6.6.

In an incidence geometry, consider the relationship of parallelism, “ l is parallel to m ”, on the set of

lines:

(a) Give an example to show that this need not be an equivalence relation.

(b) If we assume the parallel axiom (P), then parallelism is an equivalence relation.

(c) Conversely, if parallelism is an equivalence relation in a given incidence geometry, then (P) must hold
in that geometry.

Solution.

(P) Through a line l and a point A , there is at most one line through A and parallel to l

(a) We consider the following incidence

geometry.

Points: A , B , C , D , E

Lines:
{ A , B }, { A , C }, { A , D }, { A , E} , {B , C }, {B , D } ,
{ B , E } , {C , D } , { C , E } , { D , E }
Then consider the lines { C , D }

We have: { A , B } /¿{C , D }, { A , E } /¿ {C , D }

But { A , B }and { A , E }are not parallel.

So, this doesn’t satisfy the transitivity property.

Therefore, parallelism is not an equivalence

relation.

(b) We have:

+) Reflexivity: We have a /¿ a

+) Symmetry: We have: a /¿ b then b /¿ a

+) Transitivity: If a /¿ b ,b /¿ c then we will prove a /¿ c

Suppose otherwise, a intersects c at O . Then through O there exists two lines that are parallel to b , not
true according to (P).

(c) Similarly, if (P) is not true then there exists a line b and a point O such that through O there are two
lines a , c parallel to b
Then a /¿ b ,b /¿ c but a , c are not parallel ⇒ Parallelism does not satisfy transitivity property, thus it is
not an equivalence relation.

Therefore, (P) must hold.