The parallel postulate

Euclid’s Elements is famous for being the first example of mathematicians setting out
axioms, allowing for a formalization of (certain subjects within) mathematics based on a
reliable foundation. The very purpose of axioms is to provide a number of claims that can be
agreed upon to such a degree that their every logical consequence must surely hold. As long
as we can trust the axioms to be true, everything that follows from them must surely be
true as well. How, then, do we decide which axioms to put our faith in?
Within a certain mathematical theory, axioms can be justified by being intuitively
clear, apparent to anyone. As elementary geometry deals with concepts that can quite
easily be visualized, it is possible to formulate statements about points, lines and planes that
everyone could be expected to recognize as true. Very fundamental statements seem to be
perfectly verifiable with sketches that make the truth values of the claims clear.
While most of Euclid’s geometrical axioms seem to satisfy these criteria for
trustworthiness, one in particular has historically sparked debate regarding the philsophy of
mathematics; the parallel postulate. Many equivalent statements can be used as the
definition of this principle, amongst them the statement formulated by Playfair that given
any line and a point not included in the line, exactly one line that is parallel to the original
one can be drawn through the point.
Mathematicians did try to derive this claim as a consequence of the other axioms of
geometry. However, it was eventually discovered that both the parallel postulate and it
negations are in fact consistent with the other axioms. This means that truth value of
parallel postulate can be considered as being independent from Euclid’s other axioms,
which leaves us in a rather troublesome position. How can the parallel postulate be viewed
as an immediate, obvious truth when it is perfectly possible to imagine a theory of geometry
in which the postulate does not hold? And what does this fact say about the trustworthiness
of our other axioms?
With the knowledge that there exist multiple geometries, of which are consistent,
we could simply declare this situation to be a peculiarity of mathematics. Euclidean
geometry (that is, geometry assuming the parallel postulate along with the other axioms), as

1
well as non-Euclidean geometry (that discards the parallel postulate) can be studied as
independent theories. It is not inherently paradoxical that we in mathematics have the
possibility to study different geometrical theories with their own respective sets of rules.
However, a reason that the existence of both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry can
cause great uncertainty is that geometry is so closely related to our basic understanding of
all things visible to us.
One must not underestimate Immanuel Kant’s influence on our view of
mathematics, even today. Before the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry, he claimed that
space and time are the tools which all human beings use to perceive the world and that all
people share these same forms of perception. For that reason, he considered the
mathematical statements that can be derived through our understanding of geometrical
space to be objective, universal truths – certain knowledge, in contrast with empirical
findings that inevitably come with a degree of uncertainty. Kant’s thoughts on how the
human mind “views” space was greatly influential for the different traditions that would
later appear within the philosophy of mathematics; for example, David Hilbert was inspired
by these claims that some fundamental truths about mathematics can be recognized
through pure thought, which would lead him to consider finite arithmetic as a certain
foundation for all other mathematics. While Hilbert’s program eventually failed, the
unwavering certainty of arithmetic lingers today. It is almost impossible to imagine that the
fundamental mathematical truths that we are all taught as kids should not hold.
The problem posed by the respective consistency of different geometries is that it
forces us to doubt the truth values of statements that would seem self-evident based on our
intuition. This might lead one to question why we consider certain statements to be true in
the first place and this exactly the question of whether a given axiom should be accepted or
not. If Kant is right that geometry is the study of how the human mind perceives space, then
it seems impossible that two conflicting geometries should be equally valid. After all, we
have but one physical space to observe. No matter which theory of geometry (if any) that in
fact succeeds to describe the natural laws of physical reality, only one theory can align with
the universal human perception of space.
Of course, one may refute Kant’s claim that such a perception of space serves as the
foundation that ensures certainty of geometry. We must also consider that mathematical
objects and fundamentally different from physical ones; for example, we will never find a

2
line of infinite length in the “real” world, though we have no problem imagining one in a
coordinate system. Therefore, we should be able to safely accept that mathematical spaces
are different from the physical one. In this way, we are able to view Euclidean as well as
non-Euclidean geometry as valid theories derived from each their set of axioms in the sense
that each theory is consistent and thus true in a mathematical sense. On the other hand,
one might argue that we would be fooling ourselves if we were to deny that the concepts of
mathematics are inspired by physical observations. Even going beyond purely philosophical
questions of what truth is, it is desirable for mathematics to relate closely to physical reality
simply so that it can be applied. If the mathematical definition of truth is completely
detached from what we know about the natural world, how can we justify using
mathematical methods and models that are so fundamental to empirical sciences? While it
is possible to define completely abstract notions in mathematics, our acceptance of the
theory is closely connected with the constant validations of succesfully applying
mathematics to real-world problems.