See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330888101

Projective Geometry; Pappus, Desargue, Duality

Article · April 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 3,164

1 author:

Adam Mason
Oxford Brookes University
9 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modelling Volcanic Activity View project

Forecasting Book Demand View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adam Mason on 05 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Projective Geometry; Pappus, Desargue, Duality.

Adam M.Mason. 14067071

April 2017

1 Introduction
Projective geometry can be considered an offshoot of Euclidean Geometry. The difference being that certain new
conditions are imposed in order to allow for situations that may arise, such as in the problem of how to represent
the 3-dimensions in a 2 dimensional plane.
The development of Projective Geometry really gained momentum in Renaissance Europe when Artists and
Mathematicians (sometimes both the same person) wished to create works of Art with realistic depth. That is to
realistically depict objects situated in the background, foreground and middle-ground in a proportionally accurate
manner. We shall look at contributions made by Pappus, Pascal and Desargue.
Perhaps the main concept to keep in mind is that the notion of parallelism is altered significantly from the Euclidean
concept of parallelism.
As we shall see will result in the creation of an intersection point at infinity. Made feasible the in the Perspective
plane.

1
2 Pappus’ Theorem
Theorem 2.1 Theorem: Let A,B and C be three points on a line in R2 .
And let A’,B’ and C’ be three points on another line.
Let BC’ and B’C meet at P, CA’ and C’A meet at Q,
and AB’ and A’B meet at R.
Then P,Q,R are collinear.

(Fig 1)

Figure 1: Pappus’ Theorem, indicates collinearity of the three intersection points; P,Q,R

This is an important Theorem of projective geometry, which involves the use of straight lines without the
confinement to a certain system of measurement.

3 Pascal’s contibution
Pascal demonstarted that Pappus’ Theorem could also hold for a conic, an ellipse. By using six points again. We
see from figure 2, that again the intersection points P,Q and R on a straight line. They are Collinear. So Pappus’
Theorem applies to the ellipse. (Fig 2)

Figure 2: Pascal’s interpretation of Pappus’ Theorem, applied to an ellipse

2
4 Desargues Theorem
Theorem 4.1 Let 4 ABC and 4 A’B’C’ be triangles in R2 such that the lines AA0 ,BB 0 and CC 0 meet at a point
U . Let BC and B’C’ meet at P. Let CA and A’C’ meet at Q. And let AB and A’B’ meet at R. Then P,Q,R are
collinear.

Three lines meet at point U, this being the viewpoint of the observer. The two triangles 4 ABC and 4 A’B’C’
are ’Perspective’ to point U.
Two triangles in Perspective will give three points of intersection which are themselves collinear.
If 4 ABC is Perspective to 4 A’B’C’ via U then the triangles are Perspective via the line L.
(Fig 3)

Figure 3: Desargue theorem

3
5 The revival of the Projective Plane
The theories of Desargue lay dormant until the 19th Century when further contributions were made for the problem
of how to depict a tiles floor in 2-dimensions.
It was quite self evident that two parallel lines would appear to join on the horizon. A good example is of a
straight railtrack which appears to converge on the horizon.
But there are also other parallels to be considered.

Figure 4: Square lattice, including all parallels

Looking at the square lattice in Euclidean Space, it is evident that all the diagonal parallel lines need equal
consideration. (Fig 4)

4
 If in perspective space all parallel lines intersect at infinity then so too must the diagonals intersect at infinity.
So the infinite point must become a line in orderto accommodate for the intersections of the diagonal parallels.
(Fig 5)

Figure 5: Faultfree Perfect Squared Projective Planes

In order to make any sense between the Desargue theoerem and the Artists depiction it is essential to have a
notion of the infinite.
Suppose in the counterexample to the Pappus Theorem we force A’ and B’ swap positions. The intersection R
now tends to infinity.
Pappus Theorem states that these three points (orange) are collinear! What actually happens is that the three
orange points are actually still collinear since the orange line is parallel to the two blue lines, which will meet at
infinity at point R. (Fig 6.)

Figure 6: Counter example of Pappus theorem

5
 This must be a special case of Pappus theorem which has prompted a new concept known as ’The Line at
Infinity’.
Graphically, we represent the Ordinary(Euclidean) plane as a grid encircled by the Line at infinity. (Fig 7).

The idea of Augmenting the Euclidean plane with a line at infinity gave the new property that every family of
parallel lines supposedly meet at infinity.

Figure 7: All parallel lines meet the infinity line

Making a strong link between the artists method and a more rigorous geometrical method.
The Ordinary Plane plus the Line at Infinity is called the Projective Plane. We now enter the realm of Projective
Geometry.
Under these conditions any two lines can intersect. Non parallel lines intersect on the Ordinary plane and the
parallel (in the convention Euclidean sense) will intersect on the Line of Infinity.

6
6 The Duality Principle
The principle of duality asserts that the axioms for the projective plane are valid if the terms ”line” and ”point”
are used interchangeably. As proof we can verify the axioms with their respective duals.
Axiom 1: Any two distinct points are incident with just one line.
Dual: Any two distinct lines are incident with just one point. Fig 8.
Axiom 2: There exists three non-collinear points. Dual:Every line consists of at least three points.

Figure 8: Axiom 1 and it’s dual

Figure 9: Axion 2 and it’s dual

The Duality Principle states; if the primatives ”point” and ”line” are interchanged then the same statements
remain valid in a reversed order.

7
 The following experiment may aid understanding.

The location of the observer at point P and the lines A and B set up a correspondence between every point on
line A and every point on line B. Which alters with any change in location of P.
This may be thought of as ”perspectivity” from one line to another.
If there exists a sequence of points (a1 , a2 , a3 ) are in perspective with another sequence (b1 , b2 , b3 ) with respect
to a centre of perspective, P.
Then this implies;
∃ a line through a1 , b1 and P.
∃ a line through a2 , b2 and P.
∃ a line through a3 , b3 and P.

Figure 10: Oberserver’s location determines the correspondence points on line A and B

So, since every two distinct points A and B determine a unique line, the dual will be ”Every two distinct lines
determine a unique point.

8
 Figure 11: The dual of Figure 10

The dual of Figure 10:

It can be observed that instead of there being 2 sets of 3 collinear points, there are now 2 sets of 3 lines
intersecting at points A and B.
At A: a1 ∩ a2 ∩ a3 .
B: b1 ∩ b2 ∩ b3 .
The centre of perspective is replaced by a line of perspective.
So the sequence of lines (a1 , a2 , a3 ) and (b1 , b2 , b3 ) are perspective to each other with respect to a horizon. Where
a1 ∩ a2 , b1 ∩ b2 and a3 ∩ b3 all meet at some point on the horizon.

7 Conclusion
The creation of the Perspective plane has had a suprisingly long development since the beginnings of mathematics.
What with sporadic interest in the subject over the years. More methods do exist for the construction of shapes
with accommodation to perspective. Which are beyond the scope of this short report.
All methods seen here base their evaluation of perspective within the concept of intersecting parallel lines at the
line of infinity. At first a seemingly contradictory situation. But so too is experience of reality from the observer.
As we all have a unique ’point of view’.
Perhaps it is the alternative perspective plane that differentiates human perception from that of the omniscience
Recent developments in computer graphics and virtual reality has accelerated the growth of high speed computations
of perspective. Maybe this will continue into multidimensional graphics computations?

9
 8 References

References

• Brannen,D. Esplen,M. Gray,J.(2012). Geometry, 2nd Edition. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press.
(p127-252)

Coxeter. (1969). Introduction to Geometry, 2nd Edition. New Jersey. John Wiley and Sons. (p229-
234,p238,p256,p261)

Wallace,E. West,S. (2004) Roads to Geometry. 3rd Edition. New Jersey, USA. Pearson-Prentice Hall. (p432-473)

Euclid. Heath,T. (1956). The Elements Vol 1. New York. Dover. (p242-255)

Richard Southwell. (2014). Projective Geometry 2 Foundations & Tilings in Perspective. [Online Video]. 30
December 2014. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kClSutQlOFs. [Accessed: 21 March 2017].

squaring.net. 2015. Faultfree Perfect Squared Projective Planes (FPSPPs). [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.squaring.net/sq/pp/pp.html. [Accessed 23 March 2017].

N. J. Wilderberger. 2011. njwildberger. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/user/njwildberger.

[Accessed 24 March 2017].

10

View publication stats