Tarski and Geometry

Author(s): L. W. Szczerba
Source: The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Dec., 1986, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Dec., 1986), pp. 907-
912
Published by: Association for Symbolic Logic

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2273904

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Association for Symbolic Logic is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Symbolic Logic

This content downloaded from

78.128.191.49 on Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:39:15 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JOURNAL OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Volume 51, Number 4, Dec. 1986

TARSKI AND GEOMETRY

L. W. SZCZERBA

Tarski published his first geometry paper, [24b], in 1924. As is well

area of the union of two disjoint figures is the sum of the areas of th
This observation is the basis of a method for proving that two figur
have the same area: if we can divide each of the two figures A and B
number of pairwise disjoint subfigures A1,-.. , A,, and B1,. . ., B, such t
figures Ai and Bi are congruent (we say that two such figures are equi
decomposition), then figures A and B have the same area. The method i
universal. For example a disc and a rectangle can never be equival
decomposition, even if they have the same area. Hilbert [1922, Ka
from his axiom system the so-called De Zolt axiom:
If a polygon V is a proper subset 6f a polygon W then they are not equivalent by a
finite decomposition.
Hilbert's proof is elementary but difficult. In [24b] Tarski gave an easy but
nonelementary proof of a stronger version of the De Zolt axiom:
If a polygon V is a proper subset of a polygon W then they are not equivalent by
finite decomposition into any figures.
Moreover, he pointed out that the above theorems are true only on the plane. Any
two polyhedra are equivalent by finite decomposition (cf. Banach and Tarski [24d]),
even if they differ in volume! This paper contains the famous Banach-Tarski
paradox, an unusual consequence of the axiom of choice.
If two polygons, say V and W, are equivalent by finite decomposition into
polygons it is natural to ask what is the minimal number of polygons in such a
partition. Such a number is called the degree of equivalence of V and W. The notion
is due to A. Lindenbaum and is described in Tarski [31b]. Let Vbe a square with the
length of a side equal to a, and let W be a rectangle with sides of length ax and a/x
respectively (where x is any positive real number). The square and rectangle are
easily seen to be equivalent by finite decomposition. The degree of equivalence is
denoted by z(x). The problem of properties of the function T interested a number of
well-known young mathematicians in the 1920s, among them Knaster, Lin-
denbaum, Moese and Waraszkiewicz. The results of their efforts were reported in

Received April 22, 1985; revised January 20, 1986.

( 1986, Association for Symbolic Logic

0022-4812/86/5104-0006/$0 1.60

907

This content downloaded from

78.128.191.49 on Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:39:15 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
908 L. W. SZCZERBA

Tarski [31/32a], including Moese'

T(n) = n.
Later W. Sierpifiski published
equivalence by finite partitions [
During the academic year 1926/
the University of Warsaw. For t
owe an explanation: courses in Po
week, but are spread over a year
semesters: Fall semester of 1926
The system that Tarski present
(rather than Hilbert [1922]) an
universe was used, the set of p
betweenness and equidistance. Ta
axioms with the use of defined n
system was complete in the se
primitive notions was either p
mechanical method of finding th
The axiom system used in this c
It was already in press, but bec
failed to come out. Tarski got J.
it in [48m]. Surprisingly, in 19
original paper reproduced [67m
found.
A modification of this axiom sy
elementary geometry was explain
Euclidean geometry which can
any set-theoretic devices." Thu
of the first order, i.e. no variab
sisted in providing an analog o
form of the continuity axiom

VAVB(A < B = 3xA < x < B)

as a starting point. First he had to express it in terms of his primitives (in this case t
betweenness relation suffices):

VAVB(3x Va, b(a E A & b E B =* Bxab)) => (3yVa, b(a E A & b E B > Bayb)).

The second step was to eliminate set variables. It was achieved by restricting t
considerations to definable sets. If A and B in the above axioms range over definab
sets, then it is possible to replace them by definitions of these sets. Thus he arrived
the collection of sentences All (see below). The resulting axiom system
elementary, but contains an infinite number of axioms. This disadvantage of t
axiom system is unavoidable: Elementary Euclidean geometry is not finitely
axiomatisable.
Tarski had, for a long time, planned to write a monograph on Euclidean
geometry, and in the early 1960s he began to realize this plan in collaboration with
Wanda Szmielew. A first draft was completed in 1965 and the second in 1967. For

This content downloaded from

78.128.191.49 on Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:39:15 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TARSKI AND GEOMETRY 909

various reasons a complete monograph was never published. In [83'] Schwab-

hauser presented a detailed development of the Tarski axiom system, based in part
on the 1965 notes of Wanda Szmielew. The first part of the book [83'] containing
the exposition was published under three names: Schwabhiuser, Szmielew and
Tarski. Szmielew did not live to see its publication. Tarski died a few months after it
came off the press. The second part, containing a comprehensive description of
metamathematical investigations of Tarski's system of geometry and "Tarski style"
metamathematical results on a number of related systems, was published under the
name of Schwabhauser alone.
The axiom system given in [83'] is the following (ab cd is read "a is the same
distance from b as c is from d", and Babc is read "b is between a and c"):
Al. ab ba [reflexivity].
A2. ab pq A ab rs =. pq _ rs [transitivity].
A3. ab cc => a = b [identity for equidistance].
A4. 3x(Bqax A ax _ bc) [segment construction].
A5. a : b A Babc A Ba'b'c' A ab a'b' A bc b'c' A bd -b'd' => cd c'd'
[five-segment axiom].
A6. Baba < a = b [identity for betweenness].
A7. Bapc A Bbqc =* 3x(Bpxb A Bqxa) [axiom of Pasch].
A8. 3a0b3c(n Babc A - Bbca A - Bcab) [lower dimension axiom].
A9. p :# q A ap _ aq A bp bq A cp -cq => Babc v Bbca v Bcab [upper di-
mension axiom].
A10. Badt A Bbdc A a :# d 3x3y(Babx A Bacy A Bxty) [Euclid's axiom].
All. 3aVxVy (O(x) A (y) Baxy) =- 3bVxVy (4(x) A 0(y) =* Bxby) [Con-
tinuity axiom-schema].
In the last axiom q and , are first order formulas in the appropriate language,
such that the variables a, b, x do not occur in f, and the variables a, b, y do not occur
in q.
The approach to geometry underlying the above exposition is axiomatic.
Therefore it is natural to start with axioms Al -A9 and All forming an axiom
system of absolute geometry, and to extend it later with A10 to form Euclidean
geometry, or with the negation of A1O to obtain Bolyai-Lobachevsky geometry. An
analog of Tarski [59] for Bolyai-Lobachevsky geometry was published by Szmielew
[ 1959]. In fact the main part of the development of Euclidean geometry does not use
Al 1, and this leads to a broad class of underlying fields. It is the class of all formally
real Pythagorean fields, i.e. fields in which a sum of squares is always a square, but
- 1 is not a sum of squares. Only the addition of A 1I limits the class to the class of
real-closed fields. Tarski was unhappy that he was unable to repeat the same for
Bolyai-Lobachevsky geometry: the Klein model makes good sense only over a
formally real Euclidean field, i.e. a field in which for any element x either x or -
square. This idea has been realized by Szmielew in her monograph [1983], edited
posthumously by M. Moszyfiska, in fact starting with a much broader class of
underlying algebraic systems, but at the expense of giving up Bolyai-Lobachevsky
geometry.
Tarski insisted that the exposition should be formal and no recourse to intuition,
and in particular to figures, should be made. Nevertheless he always stressed that the

This content downloaded from

78.128.191.49 on Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:39:15 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 910 L. W. SZCZERBA

exposition should be easy and appealing to intuition. I remember Szmielew

complaining jokingly that the more one worked with Tarski, the result tended to
look less and less laborious. In fact Tarski would work over a mathematical
presentation until it achieved an elegance and simplicity which disguised the
difficulties hidden beneath the surface. All these requirements applied also to
axioms, and therefore Tarski wanted his axiom system to be independent. Most of
the independence proofs have been provided by Eva Kallin, Scott Taylor and
H. N. Gupta (see Gupta [1965]). Gupta left the problem open for just two axioms,
Al and A7, and this is the state of affairs now (Szczerba [1970] contains the proof of
independence of A7 but in a system with another version of axiom A10; cf. also
Szczerba and Szmielew [1970]).
Besides Euclidean geometry Tarski was interested in general affine geometry,
which is, roughly speaking, the theory of the betweenness relation on the open and
convex subsets of the Euclidean plane (for a precise definition see Szczerba and
Tarski [65a] and [79]). Tarski was especially interested in the rich variety of
extensions of this theory. Among these extensions are Euclidean affine geometry,
hyperbolic and elliptic geometries and a number of less natural items (for details see
[79]). A considerable part of both papers is devoted to the study of metamathemat-
ical properties of general affine geometry and its extensions.
Studying metamathematical properties of particular theories was quite charac-
teristic for Tarski, and geometry was one of his major sources of examples. For
example, he solved the decidability problem for projective geometry (see [49ai]), and
wrote a number of papers about primitive notions in geometry. The problem of
primitive notions in geometry seems to be particularly prominent in Tarski's
geometric research. As a disadvantage of Hilbert's axiom system for Euclidean
geometry Tarski mentioned the fact that Hilbert used a number of mutually
definable primitive notions, and he was unhappy that he himself succeeded in
improving the Hilbert system of primitive notions only up to the point where he had
just one notion definable from the other: the betweenness relation is definable in
terms of equidistance in Tarski's system of Euclidean geometry. This was the price
he paid for having a nice axiom system, but he often stressed the need for
improvement and looked for another system of primitives. He would gladly have
had an axiom system with one relational primitive only. (The betweenness relation is
definable in terms of equidistance provided the dimension is at least two. Tarski and
Lindenbaum proved in [26aa] that in the one-dimensional case these two notions
are definitionally independent.)
The search for such a system resulted in the quite general theorem that if
equidistance on the Gaussian plane is definable from a ternary relation R then for
any two different complex numbers a and b the set {c: a = c v b = c v Rabc}
generates the entire field of complex numbers (see Tarski [56c]). Particular results
along this line are two: Together with Beth, he proved that equilaterality may be the
sole primitive of Euclidean geometry (see [56b]) but only for dimension at least 3. In
dimension 2 the equilaterality does not satisfy the condition from [56c]. The
problem of possible primitives of Euclidean geometry has been undertaken by
Royden [1959], Scott [1956], and Makowiecka in a series of articles (see e.g.
[1977]).

This content downloaded from

78.128.191.49 on Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:39:15 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TARSKI AND GEOMETRY 911

It is not necessary to confine oneself in choosing primitives to points, lines, etc. as

the elements of universa. Why not take, say, balls? It turns out (see Tarski [29]) that
in terms of open balls (or discs on the plane) and their set-theoretical inclusion, it is
possible to define points and equidistance in any finite-dimensional Euclidean
space. In fact Tarski did not use the relation of inclusion but instead formulated his
result in the framework of Le'niewski's mereology (cf. Luschei [1962] for a
description) based on the notion of part.
This system of primitives, i.e. open balls and inclusion, was motivated not only by
its simplicity, but also by the fact that the notion of ball seems to be much more
intuitive than the notion of point. Thus the theory based on these notions has
become known as Tarski's natural geometry. This natural geometry differs
significantly from similar approaches of Pieri [1908] and Huntington [1916].
Jaskowski in [1948] simplified Tarski's natural geometry by taking closed balls
instead of open ones.
It is impossible to describe in a short paper all the research in geometry which has
been influenced by Tarski. Instead I will refer the reader to Szmielew [1974] and the
second part of [83m]. Both contain comprehensive bibliographies.
This paper is an extended version of a talk presented at the meeting of the Polish
Philosophical Society on the first anniversary of Tarski's death. I would like to
express my gratitude to Andrzej M4kowski, Steven Givant and the anonymous
referee for their remarks leading to the improvement of the final version of the
paper.

REFERENCES

(OTHER THAN WORKS OF TARSKI)

H. N. GUPTA
[1965] Contributions to the axiomatic foundations of geometry. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
California, Berkeley, California.
D. HILBERT
[1922] Grundlagen der Geometrie, 3rd ed., Teubner, Leipzig.
E. V. HUNTINGTON
[1916] A set of postulates for abstract geometry exposed in terms of the simple relation of inclusion,
Mathematische Annalen, vol. 73, pp. 522-559.
S. JA?KOWSKI
[1948] Une modification des definitions foundamentales de la gdomdtrie des corps de M. A. Tarski,
Annales de la SocietW Polonaise de Mathimatique, vol. 21, pp. 298-301.
E. C. LUsCHEI
[1962] The logical systems of Lesiniewski, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
H. MAKOWIECKA
[1977] On minimal systems of primitives in elementary Euclidean geometry, Bulletin de l'Acadimie
Polonaise des Sciences, Sirie des Sciences Mathimatiques, Astronomiques et Physiques, vol. 13,
pp. 269-277.
M. PIERI
[1908] La geometria elementare instituita sulle nozione di "punto" e "sfera", Memorie di Matematica
e di Fisica delta Societa Italiana delle Scienze, ser. 3, vol. 15, pp. 345-450.
H. L. ROYDEN
[1959] Remarks on primitive notions for elementary Euclidean and non-Euclidean plane geometry,
axiomatic method (proceedings of the 1957/58 international symposium, Berkeley, Califo
L. Henkin et al., editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 86-96.

This content downloaded from

78.128.191.49 on Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:39:15 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 912 L. W. SZCZERBA

D. SCOTT
[1956] A symmetric primitive notion for Euclidean geometry, Indagationes Mathematicae, vol. 18, p
456-461.
W. SIERPI&SKI
[1954] On the congruence of sets and their equivalence by finite decomposition, Lucknow University
Studies, no. 20, Lucknow University, Lucknow, 1954; reprinted in Congruence of sets and other
monographs, Chelsea, New York, 1967.
L. W. SZCZERBA
[1970] Independence of Pasch's axiom, Bulletin de l'Acadimie Polonaise des Sciences, Sirie des
Sciences Mathematiques, Astronomiques et Physiques, vol. 18, pp. 491-498.
L. W. SZCZERBA and W. SZMIELEW
[1970] On the Euclidean geometry without the Pasch axiom, Bulletin de l'Acadimie Polonaise des
Sciences, Sirie des Sciences Mathematiques, Astronomiques et Physiques, vol. 18, pp. 659-666.
W. SZMIELEW
[1959] Some metamathematical problems concerning elementary hyperbolic geometry, The axiomatic
method (proceedings of the 1957/58 international symposium, Berkeley, California; L. Henkin
et al., editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 30-32.
[1974] The role of the Pasch axiom in the foundations of Euclidean geometry, Proceedings of the
Tarski symposium (L. Henkin et al., editors), Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics,
vol. 25, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, pp. 123-132.
[1983] From affine to Euclidean geometry, Panistwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw, and
Reidel, Dordrecht.

INSTITUTE OF MATHEMATICS

WARSAW UNIVERSITY

WARSAW, POLAND

This content downloaded from

78.128.191.49 on Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:39:15 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms