HILBERT’S AXIOM

A Seminar Paper
Presented to
Mr. Angelito S. Rendiza
Mindanao State University - Buug Campus
Datu Panas, Buug Zamboanga Sibugay

In Partial Fulfillment
In Mathematics 105
Geometric Structures

Caballes, Honey Grace S., 1003552, Education

Cuot, Ailen A., 1003576, Education
Edris, Sitti Asia E., 1003550, Education
Malagum, Junelyn N., 1003333
1st Semester, S.Y. 2017 – 2018
Abstract
This seminar paper targets to extrapolate the Hilbert’s Axioms, to know its different
axioms, impact of Hilbert’s Foundations of Geometry and compare the Hilbert’s Foundation of
Geometry with Euclid’s Elements.

Under such goal, the researchers used various methods. They made used of their gadgets
and access internet to collect information and ideas and spent time in discussing the topics in a
process called brainstorming. They also made use of the information found some of the PDF
documents which is all about the Hilbert’s axioms.

After some discussion, the researchers discovered that the Hilbert’s axiom system is
constructed with three primitive terms: point, line and plane; with five primitive notions:
incidence, order, congruence, parallels, continuity and three primitive relations: betweenness, a
ternary relation linking points; lies on (Containment), three binary relations, one linking points
and straight lines, one linking points and planes, and one linking straight lines and planes; and
congruence, two binary relations, one linking line segments and one linking angles, each denoted
by an infix ≅ . The researchers also discovered that there has been an impact of Hilbert’s
foundation of geometry and compared the Hilbert’s Foundation of Geometry with Euclid’s
Elements.

Introduction
Hilbert Axioms are a set of 20 assumptions proposed by David Hilbert in 1899 in his
book Grundlagen der Geometrie (The Foundations of Geometry) as the foundation for modern
treatment of Euclidean Geometry. David Hilbert was a German mathematician who is known for
his problem set that he proposed in one of the first ICMs that have kept mathematicians busy for
the last century. Hilbert is also known for his axiomatizations of the Euclidean geometry with is
set of 20 axioms. These axioms try to do away the inadequacies of the five axioms that were
postulated by Euclid around two millennia ago. In particular, Hilbert does away with most of the
problems of the fifth postulate of Euclid which many before him and since have thought to be
incomplete.
Hilbert’s axiom system is constructed with three primitive terms: point, line and plane;
with five primitive notions: incidence, order, congruence, parallels, continuity and three
primitive relations: betweenness, a ternary relation linking points; lies on (Containment), three
binary relations, one linking points and straight lines, one linking points and planes, and one
linking straight lines and planes; and congruence, two binary relations, one linking line segments
and one linking angles, each denoted by an infix ≅ .
The value of Hilbert’s Grundlagen was more methodological than substantive or
pedagogical. The value of the Grundlagen is its pioneering approach to mathematical questions
including the use of models to prove axioms independent and the need to prove the consistency
and completeness of an axiom system. Mathematics in the twentieth century evolved into a
network of axiomatic formal systems. This was, in considerable part, influenced by the example
Hilbert set in the Grundlagen. A 2003 effort ( Meikle and Fleuriot) to formalize the Grundlagen
with a computer, though, found that some of Hilbert’s proof appear to rely on diagrams and
geometric intuitions and a such revealed some potential ambiguities and omissions in his
definitions.

Statement of the Problem

The study aims to extrapolate the Hilbert’s Axioms. This also aims to know about:
1. the different axioms of Hilbert;
2. the impact of Hilbert’s Foundations of Geometry; and
3. the comparison of Hilbert’s Foundation of Geometry with Euclid’s Elements.

Analysis and Discussion

1. Different axioms of Hilbert

I. Axioms of Incidence
I.1 For two points A and B there exists a line that contains each of the points A, B.
I.2 For two [different] points A and B there exists no more than one line that contains each
of the points A, B.
I.3a There exist at least two points on a line.
I.3b There exist at least three points that do not lie on a line.
Remark. We did separate axiom I.3 into I.3a and I.3b, in order to stress there is no direct logical
connection between the two sentences intended.
Remark. Additional axioms I.4 through I.8 are only needed for three dimensional geometry.
I.4 For any three points A, B, C that do not lie on the same line, there exists a plane α that
contains each of the points A, B, C.
I.4a For every plane there exists a point which it contains.
I.5 For any three points A, B, C that do not lie on the same line, there exists no more than
one plane that contains each of the points A, B, C.
I.6 If two different points A = B of a line a lie on a plane α, then every point of line a lies in
the same plane α.
Remark. In this case, we say that the line a lies in the plane α.
I.7 If two planes α, β have a point A in common, then they have at least one more point B in
common.
I.8 There exist at least four points which do not lie in a plane.

II. Axioms of Order

II.1 If a point B lies between a point A and a point C, then the points A, B, C are three
distinct points of a line, and B lies between C and A.
II.2 For two points A and C, there also exists at least one point B on the line AC such that C
lies between A and B.
 II.3 Of any three points on a line there exists no more than one that lies between the other
two.
DEFINITIONS: Segment, point of segment, interior and exterior of segment, ray, half plane,
triangle.
Remark. A segment AB is assumed to have two different endpoints A and B.
II.4 ( Pasch’ Axiom ) Let A, B, C be three points that do not lie on a line and let a be a line
in the plane ABC which does not meet any of the points A, B, C. If the line a passes through a
point of the segment AB, it also passes through a point of the segment AC, or through a point of
the segment BC.

III. Axioms of Congruence

III.1 If A, B are two points on a line a, and A’ is a point on the same or another line a’ , then
it is always possible to find a point B’ on a given side of the line a’ through A’ such that the
segment AB is congruent to the segment A’B’ . In symbols AB ≌ A’B’.
III.2 If a segment A’B’ and a segment A’’B’’ are congruent to the same segment AB, then
segment A’B’ is also congruent to segment A’’B’’.
III.3 On a line, let AB and BC be two segments which except for B have no point in
common. Furthermore, on the same or another line a’ , let A’B’ and B’C’ be two segments which
except for B’ also have no point in common. In that case, if AB ≌ A’B’ and BC ≌ B’C’ , then
AC ≌ A’C’
DEFINITION: Angle.
III.4a Let ∠(h, k) be an angle in a plane α and a’ a ray in a plane α that emanates from the
point O’. Then there exists in the plane α’ one (and only one) ray k’ such that the angle ∠(h, k) is
congruent to the angle ∠(h’, k’) and at the same time all interior points of the angle ∠(h’, k’) lie
on the given side of a. This means that ∠(h, k) ≌ ∠(h’, k’)
III.4b The ray k’ in (III.4a) is unique.
III.4c Every angle is congruent to itself, thus it always holds that ∠(h, k) ≌ ∠(h, k)
III.4d Every angle is congruent to the angle with the legs switched, thus it always holds that
∠(h, k) ≌ ∠(k, h)
III.5 If for two triangles ∆ ABC and ∆ A’B’C’ the congruences
AB ≌ A’B’ , AC ≌ A’C’ , ∠BAC ≌ ∠B’A’C’ hold, then the congruence ∠ABC ≌ ∠A’B’C’ is also
satisfied.

IV. Axiom of Parallelism

IV.1 Let a be any line and A a point not on a. Then there exists at most one line in the plane
determined by line a and point A that passes through A and does not intersect a.

V. Axioms of Continuity
V.1 (Axiom of Archimedes) If AB and CD are any segments, then there exists a
number n such that n segments congruent to CD constructed contiguously from
A, along a ray from A through B, will pass beyond B.
V.2 (Axiom of Completeness) An extension of a set of points on a line, with its
order and congruence relations existing among the original elements as well as the
fundamental properties of line order and congruence that follow from Axioms I-III
and from V.1, is impossible.
2. Impact of Hilbert’s Foundations of Geometry

Hilbert’s work is considered to be the first version of Euclidean geometry that is truly
axiomatic, in the sense that there were no hidden appeals to spatial intuition. But the
Foundations of Geometry are much more than just a clarification of Euclid’s Elements. Clearly
this is one goal of Hilbert. A second goal of equal importance is a deeper understanding of the
relation between geometric and algebraic structures.
Already in the introduction, Hilbert says: “We shall be challenged by very new and— as I
believe fruitful—problems, and see remarkable connections between the elements of arithmetic
and geometry, gaining another insight into the unity of mathematics.” Such a claim is well
justified. It was Hilbert who first established a clear correlation between geometric and algebraic
structures. These investigation came out of projective geometry, which is a historic predecessor
and Hilbert’s starting point for the Foundations. It turns out that in coordinate geometry
• the Theorem of Pappus is equivalent to commutative multiplication of the coordinate field,
• the Theorem of Desargues is equivalent to associative multiplication of the coordinate field
Further results were obtained and are included in the latest edition of Hilbert’s foundations.
Here are two examples:
Hessenberg gave in 1904 a purely geometric proof that the Theorem of Pappus implies
the Theorem of Desargues.
A simple example for a non-Desarguean projective plane was introduced by E. R.
Moulton in the article A simple non-desarguesian plane geometry, Trans. Math.
Soc. (1902). The Moulton plane is useful to clarify the logical relations between different
geometric structures.
The separate investigations about parts of the axioms have become more and more
detailed and refined. Further research has extended the correlations of algebra and
geometry to more exotic structures. The article of Hubert Kiechle, Alexander Kreuzer
and Heinrich Wefelscheid in the fourteenth edition of Hilbert’s foundations from
1999 contains some relevant information.
For some of these ideas, an accessible account with examples are given by John
Stillwell in his exposition The Four Pillars of Geometry, Springer, 2005. A totally new topic is
finite incidence geometry. The connections to scheduling problems in computer science, large
scale computation, and to sophisticated algebraic structures has lead to new research. Some
results are indicated in the section on Finite Affine and Projective Incidence Planes and Latin
Squares.
Finally, we all know that the axiomatic method is now almost commonplace in modern
mathematics. Were does the word ”complete” for existence of limits of Cauchy sequences come
from? Many mathematicians may not even realize that it comes from the axiom of completeness
in Hilbert’s Foundations of Geometry. Here the axiomatic method is introduced in such a
satisfactory way that it has been exemplary for the modern style of research and presentation in
pure mathematics.

3. Comparison of Hilbert’s Foundation of Geometry with Euclid’s Elements

As already stressed in his introduction, Hilbert’s goal is the consequential development of

geometry. This is already an important justification for the axioms themselves, especially since
no claim of absolute truth of the content of the axioms is intended. Secondly the style of
presentation is determined by this goal. The axioms are presented in five groups: axioms of
incidence, axioms of order, axioms of congruence, the axiom of parallelism, and the axioms of
continuity. For each group, the theorems spelling out their consequences are proved, and
examples of different structure are given. Such a study is done on purpose separately for the
different groups. This approach is now commonplace in algebra or topology, but it is different
from the style of classical geometry texts.
The role of the primary elements and relations is seen differently from Euclid. For Euclid,
these were abstract entities given by nature. They are given without question, nevertheless they
are still explained by phrases like ”A point has no parts.” Modern mathematicians point out that
such a sentence poses more questions than it answers. What is the way out to avoid questioning
every and even the most basic notions and how can one break the infinite chain of regress? The
key point is the use of primary elements and relations. These entities cannot, may not, and need
not to be defined. They get their meaning only via the way they are used in the axioms, proofs
and theorems. To start this process, not only primary elements. But primary relations, too, have
to been postulated, in order to get the connections between the abstract objects. In the
Foundations of Geometry the points, lines and planes are used as primary objects. They are
connected, by the relations of incidence, order, congruence of segments and congruence of
angles. Furthermore, equality is a relation from mathematical logic.
Their exist quite a few different equivalence relation important for geometry: equality,
congruence of segments, congruence of angles, similarity for triangles and other figures, having
same area for figures, having same volume for three dimensional polyhedra. In sweeping
simplicity, Euclid used the same word ”equal” for all these relations,—and afterwards even
seemed to have justified the properties of an equivalence relation simply by the use of the word
”equal”. On the contrary, Hilbert and his followers clearly distinguish these and still several
further relations, use different words and symbols for them, and prove their properties.
Among Hilbert’s five groups of axioms (incidence, order, congruence, parallelism,
continuity), only the axioms of congruence and parallelism have a clear – cut counterpart in
Euclid. Only Euclid’s first postulate “to draw a line between two points” refers to incidence.
Hilbert clearly separates the questions of existence and uniqueness, by postulating them in the
two different axioms (I.1) and (I.2). The axioms of incidence referring to three dimensional
geometry have no correspondence in Euclid. There are hints to the Archemedian axiom, but the
axioms of order are totally omitted.
The axioms of order are a striking innovation based on the work of Pasch of 1880. They
were totally omitted in Euclid’s Elements. Axiom (II.4) is still named Pasch’s axiom. But in two
colonial language, it tells that a line which intersects one side of triangle, intersect a second side,
too. The axioms of order has been simplified in later editions of the Foundations of Geometry,
taking advantage of work of E.H. Moore and Veblen.
Hilbert introduces two axioms of continuity: (V.1) is the Archimedean axiom and (V.2)
the axiom of completeness. The axioms of continuity do not appear in Euclid’s postulates. But
the definition of same ratios a : b and c : d from Euclid’s book V (credited to Eudoxus) makes
only sense, if one assumes the Archimedean axiom. The Archimedean axiom allows the
measurement of segments and angles using real numbers. During the measurement process, a
real number giving the length of a segment is produced, digit by digit in the form of a binary
fraction. Since Hilbert, this axiom is also known as the axiom of measurement. The clear-cut
understanding of continuity was only achieved by Dedekind and Cantor in the late nineteenth
century. There are several axioms for completeness, with very similar implications, which
nevertheless have slight but deep differences. It is hard to say which one of these alternatives is
the most natural axiom. Even Hilbert has suggested different axioms of continuity in different
editions of his foundations of geometry. The axioms of congruence resemble more to Euclid’s
Elements than the other groups, but even here we find important differences and innovations.
Nowhere in Hilbert’s Foundations of Geometry, circle appear at all, indeed they are not even
defined. Instead of Euclid’s straightedge and compass, the transfer of segments and angles
becomes the basic tools for geometric constructions. These tools turn out to be a bid weaker than
straightedge and compass, but suffice for a few fundamental constructions. More important, the
SAS congruence is introduced as an axiom. Even more, Hilbert proves the independence of the
SAS axiom. Euclid has tried to justify the SAS congruence by his principle of superposition.
Because of the independence of the SAS axiom, the principle of superposition turns out to be at
best a physical thought experiment, but cannot replace the SAS axiom. In a totally different
approach, it is possible to use the motion of figures as a building block of geometry. But in this
case, extra work is needed to clarify what kind of motions are allowed.
So far, we have seen that Hilbert has achieved to make the foundations of geometry
rigorous, without any hidden appeal to intuition, but kept the spirit of Euclid’s Elements as much
as possible. The investigations about the nature of axioms, are topics totally different from
Euclid. In Hilbert’s Foundations of Geometry, the questions of consistency, categorial nature, and
independence of his axioms are addressed. I think that only a person of Hilbert’s optimism could
address such questions at that time. Now we know from the work of G¨odel and Tarski, that
consistency can only be proved for a too small part of mathematics.
The most accessible topic is independence. Hilbert proves the independence of the SAS-
axiom, the parallel axiom, and the Archimedean axiom. The independence of the parallel axiom
is rather informally justified via the spherical geometry. In an appendix to the foundations,
Hilbert gives a detailed axiomatic approach to hyperbolic geometry. Legendre’s theorems the
angle sum of triangles in neutral geometry, as exposed in detail.
Relative consistency is proved, once consistency of the real number system is taken for
granted—which turned out to be the really deep unsolvable problem! Hilbert proves that his
axiom system is categorial, once his axiom (V.2) of completeness is assumed, but states clearly
that the system without this axiom is not categorial.
Conclusion

Hilbert Axioms are a set of 20 assumptions proposed by David Hilbert in 1899 in his
book Grundlagen der Geometrie (The Foundations of Geometry) as the foundation for modern
treatment of Euclidean Geometry. It has been extrapolate that Hilbert’s axiom system is
constructed with three primitive terms: point, line and plane; with five primitive notions:
incidence, order, congruence, parallels, continuity and three primitive relations: betweenness, a
ternary relation linking points; lies on (Containment), three binary relations, one linking points
and straight lines, one linking points and planes, and one linking straight lines and planes; and
congruence, two binary relations, one linking line segments and one linking angles, each denoted
by an infix ≅ . The value of Hilbert’s Grundlagen was more methodological than substantive
or pedagogical. The value of the Grundlagen is its pioneering approach to mathematical
questions including the use of models to prove axioms independent and the need to prove the
consistency and completeness of an axiom system.
It has been said that Hilbert’s work is considered to be the first version of Euclidean
geometry that is truly axiomatic, in the sense that there were no hidden appeals to spatial
intuition. But the Foundations of Geometry are much more than just a clarification of Euclid’s
Elements. Clearly this is one goal of Hilbert. A second goal of equal importance is a deeper
understanding of the relation between geometric and algebraic structures.
So far, comparing the Hilbert’s Foundation of Geometry with Euclid’s Elements, we have
seen that Hilbert has achieved to make the foundations of geometry rigorous, without any hidden
appeal to intuition, but kept the spirit of Euclid’s Elements as much as possible. The
investigations about the nature of axioms, are topics totally different from Euclid. Among
Hilbert’s five groups of axioms (incidence, order, congruence, parallelism, continuity), only the
axioms of congruence and parallelism have a clear – cut counterpart in Euclid. The investigations
about the nature of axioms, are topics totally different from Euclid. In Hilbert’s Foundations of
Geometry, the questions of consistency, categorial nature, and independence of his axioms are
addressed.

Reference
1. mathEdu, “Hilbert’s Axioms of Geometry”,
http://math2.uncc.edu/~frothe/3181allneutral1_1.pdf.
2. CydeBot, October 2018. “Hilbert’s Axioms”, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert
%27s_axioms.
3. MarnetteD. September 2018. “David Hilbert”, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert
4. Campbell, R.I., 2002, “Hilbert’s Axioms”,
https://www.math.umbc.edu/~campbell/Math306Spr02/axioms