Descartes’ Dream: Algebra IS Geometry

Charles M . Patton, Principal Scientist

Center for Technology in Learning
SRI International
Overview
• History, in brief
• The Constructions, in Context
• Number and Operation Duality - Build-it-yourself Numberline
• Variables and Equations - What’s Unknown?
• Constructing the Cartesian Plane - Finally
• Summary and Commentary
René Descartes (1596 - 1650)
• “I think, therefore I am”
• Cartesian Plane, Cartesian Coordinates
• Geometry => Algebra => Geometry

x2+y2=4
=> => - 7 + 1- 7 - 1 (
7+1 7-1
, )
y=x-1 ( , ) 2 2
2 2

But his “secret notebook” suggests that it was actually

Algebra => Geometry => Algebra that he was after.
(see, e.g., Amir D. Aczel, “Descartes’ Secret Notebook”)
Constructive Geometry
• Interpreting algebraic operations as geometric constructions

• But issues such as “trisecting an angle” prevented success

The metrical notions, such as length and angle, that all

since Euclid assumed must be intrinsic to geometry,
were actually a barrier to success of the program.
Axiomatic Geometry
• Following Descartes, there was 200 years of experiments
with alternatives to Euclidean geometry:
Can you leave out the parallel postulate?
Do “straight lines” need to be “straight”?
Can the notion of “length” vary from place to place?
• As part of his “program” David Hilbert (1862-1943) organized
variants as “axiom schemes” arguing, famously, as to the
meaning of point, line, and plane, “At any time you have to be
ready to substitute the words beer stein, bench, and table.” As
long as the relations are preserved, everything else will follow.
Hilbert’s Fundamental Theorem
• Arguably the simplest of the axiom schemes was that for
projective geometry, as it is primarily about incidence.
• The fundamental theorem (paraphrased) holds that these
incidence properties determine the underlying algebra of the
projective geometry, providing geometric constructions for all
the algebraic operations: Descartes was right!
• John von Neuman (1903-1957) realized that the “yes-no”
experiments of quantum mechanics fit the projective geometry
scheme and used this interpretation to determine that com-
plex, rather than real, numbers underlie quantum mechanics.
Wu’s Method
• Hilbert’s constructions were designed for generality. As a
consequence, they are not all that “user friendly”.
• In 1977 Chinese mathematician Wu Wen-Tsien devised an
automated theorem proving method in geometry that by-
passed both the usual axiomatic and coordinate approaches
and went straight to the algebra-as-construction correspon-
dence - with great success.
• In the process, he set out the basic set-up and constructions
in a much more user-friendly way. And it is his constructions
that we will use today.
Our Set-up - Informally
• Any two distinct points determine a unique line to which they
are both incident.
• Any two distinct lines determine a unique point to which they
are both incident
• There are lots of points and lines
• There’s a fixed line we have selected and call the “line at
infinity.” Lines are called parallel when their joint point of inci-
dence is incident to the line at infinity.
• Desargues Axiom (next)
• Pappas Axiom (later)
• Order & continuity (later)
Desargues Axiom
g e d g e -p a ir s in c id e n t to a line
Correspond in

If and only if

Corresponding vertex-
pairs incident to a point
More familiar form: Law of Perspective
Especially useful version

conclude

assume
The Gist of the Constructions

A distant light source

casts a shadow from one
line to another, taking
each point on one line to a
point on the other.
A second distant light
source casts a shadow
back on to the first line.
The combination takes
any point on the first line
to another point on the
first line, transforming the
line to itself.
Two Classes of Such Constructions
Choose a (finite) line and (finite) point on it.
Call the point ‘0'.

Consider the class of ‘shadow’ transformations

where the second line is parallel to the first:

Additive / Translation
0

And a second class of ‘shadow’ transforma-

tions where the second line is incident with the
first at 0:
Multiplicative / Scaling
0
Independence of Choice
In each class, a transformation is completely
determined by its action on any (generic) point
the particular choice of second line and ‘lights’
is immaterial beyond this.

If these 0
agree

Then all these will agree as well

(see ‘independence’)
Addition on the Line
With the choice of a ‘fiduciary’ point (0) there is
an association of an (additive) transformation
with every (finite) point on the line.
To a point A, associate the transformation,
“+A” that takes 0 to A. For any other point, B,
B+A is the result of applying the transformation
+A to B.

0 A B

“addition by A takes 0 to A”
Addition on the Line
With the choice of a ‘fiduciary’ point (0) there is
an association of an (additive) transformation
with every (finite) point on the line.
To a point A, associate the transformation,
“+A” that takes 0 to A. For any other point, B,
B+A is the result of applying the transformation
+A to B.

0 A B B+A

“and takes B to B+A”

Subtraction on the Line
With the choice of a ‘fiduciary’ point (0) there is
an association of the (additive) inverse trans-
formation with every (finite) point on the line.
To a point A, associate the transformation, “-A”
that takes A to 0. For any other point, B, B-A is
the result of applying the transformation -A to
B.

0 A B-A B

“subtraction by A takes A to 0 and takes B to B-A”

Is this definition of addition commutative?

+B +B

?
+A +A?
? ?
desargues
desargues
desargues
Multiplication on the Line
With the choice of an additional ‘fiduciary’ point
(1) there is an association of an (multiplicative)
transformation with every (finite) point on the
line.
To a point A, associate the transformation,
“*A” that takes 1 to A. For any other point, B,
B*A is the result of applying the transformation
*A to B.

0 A 1 B

“multiplication by A takes 1 to A”
Division on the Line
With the choice of an additional ‘fiduciary’ point
(1) there is an association of an (multiplicative)
inverse transformation with every (non-zero,
finite) point on the line.
To a point A, associate the transformation, “/A”
that takes A to 1. For any other point, B, B/A is
the result of applying the transformation /A to B.

0 A 1 B B/A

“division by A takes A to 1 and takes B to B/A”

Building the Number Line, Equations, etc.