Rhealyn Francisco BSED 3A

Jeremie Yangao

Krizzele M. Mosqueda

Clarice R. Pejano

Summary of Chapter 1: Axiomatic Systems and Finite Geometries

1.1. GAINING PERSPECTIVE

Finite geometries were developed in the late 19th century to examine the principles of completeness, consistency, and
independence in geometry. This chapter introduces finite geometries both to highlight their historical significance and to
explore the philosophical impact of non-Euclidean geometry. Finite geometries are simple, structured systems that help
build geometric reasoning skills and illustrate non-Euclidean and projective geometry properties. Despite their abstract
nature, these geometries have practical applications, such as designing statistical experiments with Latin squares and
developing error-correcting codes in computer science, discussed in Section 1.4. Students are encouraged to visualize
geometric concepts using drawings or concrete materials and to become familiar with dynamic geometry software like
Geometer’s Sketchpad and Cabri Geometry, which allows interactive exploration of traditional constructions and lays the
groundwork for future chapters.

1.2 AXIOMATIC SYSTEMS

An axiomatic system is said to be consistent if there do not exist in the system any two axioms, any axiom and theorem,
or any two theorems that contradict each other. A model of an axiomatic system is obtained by assigning interpretations to
the undefined terms so as to convert the axioms into true statements in the interpretations.

An axiomatic system Is complete if every statement containing undefined and defined terms of the system can be proved
valid or invalid, or in other words, if it is not possible to add a new independent axiom to the system.

In general, it is impossible to demonstrate directly that a system is complete. However, if a system is complete, there
cannot exist two essentially different models. This means all models. Must be pairwise isomorphic.

Two models a and ẞ of an axiomatic system are said to be isomorphic if there exists a one-to-one correspondence & from
the set of points and lines of a onto the set of points and lines of ẞ that preserves all relations. In particular if the
undefined terms of the system consist of the terms “point,” “line,” and “on,” then & must satisfy the following conditions:

1. For each point P and line, I in a, (P) and (1) are a point and line in β.
2. If P is on l, then $(P) is on $(1).

If all models of a system are pairwise isomorphic, it is clear that each model has the same number of points and lines.
Furthermore, if a new independent axiom could be added to the system, there would be two distinct models of the system:
a model a in which the new axiom would be valid and a model ẞ in which the new axiom would not be valid. The models
a and ẞ could not then be isomorphic. Hence, if all models of the system are necessarily isomorphic, it follows that the
system is complete.

In the example of the four-point geometry, it is clear that models 4P.1 and 4P.2 are isomorphic. The verification that all
models of this system are isomorphic follows readily once the following theorem is verified (see Exercises 5 and 6).
Deductive reasoning takes place in the context of an organized logical structure called an axiomatic (or deductive) system.
Such a system consists of the components listed below:

Components of an Axiomatic System

1. Undefined terms – Undefined terms are included since it is not possible to define all terms without resorting to
circular definitions. In geometrical sys- terms these undefined terms frequently, but not necessarily, include point,
line, plane and on.
2. Defined terms – Defined terms are not actually necessary, but in nearly every axiomatic system certain phrase
involving un- defined terms are used repeatedly. Thus, it is more efficient to substitute a new term, that is, a
defined term, for each of these phrases whenever they occur.
3. Axioms –An axiom in an axiomatic system is independent if it cannot be proved from the other axioma. If each
axiom of a system is independent, the system is said to be independent.
4. A system of logic - A system of logic is a framework of rules and principles used to reason and draw valid
conclusions. It provides a systematic approach to evaluating arguments, identifying fallacies, and constructing
sound reasoning.
5. Theorems - These are statements that can be proven logically based on the axioms, definitions, and previously
proven theorems.

Axioms for Four-Point Geometry

Undefined Terms. Point, line, on.

Axiom 4P.1. There exist exactly four points.

Axiom 4P.2. Two distinct points are on exactly one line.

Axiom 4P.3. Each line is on exactly two points

Model 4P.1

Undefined Term Interpretation

Points Letters A, B, C, D
Lines Columns of letters given below
on Contains, or is contained in
Lines
AAABBC
BCDCDD
Model 4P.2

Undefined Term Interpretation

Points Dots donated 1, 2, 3, 4
Lines Segment illustrated in figure 1.1
On A dots is an endpoint of a segment or
vice versa

Models Demonstrating Independence of Axioms for Four-Point Geometry

Model 4P 1.1

A model in which a segment 4P.1 is true (i.e, there do not exist four points)

Points
Lines
 A, B
A

Model 4P 1.2

A model in which a negation of Axiom 4P.2 is true (le., there are two distinct points not on one line):

Points
Lines
A, B, C, D A,
C

B, D

Note that in this model there is no line un points A and C. What other pairs of points fail to be on a line?

Model 4P 1.3

A model in which a negation of Axiom 4P.3 is true (Le., there are lines not on exactly two points):

Points Lines
A, B, C, D A,
A, B, C
B,
D, D, D
C

In this model one line is on three points, whereas the remaining lines are each on two points, so the negation of Axiom
4P.3 is true in this interpretation.

Since we have demonstrated the independence of each of the axioms of four-point geometry, we have shown that this
axiomatic system is independent. Another property that an axiomatic system may possess is completeness.

Theorem 4P.1

There are exactly six lines in the four-point geometry.

1.3 FINITE PROJECTIVE PLANES

Axiomatic Systems and Finite Geometries

In a finite projective plane, each pair of lines intersects; that is, there are no parallel lines. This
pairwise intersection of lines leads to several other differences between projective planes and
Euclidean planes.

Undefined Terms

 Point - A basic element of the plane.

 Line - A set of points that satisfy certain incidence relations.
 Incident - Describes the relationship between points and lines when a point lies on a line.
Defined Terms

 Collinear - Points are collinear if they lie on the same line.

 Concurrent - Lines are concurrent if they intersect at the same point.

Axioms for Finite Projective Planes

1. Axiom P.1 There exist at least four distinct points, no three of which are collinear.
2. Axiom P.2 There exists at least one line with exactly \( n + 1 \) (where \( n > 1 \)) distinct
points incident with it.

3. Axiom P.3 Given two distinct points, there is exactly one line incident with both of them.

4. Axiom P.4 Given two distinct lines, there is at least one point incident with both of them.

Whereas models P.1 and P.2 have three points on each line, three lines on each point, and a total of seven points and seven
lines, model P.3 has four points on each line, four lines on each point, and a total of thirteen points and thirteen lines. To
deter projective planes exist with more points and lines, it - practical to employ trial-and-error procedures. Instead we
develop a series of theorems that lead to a general result regarding the number of points and lines in a finite projective
plane of order n.

Definition 1.5

An axiomatic system in which the dual of any theorem is also a theorem is said to satisfy the principle of duality.

Thus, in an axiomatic system that satisfies the principle of duality, the proof of any theorem can be "turned into" a proof
of a dual theorem merely by dualizing the original proof. To show that an axiom system has the property of duality it is
necessary to prove that the duals of each axiom are theorems of the system. The theorems that are the dual statements of
the four axioms of this system are listed here. The proofs of the duals of Axioms P.1, P.3, and P.4 are left to you.

Theorem P.1 (Dual of Axiom P.1)

There exist at least four distinct lines, no three of which are concurrent.

Theorem P.2 (Dual of Axiom P.3)

Given two distinct lines, there is exactly one point incident with both of them.

Theorem P.3 (Dual of Axiom P.4)

Given two distinct points, there is at least one line incident with both of them.
Theorem P.4 (Dual of Axiom P.2)

There exists at least one point with exactly n + 1 (n > 1 incident with it.

Proof

By Axiom P.2 there is a line l with n + 1 points P1, P2, Pn+1 and by Axiom P.1 there is a point P not incident with 1. Then
by Axiom P.3 there exist lines 11, 12, 1n+1 joining the point P to points P1, P 2 ,...,P n + 1 respectively (see Fig. 1.3). It is
sufficient to show that these lines are all distinct and that there are no other lines through P. If 141 for ij then the two
points P, and P, would be incident with both 1 and 14 = 1,, and it would follow by Axiom P.3 that 111. But P is on l, and
not on 1 so we have a contradiction. Thus, = 11 for ij. Now assume there is an additional line, l n + 2 through P. This line
must also intersect I at a point Q (Axiom P.4). Since 1 has exactly n + 1 points, Q must be one of the points P 1 ,...,P n +
1 . Assume Q P₁, then, since Q P₁ and P are two distinct points on both ly and l n + 2 , it follows that l n + 2 =l 1
Therefore, the point P is incident with exactly n + 1 lines.

The previous proof demonstrates several geometric conventions. First, to make the proof less awkward, the phrase "is i' is
frequently replaced by a variety of other familiar "is on," "contains" and "through." The meanings of these terms should
be obvious by their context. Second, uppercase letters are used to designate points while lowercase letters are used for
lines. Finally, since diagrams are extremely helpful both in con- structing and following a proof, figures are included as
part of the proofs whenever appropriate; but the narrative portions of the proofs are constructed so as to be completely
independent of the figures.

In models P.1, P.2, and P.3, the number of points on each line and the number of lines on each point is the same for all
lines and points in each model. That this must be true in general is verified by the following theorems.

Theorem P.5 In a projective plane of order n, each point is incident with exactly n+1 lines.

Proof

Let P be a point of the plane. Axiom P.2 guarantees the existence of a line I containing n + 1 points, P1, P2, Pn+1. Then
there are two cases to consider, depending on whether P is on 1 or not (see Figs. 1.4 and 1.5).
Case 1 (P is not on I): If P is not on 1 there are at least n + 1 lines through P, namely, the lines
joining P to each of the points P1, P2, P+1. Just as in the proof of the previous theorem, it can be
shown that these lines are distinct and there are no other lines through P. So in this case there
are exactly n + 1 lines through P.

Case 2 (P is on 1): Assume P = P₁. Axiom P.1 guarantees the of existence a point Q not on 1. It is
also possible to verify the existence of a line m that contains neither P nor Q (see Exercise 7). By
case 1, Q is on exactly n + 1 lines m₁, M2,..., Mn+1. But each of these lines intersects m in a
point R₁ for i = 1 ,...,n+1. It can easily be shown that these points are distinct and that these are
the only points on line m. Thus, P is not on the line m, which contains exactly n + 1 points, so as
in case 1, P is incident with exactly n + 1 lines.

With this theorem in hand, the following theorem follows. immediately by duality.

Theorem P.6 In a projective plane of order n, each line is incident with exactly n + 1 points.

Using these results, we can now determine the total number of points and lines in a projective
plane of order n.

Theorem P.7

A projective plane of order n contains exactly n ^ 2 + n + 1 points and n ^ 2 + n + 1 lines.

Proof

Let P be a point in a projective plane of order n. Then every other point is on exactly one line
joining it with the point P. By Theorem P.5 there are exactly n + 1 lines through P and by Theorem
P.6 each of these lines contains exactly n + 1 points, that is, n points in addition to P. Thus, the
total number of points is (n + 1) * n + 1 = n ^ 2 + n + 1 A dual argument verifies that the total
number of lines is also n ^ 2 + n + 1.

Thus, a finite projective plane of order two must have seven points and seven lines and a
projective plane of order three must have thirteen points and thirteen lines. But one of the
unresolved questions in the study of finite geometries is the determination of the orders for
which finite projective planes exist. A partial answer to this question was given in 1906 when
Veblen and Bussey proved that there exist finite projective planes of order n whenever n is a
power of a prime. It has long been conjectured that these are the only orders for which finite
projective planes exist. In 1949 Bruck and Ryser proved that if n is congruent to 1 or 2 (modulo
4), and if n cannot be written as the sum of two squares, then there are no projective planes of
order n. This proved the conjecture for an infinite number of cases including n = 6 14, 21, and
22. However, it also left open an infinite number of cases including n = 10 12, 15, 18, and 20. In
late 1988, a group of researchers in the computer science department at Concordia University in
Montreal completed a case-by-case computer analysis requiring several thousand hours of
computer time. By investigating the implications of the existence of an order 10 projective plane,
they concluded that the conjecture is also correct for n = 10 that is, finite projective planes of
order 10 do not exist. This leaves n = 12 as the smallest number for which the conjecture is
unproved (Cipra, 1988).
1.4 AN APPLICATION TO ERROR-CORRECTING CODE
The Fano plane, a finite projective plane, can be represented by an incidence table, where rows show lines, and 0s and 1s
indicate non-incidence and incidence, respectively. Points in the Fano plane are represented as unique binary 7-tuples with
three 1s, which play an important role in coding theory. Coding theory, developed to detect and correct errors in message
transmission, was inspired by Richard W. Hamming’s work in 1947 to create error-correcting codes.

Coding theory aims to detect and correct errors in transmitted messages, with applications in space imaging and compact
discs. The field was inspired in 1947 by Richard W. Hamming’s work, as he sought ways to correct errors that his
computer could only detect. Since then, coding theory has expanded, using concepts from fields like projective geometry
and finite fields.

A fundamental error-correcting code is the Hamming code, which uses a generator matrix G to create code words. In this
matrix, each row represents a binary code for a number, with the first four digits indicating the message (information
positions) and the last three digits adding redundancy for error correction. This structure enables detection and correction
of single errors in transmitted data, making it one of the simplest and most effective error-correcting codes.

Additional Hamming code words are generated by summing the rows of the generator matrix G using componentwise
vector addition modulo 2. This process creates all 16 possible binary strings in the information positions, representing
decimal numbers from 0 to 15. The three redundancy digits in each code word enable single error correction: if a
transmitted message has a single-digit error, these extra digits help identify and correct the mistake. This redundancy is
key to the Hamming code’s ability to detect and correct single-bit errors effectively.
For example, the message x = 1010010 does not appear as a possible code word. Assuming that a single error has occurred
in the transmission of a code word we can locate the error and correct it using the parity check matrix H. this parity check
matrix consists of seven column vectors, which give the binary representation of the decimal numbers 1 through 7.

When multiplying a message x=1010010 by the parity check matrix H, the result (1,0,0)—the binary form of 4—reveals
an error in the fourth position, so the original code word was 1011010. Each of the 128 possible binary 7-tuples (i.e.,
messages) differs from a valid code word by at most one digit. The parity check matrix H, a 3x7 matrix with rank 3, helps
define the Hamming code by identifying errors, where valid code words yield Hx=(0,0,0). This matrix forms a subspace,
making the Hamming code a linear code.

The Hamming code operates within a seven-dimensional vector space, with each code word representing a coordinate.
Distance in this space is measured by the Hamming distance, which counts the differing positions between two binary
strings. This concept underlies the code’s ability to detect and correct single errors by interpreting each code word as a
unique point in this space.

Definition

The Hamming distance d (x, y) between two binary n-tuples x and y is the number of components by which the n-tuples

differ.

In coding theory, the Hamming distance d (x, y) between two binary 7-tuples, such as x = 1001110 and y = 1011101, is
defined by the number of differing positions between them, yielding d (x, y) = 3. The maximum Hamming distance in this
7-bit space is 7, and the minimum distance between any two nonzero Hamming code words is 3, which is why this is
known as the Hamming code. Additionally, the Hamming weight of a binary tuple x (like 0000000) is the count of 1s in x,
with the Hamming code’s minimum weight being 3.

To illustrate, consider a simpler code with only two code words: 000 and 111. In a three-dimensional cube where vertices
represent all binary 3-tuples, the Hamming distance between 000 and 111 is 3, while any single-bit error yields binary 3-
tuples at a distance of 1 from 000, such as 001, 010, and 100. These form a "1-sphere" centered at 000, while 111 has its
own 1-sphere for single-bit errors.

Together, these spheres cover all binary 3-tuples in the cube. This partitioning enables decoding by identifying the nearest
code word, correcting any single error by locating the tuple’s position within its sphere. Thus, Hamming distance helps
ensure accurate error correction by leveraging the minimum distance requirement.

In the Hamming code, code words can be viewed as vertices with a minimum Hamming distance of 3 between them. All
binary 7-tuples are covered by distinct, nonoverlapping "1-spheres" in this seven-dimensional space, making the
Hamming code a perfect 1-error-correcting code. This means that each possible message lies within a unique sphere of
radius 1 around a code word, allowing errors to be corrected by locating the nearest code word.

A key result in coding theory states that a perfect linear code is spanned by its minimum-weight vectors. For the Hamming
code, the vectors with weight 3 span the code, corresponding to the rows of the incidence table for the Fano plane. The
rows of the generator matrix GGG serve as a basis for these vectors, reinforcing the connection between the Hamming
code and the geometric structure of the Fano plane.

1.5. DESARGUES' CONFIGURATIONS

 Definition and Structure:

 Desargues' Configurations refer to a finite geometric structure exhibiting duality (a symmetry between points and
lines) and a unique relationship between points and lines similar to the polarity in projective geometry.

 Named after Desargues' theorem, which states: if two triangles are perspective from a point, they are also
perspective from a line.

 Key Concepts:

 Poles and Polars: Points (poles) are associated with lines (polars) where no line joins the pole with any points on
its polar.

 Perspective: Two triangles that align from a point also align from a line.

 Axioms:

 At least one point exists (Axiom DC.1).

 Each point has at least one polar (Axiom DC.2).

 Each line has at most one pole (Axiom DC.3).

 Two distinct points lie on at most one line (Axiom DC.4).

 Exactly three distinct points exist on each line (Axiom DC.5).

 If a line does not contain a point, there is a point on both the line and any polar of the point (Axiom DC.6).

 Theorems:

 Theorem DC.1: If a point is on a polar of another point, the second point is on each polar of the first.

 Theorem DC.2: Each point has exactly one polar.

 Theorem DC.3: Each line has exactly one pole.

 Non-Euclidean Properties:

 Unlike Euclidean geometry, Desargues' Configurations allow each line to have three lines parallel to it through its
pole.

 The finite nature of points and lines in this structure gives rise to unusual properties, including duality and
polarity.