex and is pointed in a direction that is in between the two original rays that form the straight angle (180 degree angle). The number of rays in between the two original rays is infinite.

In modern terminology, angles would normally be measured in degrees or radians.

Modern school textbooks often define separate figures called lines (infinite), rays (semi-infinite), and line segments (of finite length). Euclid, rather than discussing a ray as an object that extends to infinity in one direction, would normally use locutions such as "if the line is extended to a sufficient length", although he occasionally referred to "infinite lines". A "line" in Euclid could be either straight or curved, and he used the more specific term "straight line" when necessary.

The pons asinorum (bridge of asses) states that in isosceles triangles the angles at the base equal one another, and, if the equal straight lines are produced further, then the angles under the base equal one another.[12] Its name may be attributed to its frequent role as the first real test in the Elements of the intelligence of the reader and as a bridge to the harder propositions that followed. It might also be so named because of the geometrical figure's resemblance to a steep bridge that only a sure-footed donkey could cross.[13]

Congruence of triangles is determined by specifying two sides and the angle between them (SAS), two angles and the side between them (ASA) or two angles and a corresponding adjacent side (AAS). Specifying two sides and an adjacent angle (SSA), however, can yield two distinct possible triangles unless the angle specified is a right angle.

Triangles are congruent if they have all three sides equal (SSS), two sides and the angle between them equal (SAS), or two angles and a side equal (ASA) (Book I, propositions 4, 8, and 26). Triangles with three equal angles (AAA) are similar, but not necessarily congruent. Also, triangles with two equal sides and an adjacent angle are not necessarily equal or congruent.

The sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to a straight angle (180 degrees).[14] This causes an equilateral triangle to have three interior angles of 60 degrees. Also, it causes every triangle to have at least two acute angles and up to one obtuse or right angle.

The celebrated Pythagorean theorem (book I, proposition 47) states that in any right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs (the two sides that meet at a right angle).

Thales' theorem, named after Thales of Miletus states that if A, B, and C are points on a circle where the line AC is a diameter of the circle, then the angle ABC is a right angle. Cantor supposed that Thales proved his theorem by means of Euclid Book I, Prop. 32 after the manner of Euclid Book III, Prop. 31.[15][16]

In modern terminology, the area of a plane figure is proportional to the square of any of its linear dimensions, ${\displaystyle A\propto L^{2}}$, and the volume of a solid to the cube, ${\displaystyle V\propto L^{3}}$. Euclid proved these results in various special cases such as the area of a circle[17] and the volume of a parallelepipedal solid.[18] Euclid determined some, but not all, of the relevant constants of proportionality. E.g., it was his successor Archimedes who proved that a sphere has 2/3 the volume of the circumscribing cylinder.[19]

A sphere has 2/3 the volume and surface area of its circumscribing cylinder. A sphere and cylinder were placed on the tomb of Archimedes at his request.

Archimedes (c. 287 BCE – c. 212 BCE), a colorful figure about whom many historical anecdotes are recorded, is remembered along with Euclid as one of the greatest of ancient mathematicians. Although the foundations of his work were put in place by Euclid, his work, unlike Euclid's, is believed to have been entirely original.[23] He proved equations for the volumes and areas of various figures in two and three dimensions, and enunciated the Archimedean property of finite numbers.

Apollonius of Perga (c. 262 BCE – c. 190 BCE) is mainly known for his investigation of conic sections.

René Descartes. Portrait after Frans Hals, 1648.

René Descartes (1596–1650) developed analytic geometry, an alternative method for formalizing geometry which focused on turning geometry into algebra.[24]

In this approach, a point on a plane is represented by its Cartesian (x, y) coordinates, a line is represented by its equation, and so on.

In Euclid's original approach, the Pythagorean theorem follows from Euclid's axioms. In the Cartesian approach, the axioms are the axioms of algebra, and the equation expressing the Pythagorean theorem is then a definition of one of the terms in Euclid's axioms, which are now considered theorems.

The equation

${\displaystyle |PQ|={\sqrt {(p_{x}-q_{x})^{2}+(p_{y}-q_{y})^{2}}}\,}$

defining the distance between two points P = (p_x, p_y) and Q = (q_x, q_y) is then known as the Euclidean metric, and other metrics define non-Euclidean geometries.

In terms of analytic geometry, the restriction of classical geometry to compass and straightedge constructions means a restriction to first- and second-order equations, e.g., y = 2x + 1 (a line), or x² + y² = 7 (a circle).

Also in the 17th century, Girard Desargues, motivated by the theory of perspective, introduced the concept of idealized points, lines, and planes at infinity. The result can be considered as a type of generalized geometry, projective geometry, but it can also be used to produce proofs in ordinary Euclidean geometry in which the number of special cases is reduced.[25]

Squaring the circle: the areas of this square and this circle are equal. In 1882, it was proven that this figure cannot be constructed in a finite number of steps with an idealized compass and straightedge.

Geometers of the 18th century struggled to define the boundaries of the Euclidean system. Many tried in vain to prove the fifth postulate from the first four. By 1763, at least 28 different proofs had been published, but all were found incorrect.[26]

Leading up to this period, geometers also tried to determine what constructions could be accomplished in Euclidean geometry. For example, the problem of trisecting an angle with a compass and straightedge is one that naturally occurs within the theory, since the axioms refer to constructive operations that can be carried out with those tools. However, centuries of efforts failed to find a solution to this problem, until Pierre Wantzel published a proof in 1837 that such a construction was impossible. Other constructions that were proved impossible include doubling the cube and squaring the circle. In the case of doubling the cube, the impossibility of the construction originates from the fact that the compass and straightedge method involve equations whose order is an integral power of two,[27] while doubling a cube requires the solution of a third-order equation.

Euler discussed a generalization of Euclidean geometry called affine geometry, which retains the fifth postulate unmodified while weakening postulates three and four in a way that eliminates the notions of angle (whence right triangles become meaningless) and of equality of length of line segments in general (whence circles become meaningless) while retaining the notions of parallelism as an equivalence relation between lines, and equality of length of parallel line segments (so line segments continue to have a midpoint).

Comparison of elliptic, Euclidean and hyperbolic geometries in two dimensions

In the early 19th century, Carnot and Möbius systematically developed the use of signed angles and line segments as a way of simplifying and unifying results.[28]

In the 1840s William Rowan Hamilton developed the quaternions, and John T. Graves and Arthur Cayley the octonions. These are normed algebras which extend the complex numbers. Later it was understood that the quaternions are also a Euclidean geometric system with four rational Cartesian coordinates. Cayley used quaternions to study rotations in 4-dimensional Euclidean space.

At mid-century Ludwig Schläfli developed the general concept of Euclidean space, extending Euclidean geometry to higher dimensions. He defined polyschemes, later called polytopes, which are the higher-dimensional analogues of polygons and polyhedra. He developed their theory and discovered all the regular polytopes, i.e. the ${\displaystyle n}$-dimensional analogues of regular polygons and Platonic solids. He found there are six regular convex polytopes in dimension four, and three in all higher dimensions.

Regular convex 4-polytopes
Symmetry group	A4	B4		F4	H4
Name	5-cell Hyper-tetrahedron 5-point	16-cell Hyper-octahedron 8-point	8-cell Hyper-cube 16-point	24-cell 24-point	600-cell Hyper-icosahedron 120-point	120-cell Hyper-dodecahedron 600-point
Schläfli symbol	{3, 3, 3}	{3, 3, 4}	{4, 3, 3}	{3, 4, 3}	{3, 3, 5}	{5, 3, 3}
Coxeter mirrors
Mirror dihedrals	𝝅/3 𝝅/3 𝝅/3 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 𝝅/2	𝝅/3 𝝅/3 𝝅/4 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 𝝅/2	𝝅/4 𝝅/3 𝝅/3 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 𝝅/2	𝝅/3 𝝅/4 𝝅/3 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 𝝅/2	𝝅/3 𝝅/3 𝝅/5 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 𝝅/2	𝝅/5 𝝅/3 𝝅/3 𝝅/2 𝝅/2 𝝅/2
Graph
Vertices	5 tetrahedral	8 octahedral	16 tetrahedral	24 cubical	120 icosahedral	600 tetrahedral
Edges	10 triangular	24 square	32 triangular	96 triangular	720 pentagonal	1200 triangular
Faces	10 triangles	32 triangles	24 squares	96 triangles	1200 triangles	720 pentagons
Cells	5 tetrahedra	16 tetrahedra	8 cubes	24 octahedra	600 tetrahedra	120 dodecahedra
Tori	1 5-tetrahedron	2 8-tetrahedron	2 4-cube	4 6-octahedron	20 30-tetrahedron	12 10-dodecahedron
Inscribed	120 in 120-cell	675 in 120-cell	2 16-cells	3 8-cells	25 24-cells	10 600-cells
Great polygons		2 𝝅/2 squares x 3	4 𝝅/2 rectangles x 3	4 𝝅/3 hexagons x 4	12 𝝅/5 decagons x 6	50 𝝅/15 dodecagons x 4
Petrie polygons	1 pentagon	1 octagon	2 octagons	2 dodecagons	4 30-gons	20 30-gons
Isocline polygrams		1 octagram3 √4	2 octagram3 √4	4 hexagram2 √3	4 30-gram2 √1	20 30-gram2 √1
Long radius	${\displaystyle 1}$	${\displaystyle 1}$	${\displaystyle 1}$	${\displaystyle 1}$	${\displaystyle 1}$	${\displaystyle 1}$
Edge length	${\displaystyle {\sqrt {\tfrac {5}{2}}}\approx 1.581}$	${\displaystyle {\sqrt {2}}\approx 1.414}$	${\displaystyle 1}$	${\displaystyle 1}$	${\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{\phi }}\approx 0.618}$	${\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{\phi ^{2}{\sqrt {2}}}}\approx 0.270}$
Short radius	${\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{4}}}$	${\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{2}}}$	${\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{2}}}$	${\displaystyle {\sqrt {\tfrac {1}{2}}}\approx 0.707}$	${\displaystyle {\sqrt {\tfrac {\phi ^{4}}{8}}}\approx 0.926}$	${\displaystyle {\sqrt {\tfrac {\phi ^{4}}{8}}}\approx 0.926}$
Area	${\displaystyle 10\left({\tfrac {5{\sqrt {3}}}{8}}\right)\approx 10.825}$	${\displaystyle 32\left({\sqrt {\tfrac {3}{4}}}\right)\approx 27.713}$	${\displaystyle 24}$	${\displaystyle 96\left({\sqrt {\tfrac {3}{16}}}\right)\approx 41.569}$	${\displaystyle 1200\left({\tfrac {\sqrt {3}}{4\phi ^{2}}}\right)\approx 198.48}$	${\displaystyle 720\left({\tfrac {\sqrt {25+10{\sqrt {5}}}}{8\phi ^{4}}}\right)\approx 90.366}$
Volume	${\displaystyle 5\left({\tfrac {5{\sqrt {5}}}{24}}\right)\approx 2.329}$	${\displaystyle 16\left({\tfrac {1}{3}}\right)\approx 5.333}$	${\displaystyle 8}$	${\displaystyle 24\left({\tfrac {\sqrt {2}}{3}}\right)\approx 11.314}$	${\displaystyle 600\left({\tfrac {\sqrt {2}}{12\phi ^{3}}}\right)\approx 16.693}$	${\displaystyle 120\left({\tfrac {15+7{\sqrt {5}}}{4\phi ^{6}{\sqrt {8}}}}\right)\approx 18.118}$
4-Content	${\displaystyle {\tfrac {\sqrt {5}}{24}}\left({\tfrac {\sqrt {5}}{2}}\right)^{4}\approx 0.146}$	${\displaystyle {\tfrac {2}{3}}\approx 0.667}$	${\displaystyle 1}$	${\displaystyle 2}$	${\displaystyle {\tfrac {{\text{Short}}\times {\text{Vol}}}{4}}\approx 3.863}$	${\displaystyle {\tfrac {{\text{Short}}\times {\text{Vol}}}{4}}\approx 4.193}$

Schläfli performed this work in relative obscurity and it was published in full only posthumously in 1901. It had little influence until it was rediscovered and fully documented in 1948 by H.S.M. Coxeter.

In 1878 William Kingdon Clifford introduced what is now termed geometric algebra, unifying Hamilton's quaternions with Hermann Grassmann's algebra and revealing the geometric nature of these systems, especially in four dimensions. The operations of geometric algebra have the effect of mirroring, rotating, translating, and mapping the geometric objects that are being modeled to new positions. The Clifford torus on the surface of the 3-sphere is the simplest and most symmetric flat embedding of the Cartesian product of two circles (in the same sense that the surface of a cylinder is "flat").

The century's most influential development in geometry occurred when, around 1830, János Bolyai and Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky separately published work on non-Euclidean geometry, in which the parallel postulate is not valid.[29] Since non-Euclidean geometry is provably relatively consistent with Euclidean geometry, the parallel postulate cannot be proved from the other postulates.

In the 19th century, it was also realized that Euclid's ten axioms and common notions do not suffice to prove all of the theorems stated in the Elements. For example, Euclid assumed implicitly that any line contains at least two points, but this assumption cannot be proved from the other axioms, and therefore must be an axiom itself. The very first geometric proof in the Elements, shown in the figure above, is that any line segment is part of a triangle; Euclid constructs this in the usual way, by drawing circles around both endpoints and taking their intersection as the third vertex. His axioms, however, do not guarantee that the circles actually intersect, because they do not assert the geometrical property of continuity, which in Cartesian terms is equivalent to the completeness property of the real numbers. Starting with Moritz Pasch in 1882, many improved axiomatic systems for geometry have been proposed, the best known being those of Hilbert,[30] George Birkhoff,[31] and Tarski.[32]

A disproof of Euclidean geometry as a description of physical space. In a 1919 test of the general theory of relativity, stars (marked with short horizontal lines) were photographed during a solar eclipse. The rays of starlight were bent by the Sun's gravity on their way to Earth. This is interpreted as evidence in favor of Einstein's prediction that gravity would cause deviations from Euclidean geometry.

Einstein's theory of special relativity involves a four-dimensional space-time, the Minkowski space, which is non-Euclidean. This shows that non-Euclidean geometries, which had been introduced a few years earlier for showing that the parallel postulate cannot be proved, are also useful for describing the physical world.

However, the three-dimensional "space part" of the Minkowski space remains the space of Euclidean geometry. This is not the case with general relativity, for which the geometry of the space part of space-time is not Euclidean geometry.[33] For example, if a triangle is constructed out of three rays of light, then in general the interior angles do not add up to 180 degrees due to gravity. A relatively weak gravitational field, such as the Earth's or the Sun's, is represented by a metric that is approximately, but not exactly, Euclidean. Until the 20th century, there was no technology capable of detecting these deviations in rays of light from Euclidean geometry, but Einstein predicted that such deviations would exist. They were later verified by observations such as the slight bending of starlight by the Sun during a solar eclipse in 1919, and such considerations are now an integral part of the software that runs the GPS system.[34]

Euclid sometimes distinguished explicitly between "finite lines" (e.g., Postulate 2) and "infinite lines" (book I, proposition 12). However, he typically did not make such distinctions unless they were necessary. The postulates do not explicitly refer to infinite lines, although for example some commentators interpret postulate 3, existence of a circle with any radius, as implying that space is infinite.[38]

The notion of infinitesimal quantities had previously been discussed extensively by the Eleatic School, but nobody had been able to put them on a firm logical basis, with paradoxes such as Zeno's paradox occurring that had not been resolved to universal satisfaction. Euclid used the method of exhaustion rather than infinitesimals.[40]

Later ancient commentators, such as Proclus (410–485 CE), treated many questions about infinity as issues demanding proof and, e.g., Proclus claimed to prove the infinite divisibility of a line, based on a proof by contradiction in which he considered the cases of even and odd numbers of points constituting it.[41]

At the turn of the 20th century, Otto Stolz, Paul du Bois-Reymond, Giuseppe Veronese, and others produced controversial work on non-Archimedean models of Euclidean geometry, in which the distance between two points may be infinite or infinitesimal, in the Newton–Leibniz sense.[42] Fifty years later, Abraham Robinson provided a rigorous logical foundation for Veronese's work.[43]

One reason that the ancients treated the parallel postulate as less certain than the others is that verifying it physically would require us to inspect two lines to check that they never intersected, even at some very distant point, and this inspection could potentially take an infinite amount of time.[44]

The modern formulation of proof by induction was not developed until the 17th century, but some later commentators consider it implicit in some of Euclid's proofs, e.g., the proof of the infinitude of primes.[45]

Supposed paradoxes involving infinite series, such as Zeno's paradox, predated Euclid. Euclid avoided such discussions, giving, for example, the expression for the partial sums of the geometric series in IX.35 without commenting on the possibility of letting the number of terms become infinite.

Euclid frequently used the method of proof by contradiction, and therefore the traditional presentation of Euclidean geometry assumes classical logic, in which every proposition is either true or false, i.e., for any proposition P, the proposition "P or not P" is automatically true.

Placing Euclidean geometry on a solid axiomatic basis was a preoccupation of mathematicians for centuries.[46] The role of primitive notions, or undefined concepts, was clearly put forward by Alessandro Padoa of the Peano delegation at the 1900 Paris conference:[46][47]

...when we begin to formulate the theory, we can imagine that the undefined symbols are completely devoid of meaning and that the unproved propositions are simply conditions imposed upon the undefined symbols.

Then, the system of ideas that we have initially chosen is simply one interpretation of the undefined symbols; but..this interpretation can be ignored by the reader, who is free to replace it in his mind by another interpretation.. that satisfies the conditions...

Logical questions thus become completely independent of empirical or psychological questions...

The system of undefined symbols can then be regarded as the abstraction obtained from the specialized theories that result when...the system of undefined symbols is successively replaced by each of the interpretations...

— Padoa, Essai d'une théorie algébrique des nombre entiers, avec une Introduction logique à une théorie déductive quelconque

That is, mathematics is context-independent knowledge within a hierarchical framework. As said by Bertrand Russell:[48]

If our hypothesis is about anything, and not about some one or more particular things, then our deductions constitute mathematics. Thus, mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.

— Bertrand Russell, Mathematics and the metaphysicians

Such foundational approaches range between foundationalism and formalism.

Geometry is the science of correct reasoning on incorrect figures.

— George Pólya, How to Solve It, p. 208

• Euclid's axioms: In his dissertation to Trinity College, Cambridge, Bertrand Russell summarized the changing role of Euclid's geometry in the minds of philosophers up to that time.[49] It was a conflict between certain knowledge, independent of experiment, and empiricism, requiring experimental input. This issue became clear as it was discovered that the parallel postulate was not necessarily valid and its applicability was an empirical matter, deciding whether the applicable geometry was Euclidean or non-Euclidean.
• Hilbert's axioms: Hilbert's axioms had the goal of identifying a simple and complete set of independent axioms from which the most important geometric theorems could be deduced. The outstanding objectives were to make Euclidean geometry rigorous (avoiding hidden assumptions) and to make clear the ramifications of the parallel postulate.
• Birkhoff's axioms: Birkhoff proposed four postulates for Euclidean geometry that can be confirmed experimentally with scale and protractor. This system relies heavily on the properties of the real numbers.[50][51][52] The notions of angle and distance become primitive concepts.[53]
• Tarski's axioms: Alfred Tarski (1902–1983) and his students defined elementary Euclidean geometry as the geometry that can be expressed in first-order logic and does not depend on set theory for its logical basis,[54] in contrast to Hilbert's axioms, which involve point sets.[55] Tarski proved that his axiomatic formulation of elementary Euclidean geometry is consistent and complete in a certain sense: there is an algorithm that, for every proposition, can be shown either true or false.[32] (This doesn't violate Gödel's theorem, because Euclidean geometry cannot describe a sufficient amount of arithmetic for the theorem to apply.[56]) This is equivalent to the decidability of real closed fields, of which elementary Euclidean geometry is a model.

• Angle bisector theorem
• Butterfly theorem
• Ceva's theorem
• Heron's formula
• Menelaus' theorem
• Nine-point circle
• Pythagorean theorem