:: Tarski Geometry Axioms
:: by William Richter , Adam Grabowski and Jesse Alama
::
:: Received June 16, 2014
:: Copyright (c) 2014 Association of Mizar Users
:: (Stowarzyszenie Uzytkownikow Mizara, Bialystok, Poland).
:: This code can be distributed under the GNU General Public Licence
:: version 3.0 or later, or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
:: License version 3.0 or later, subject to the binding interpretation
:: detailed in file COPYING.interpretation.
:: See COPYING.GPL and COPYING.CC-BY-SA for the full text of these
:: licenses, or see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html and
:: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/.
environ
vocabularies GTARSKI1, RELAT_1, XBOOLE_0, INCSP_1, SUBSET_1, ZFMISC_1,
STRUCT_0, METRIC_1, FUNCT_1, NUMBERS, RELAT_2, CARD_1, ARYTM_3, XREAL_0,
COMPLEX1, ARYTM_1, XXREAL_0, XXREAL_1, ROUGHS_4;
notations TARSKI, XBOOLE_0, ENUMSET1, ZFMISC_1, NUMBERS, XXREAL_0, XXREAL_1,
XXREAL_2, XCMPLX_0, XREAL_0, COMPLEX1, SUBSET_1, DOMAIN_1, RELAT_1,
RELSET_1, FUNCT_1, FUNCT_2, BINOP_1, STRUCT_0, METRIC_1, ORDINAL1,
FUNCT_4, ARYTM_2, ARYTM_0;
constructors RELSET_1, DOMAIN_1, ZFMISC_1, STRUCT_0, NUMBERS, XREAL_0,
FUNCT_1, FUNCT_2, METRIC_1, XXREAL_0, XCMPLX_0, SUBSET_1, BINOP_1,
SQUARE_1, COMPLEX1, XXREAL_1, XXREAL_2, FUNCT_4, ARYTM_1, ARYTM_0;
registrations XBOOLE_0, SUBSET_1, XXREAL_0, XCMPLX_0, XREAL_0, METRIC_1,
RELAT_1, FUNCT_1, BINOP_1, XXREAL_1, XXREAL_2, ARYTM_2, ORDINAL1,
STRUCT_0, ZFMISC_1;
requirements BOOLE, REAL, NUMERALS, SUBSET, ARITHM;
definitions TARSKI;
equalities METRIC_1;
theorems METRIC_1, COMPLEX1, ABSVALUE, XREAL_1, XREAL_0, TOPMETR, XXREAL_1,
XXREAL_0, XTUPLE_0, STRUCT_0;
schemes RELSET_1;
begin :: Tarski Axioms
:: Here are readable Mizar proofs of some axiomatic geometry theorems due
:: to the great Polish mathematician Alfred Tarski (born Teitelbaum), and
:: we hope to continue this work. The first author ported the code to
:: HOL Light (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jrh13/hol-light/), which can be
:: found in any recent subversion of HOL Light as
:: hol_light/RichterHilbertAxiomGeometry/TarskiAxiomGeometry_read.ml
:: This is largely a Mizar port of Julien Narboux's Coq pseudo-code
:: http://dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr/~narboux/tarski.html. We partially
:: prove the theorem of the 1983 book Metamathematische Methoden in
:: der Geometrie by Schwabh\"auser, Szmielew, and Tarski, that Tarski's
:: (extremely weak!) plane geometry axioms imply Hilbert's axioms. We
:: get about as far as Narboux, with Gupta's amazing proof which
:: implies Hilbert's axiom I1 that two points determine a line.
:: Tarski's axioms are easy to find, but the first Tarski proofs we
:: ever learned were on wikiproofs's port of Narboux's results
:: http://www.wikiproofs.de/w/index.php?title=Interface:Tarski%27s_geometry_axioms
:: Our Mizar proofs are much more readable than either Narboux's Coq
:: pseudo-code or wikiproof's JHilbert code.
:: Our Mizar coding was heavily influenced by Wojciech A. Trybulec's
:: incsp_1.miz in the MML library on axioms of incidence geometry.
:: S will be a Tarski plane, a set of points which is a model of the
:: first 7 of Tarski's Geometry axioms A1--A7. There are two binary
:: relations (predicates) defined on S, between and ≡, for
:: betweenness of points and equidistance of segments.
:: We carry the axioms A1--A7 around as part of the statements of the
:: theorems. To avoid this minor clutter one has to define a Mizar type of
:: planes satisfying axioms A1--A7, as Trybulec does with by
:: `mode IncSpace is IncSpace-like IncStruct;'
:: In Mizar it isn't possible to define such a type (or model) without
:: proving that some model exists. Trybulec's existence proofs runs
:: over 450 lines. So we define a predicate `S Tarski-model' which
:: means that the plane S satisfies the axioms A1--A7, and then prove
:: trivial theorems A1--A7 which say that if S Tarski-model, then S
:: satisfies an axiom A1--A7. The extra clutter involving the
:: predicate Tarski-model, and the label TarskiModel which stands for
:: the statement `S Tarski-model' could be avoided by loading all our
:: results into one gigantic theorem. Our approach seems preferable.
:: Our axioms have descriptive names, largely the names Narboux used,
:: CongruenceSymmetry (A1), CongruenceEquivalenceRelation (A2),
:: CongruenceIdentity (A3), SegmentConstruction (A4), SAS (A5),
:: BetweennessIdentity (A6), and Pasch (A7).
:: Our theorems are EquivReflexive, EquivSymmetric, EquivTransitive,
:: Baaa, Bqaa, C1 (for Hilbert's axiom C1), Bsymmetry, Baaq,
:: BEquality, B124and234then123, BTransitivity, BTransitivityOrdered,
:: B124and234Ordered, B124and234Ordered, SegmentAddition,
:: CongruenceDoubleSymmetry, C1prime, SegmentSubtraction,
:: EasyAngleTransport, B123and134Ordered, BextendToLine, GuptaEasy,
:: Inner5Segments, RhombusDiagBisect, FlatNormal,
:: EqDist2PointsBetween, EqDist2PointsInnerBetween, Gupta, I1part1,
:: I1part2, LineEqRefl, LineEqA1, LineEqSymmetric, LineEqTrans,
:: onlineEq, I1part2Reverse, and I1.
definition
struct (1-sorted) TarskiPlane (# carrier -> set,
Betweenness -> Relation of [:the carrier, the carrier:], the carrier,
Equidistance -> Relation of
[:the carrier, the carrier:], [:the carrier, the carrier:] #);
end;
definition
let S be TarskiPlane;
mode POINT of S is Element of S;
end;
definition
let S be TarskiPlane;
let a, b, c be POINT of S;
pred between a,b,c means
[[a,b],c] in the Betweenness of S;
end;
definition
let S be TarskiPlane;
let a, b, c, d be POINT of S;
pred a,b equiv c,d means
[[a,b],[c,d]] in the Equidistance of S;
end;
:: Two triangles are congruent if they satisfy the SSS criterion
definition
let S be TarskiPlane;
let a, b, c, x, y, z be POINT of S;
pred a,b,c cong x,y,z means ::: :Def4:
a,b equiv x,y & a,c equiv x,z & b,c equiv y,z;
end;
definition
let S be TarskiPlane;
let a, b, c, d be POINT of S;
pred a,b,c,d are_ordered means ::: :Def5:
between a,b,c & between a,b,d & between a,c,d & between b,c,d;
end;
definition let S be TarskiPlane;
attr S is satisfying_CongruenceSymmetry means ::: :Axiom1:
for a, b being POINT of S holds a,b equiv b,a;
attr S is satisfying_CongruenceEquivalenceRelation means ::: :Axiom2:
for a, b, p, q, r, s being POINT of S holds
a,b equiv p,q & a,b equiv r,s implies p,q equiv r,s;
attr S is satisfying_CongruenceIdentity means ::: :Axiom3:
for a, b, c being POINT of S holds
a,b equiv c,c implies a = b;
attr S is satisfying_SegmentConstruction means ::: :Axiom4:
for a, q, b, c being POINT of S holds
ex x being POINT of S st between q,a,x & a,x equiv b,c;
attr S is satisfying_SAS means ::: :Axiom5:
for a, b, c, x, a1, b1, c1, x1 being POINT of S holds
a <> b & a,b,c cong a1,b1,c1 &
between a,b,x & between a1,b1,x1 & b,x equiv b1,x1
implies c,x equiv c1,x1;
attr S is satisfying_BetweennessIdentity means ::: :Axiom6:
for a, b being POINT of S holds between a,b,a implies a = b;
attr S is satisfying_Pasch means ::: :Axiom7:
for a, b, p, q, z being POINT of S holds
between a,p,z & between b,q,z implies
ex x being POINT of S st between p,x,b & between q,x,a;
end;
definition
let S be TarskiPlane;
attr S is satisfying_Tarski-model means ::: :TarskiAxioms:
S is satisfying_CongruenceSymmetry
satisfying_CongruenceEquivalenceRelation
satisfying_CongruenceIdentity
satisfying_SegmentConstruction
satisfying_SAS
satisfying_BetweennessIdentity
satisfying_Pasch;
end;
begin :: Existence Proofs for Tarski Plane
definition
struct (MetrStruct,TarskiPlane) MetrTarskiStr
(# carrier -> set,
distance -> Function of [:the carrier,the carrier:], REAL,
Betweenness -> Relation of [:the carrier, the carrier:], the carrier,
Equidistance -> Relation of
[:the carrier, the carrier:], [:the carrier, the carrier:]
#);
end;
definition let M be MetrStruct;
mode TarskiExtension of M -> MetrTarskiStr means :TADef:
the MetrStruct of it = the MetrStruct of M;
existence
proof
set C = the carrier of M;
set R = the Relation of [:C, C:], C;
set E = the Relation of [:C, C:], [:C, C:];
take X = MetrTarskiStr (#C,the distance of M,R,E#);
thus thesis;
end;
end;
registration let M be non empty MetrStruct;
cluster -> non empty for TarskiExtension of M;
coherence
proof
let T be TarskiExtension of M;
the MetrStruct of T = the MetrStruct of M by TADef;
hence thesis;
end;
end;
registration let M be non empty Reflexive MetrStruct;
cluster -> Reflexive for TarskiExtension of M;
coherence
proof
let T be TarskiExtension of M;
aa: the MetrStruct of T = the MetrStruct of M by TADef;
the distance of T is Reflexive by METRIC_1:def 6,aa;
hence thesis by METRIC_1:def 6;
end;
end;
registration let M be non empty discerning MetrStruct;
cluster -> discerning for TarskiExtension of M;
coherence
proof
let T be TarskiExtension of M;
aa: the MetrStruct of T = the MetrStruct of M by TADef;
the distance of M is discerning by METRIC_1:def 7;
hence thesis by METRIC_1:def 7,aa;
end;
end;
registration let M be non empty symmetric MetrStruct;
cluster -> symmetric for TarskiExtension of M;
coherence
proof
let T be TarskiExtension of M;
aa: the MetrStruct of T = the MetrStruct of M by TADef;
the distance of M is symmetric by METRIC_1:def 8;
hence thesis by METRIC_1:def 8,aa;
end;
end;
registration let M be non empty triangle MetrStruct;
cluster -> triangle for TarskiExtension of M;
coherence
proof
let T be TarskiExtension of M;
aa: the MetrStruct of T = the MetrStruct of M by TADef;
the distance of M is triangle by METRIC_1:def 9;
hence thesis by METRIC_1:def 9,aa;
end;
end;
definition ::: is_between taken from METRIC_1
let S be MetrStruct, p,q,r be Element of S;
pred q is_Between p,r means
dist(p,r) = dist(p,q) + dist(q,r);
end;
definition let M be MetrTarskiStr;
attr M is naturally_generated means :NGDef:
(for a, b, c being POINT of M holds
between a,b,c iff b is_Between a,c) &
(for a, b, c, d being POINT of M holds
a,b equiv c,d iff dist (a,b) = dist (c,d));
end;
theorem
for M, N being MetrStruct,
x, y being Element of M,
a, b being Element of N st
the MetrStruct of M = the MetrStruct of N & x = a & y = b holds
dist (x,y) = dist (a,b);
registration let N be non empty MetrStruct;
cluster naturally_generated for TarskiExtension of N;
existence
proof
set C = the carrier of N;
set X = C;
set F = the distance of N;
set A = [:X,X:];
defpred Q[object,object] means
ex x1, x2, y1, y2 being Element of N st
[x1,x2] = $1 & [y1,y2] = $2 & dist (x1,x2) = dist (y1,y2);
consider E being Relation of A, A such that
t2: for xx,yy being Element of A holds
[xx,yy] in E iff Q[xx,yy] from RELSET_1:sch 2;
T2: for x1,x2,y1,y2 being Element of X holds
[[x1,x2],[y1,y2]] in E iff dist (x1,x2) = dist(y1,y2)
proof
let x1,x2,y1,y2 be Element of X;
reconsider xx = [x1,x2], yy = [y1,y2] as Element of A;
thus [[x1,x2],[y1,y2]] in E implies dist (x1,x2) = dist(y1,y2)
proof
assume [[x1,x2],[y1,y2]] in E; then
consider w1, w2, v1, v2 being Element of N such that
k1: [w1,w2] = xx & [v1,v2] = yy & dist (w1,w2) = dist (v1,v2) by t2;
x1 = w1 & x2 = w2 & v1 = y1 & v2 = y2 by k1,XTUPLE_0:1;
hence thesis by k1;
end;
thus thesis by t2;
end;
defpred R[object,object] means
ex x1, x2, x3 being Element of N st
[x1,x2] = $1 & x3 = $2 & dist (x1,x3) = dist (x1,x2) + dist (x2,x3);
consider B being Relation of A, X such that
t0: for xx being Element of A, x3 being Element of X holds
[xx,x3] in B iff R[xx,x3] from RELSET_1:sch 2;
T0: for x1,x2,x3 being Element of X holds
[[x1,x2],x3] in B iff dist (x1,x3) = dist(x1,x2) + dist(x2,x3)
proof
let x1,x2,x3 be Element of X;
thus [[x1,x2],x3] in B implies dist (x1,x3) = dist(x1,x2) + dist(x2,x3)
proof
assume [[x1,x2],x3] in B; then
consider y1, y2, y3 being Element of N such that
H1: [y1,y2] = [x1,x2] & y3 = x3 &
dist (y1,y3) = dist (y1,y2) + dist (y2,y3) by t0;
y1 = x1 & y2 = x2 by H1,XTUPLE_0:1;
hence thesis by H1;
end;
thus thesis by t0;
end;
set M = MetrTarskiStr(#X,F,B,E#);
Z1: the MetrStruct of M = the MetrStruct of N;
reconsider T = M as TarskiExtension of N by Z1,TADef;
take T;
T1: for a, b, c being POINT of M holds
between a,b,c iff b is_Between a,c
proof
let a, b, c be POINT of M;
reconsider aa = a, bb = b, cc = c as Element of N;
thus between a,b,c implies b is_Between a,c
proof
assume between a,b,c; then
dist (aa,cc) = dist(aa,bb) + dist(bb,cc) by T0;
hence thesis;
end;
assume b is_Between a,c; then
dist (aa,cc) = dist(aa,bb) + dist(bb,cc);
hence thesis by T0;
end;
for a, b, c, d being POINT of M holds
a,b equiv c,d iff dist (a,b) = dist (c,d)
proof
let a, b, c, d be POINT of M;
reconsider aa = a, bb = b, cc = c, dd = d as Element of X;
hereby
assume
s1: a,b equiv c,d;
S2: [[aa,bb],[cc,dd]] in E iff dist (aa,bb) = dist(cc,dd) by T2;
thus dist (a,b) = dist (c,d) by s1,S2;
end;
assume dist (a,b) = dist (c,d); then
dist (aa,bb) = dist(cc,dd);
hence thesis by T2;
end;
hence thesis by T1;
end;
end;
registration
cluster trivial non empty for MetrSpace;
existence
proof
take M = DiscreteSpace {{}};
thus thesis;
end;
end;
definition
func TrivialTarskiSpace -> MetrTarskiStr equals
the naturally_generated TarskiExtension of
the trivial non empty MetrSpace;
coherence;
end;
registration
cluster TrivialTarskiSpace -> trivial non empty;
coherence
proof
the MetrStruct of the naturally_generated TarskiExtension
of the trivial non empty MetrSpace =
the MetrStruct of the trivial non empty MetrSpace by TADef;
hence thesis;
end;
end;
theorem TrivialBetween:
for M being trivial non empty MetrSpace,
a, b, c being Element of M holds
a is_Between b,c
proof
let M be trivial non empty MetrSpace,
a, b, c be Element of M;
a = b & b = c by STRUCT_0:def 10; then
dist (b,a) = 0 & dist (a,c) = 0 &
dist (b,c) = 0 by METRIC_1:1; then
a is_Between b,c;
hence thesis;
end;
registration
cluster TrivialTarskiSpace -> satisfying_CongruenceSymmetry
satisfying_CongruenceEquivalenceRelation
satisfying_CongruenceIdentity
satisfying_SegmentConstruction
satisfying_SAS
satisfying_BetweennessIdentity
satisfying_Pasch;
coherence
proof
set T = TrivialTarskiSpace;
a1: for a, b being POINT of T holds a,b equiv b,a
proof
let a, b be POINT of T;
a = b by STRUCT_0:def 10; then
dist (a,b) = dist (b,a);
hence thesis by NGDef;
end;
a2: for a, b, p, q, r, s being POINT of T st
a,b equiv p,q & a,b equiv r,s holds p,q equiv r,s
proof
let a, b, p, q, r, s be POINT of T;
assume a,b equiv p,q & a,b equiv r,s; then
dist (a,b) = dist (p,q) & dist (a,b) = dist (r,s) by NGDef;
hence thesis by NGDef;
end;
a3: for a, b, c being POINT of T st
a,b equiv c,c holds a = b
proof
let a, b, c be POINT of T;
assume a,b equiv c,c; then
dist (a,b) = dist (c,c) by NGDef;
hence thesis by METRIC_1:2,1;
end;
a4: for a, q, b, c being POINT of T holds
ex x being POINT of T st between q,a,x & a,x equiv b,c
proof
let a, q, b, c be POINT of T;
take x = a;
b = c by STRUCT_0:def 10; then
dist (b,c) = 0 by METRIC_1:1; then
dist (a,x) = dist (b,c) by METRIC_1:1; then
T1: a,x equiv b,c by NGDef;
a is_Between q,x by TrivialBetween;
hence thesis by NGDef,T1;
end;
W: for a, b being POINT of T holds between a,b,a implies a = b
by STRUCT_0:def 10;
Z: T is satisfying_SAS by STRUCT_0:def 10;
T is satisfying_Pasch
proof
let a, b, p, q, z be POINT of T;
assume between a,p,z & between b,q,z;
take x = the POINT of T;
S1: x is_Between p,b by TrivialBetween;
x is_Between q,a by TrivialBetween;
hence thesis by NGDef,S1;
end;
hence thesis by a1,a2,a3,a4,W,Z;
end;
end;
registration
cluster TrivialTarskiSpace -> satisfying_Tarski-model;
coherence;
end;
registration
cluster satisfying_Tarski-model non empty for TarskiPlane;
existence
proof
take TrivialTarskiSpace;
thus thesis;
end;
end;
registration
cluster satisfying_CongruenceSymmetry
satisfying_CongruenceEquivalenceRelation
satisfying_CongruenceIdentity
satisfying_SegmentConstruction
satisfying_SAS
satisfying_BetweennessIdentity
satisfying_Pasch -> satisfying_Tarski-model for TarskiPlane;
coherence;
cluster satisfying_Tarski-model -> satisfying_CongruenceSymmetry
satisfying_CongruenceEquivalenceRelation
satisfying_CongruenceIdentity
satisfying_SegmentConstruction
satisfying_SAS
satisfying_BetweennessIdentity
satisfying_Pasch for TarskiPlane;
coherence;
end;
begin :: Proving Properties
reserve S for satisfying_Tarski-model TarskiPlane;
reserve a, b, c, d, e, f, o, p, q, r, s,
v, w, u, x, y, z, a9, b9, c9, d9, x9, y9, z for POINT of S;
theorem A1:
a,b equiv b,a
proof
S is satisfying_CongruenceSymmetry;
hence thesis;
end;
theorem A2:
a,b equiv p,q & a,b equiv r,s implies p,q equiv r,s
proof
S is satisfying_CongruenceEquivalenceRelation;
hence thesis;
end;
theorem A3:
a,b equiv c,c implies a = b
proof
S is satisfying_CongruenceIdentity;
hence thesis;
end;
theorem A4:
ex x st between q,a,x & a,x equiv b,c
proof
S is satisfying_SegmentConstruction;
hence thesis;
end;
theorem A5:
a <> b & a,b,c cong a9,b9,c9 &
between a,b,x & between a9,b9,x9 & b,x equiv b9,x9
implies c,x equiv c9,x9
:: We shall say we apply SAS to a+cbx and a'+c'b'x'. Normally one
:: applies SAS by showing cb = c'b', bx = b'x' (which we assume) and
:: angle cbx cong angle c'b'x'. One might prove the angle congruence
:: by showing that the triangles abc & a'b'c' were congruent by SSS
:: (which we also assume) and then apply the theorem that complements
:: of congruent angles are congruent. Hence Tarski's axiom.
proof
S is satisfying_SAS;
hence thesis;
end;
theorem A6:
between a,b,a implies a = b
proof
S is satisfying_BetweennessIdentity;
hence thesis;
end;
theorem A7:
between a,p,z & between b,q,z implies
ex x st between p,x,b & between q,x,a
proof
S is satisfying_Pasch;
hence thesis;
end;
:: Now we can prove results referring to the axioms as A1--A7.
theorem EquivReflexive:
a,b equiv a,b
proof
b,a equiv a,b by A1;
hence thesis by A2;
end;
theorem EquivSymmetric:
a,b equiv c,d implies c,d equiv a,b
proof
assume
H1: a,b equiv c,d;
a,b equiv a,b by EquivReflexive;
hence thesis by H1, A2;
end;
theorem EquivTransitive:
a,b equiv p,q & p,q equiv r,s implies a,b equiv r,s
proof
assume that
X1: a,b equiv p,q and
X2: p,q equiv r,s;
p,q equiv a,b by X1, EquivSymmetric;
hence thesis by X2, A2;
end;
theorem Baaa:
between a,a,a & a,a equiv b,b
proof
consider x such that
Z1: between a,a,x & a,x equiv b,b by A4;
thus between a,a,a & a,a equiv b,b by Z1, A3;
end;
theorem Bqaa:
between q,a,a
proof
consider x such that
X1: between q,a,x & a,x equiv a,a by A4;
thus thesis by X1, A3;
end;
theorem C1:
a <> b & between a,b,x & between a,b,y & b,x equiv b,y
implies x = y
proof
assume that
H1: a <> b and
H2: between a,b,x & between a,b,y and
H3: b,x equiv b,y;
a,b,y cong a,b,y by EquivReflexive;
hence y = x by A3, H1, H2, H3, A5;
end;
theorem Bsymmetry:
between a,p,z implies between z,p,a
proof
assume
H1: between a,p,z;
between p,z,z by Bqaa; then
consider x such that
X1: between p,x,p & between z,x,a by H1, A7;
thus thesis by X1, A6;
end;
theorem Baaq:
between a,a,q by Bsymmetry, Bqaa;
theorem BEquality:
between a,b,c & between b,a,c implies a = b
proof
assume
H1: between a,b,c;
assume between b,a,c; then
consider x such that
X1: between b,x,b & between a,x,a by H1, A7;
b = x by X1, A6;
hence a = b by A6, X1;
end;
theorem B124and234then123:
between a,b,d & between b,c,d implies between a,b,c
proof
assume
H1: between a,b,d;
assume between b,c,d; then
consider x such that
X1: between b,x,b & between c,x,a by H1, A7;
b = x by X1, A6;
hence thesis by Bsymmetry, X1;
end;
theorem BTransitivity:
b <> c & between a,b,c & between b,c,d implies between a,c,d
proof
assume that
H1: b <> c and
H2: between a,b,c and
H3: between b,c,d;
consider x such that
X1: between a,c,x & c,x equiv c,d by A4;
X2: between x,c,a by X1, Bsymmetry;
between c,b,a by H2, Bsymmetry; then
between x,c,b by X2, B124and234then123; then
between b,c,x by Bsymmetry;
hence thesis by X1, H1, H3, C1;
end;
theorem BTransitivityOrdered:
b <> c & between a,b,c & between b,c,d implies a,b,c,d are_ordered
proof
assume that
H1: b <> c and
H2: between a,b,c;
assume
H3: between b,c,d; then
X1: between a,c,d by H1, H2, BTransitivity;
X2: between d,c,b by H3, Bsymmetry;
between c,b,a by H2, Bsymmetry; then
between d,b,a by H1, X2, BTransitivity;
hence thesis by H2, X1, H3, Bsymmetry;
end;
theorem ::: B124and234Ordered:
between a,b,d & between b,c,d implies a,b,c,d are_ordered
proof
assume that
H1: between a,b,d and
H2: between b,c,d;
per cases;
suppose b = c;
hence a,b,c,d are_ordered by H1, H2, Bqaa;
end;
suppose
Q1: b <> c;
between a,b,c by H1, H2, B124and234then123;
hence a,b,c,d are_ordered by Q1, H2, BTransitivityOrdered;
end;
end;
theorem B124and234Ordered:
between a,b,d & between b,c,d implies a,b,c,d are_ordered
proof
assume that
H1: between a,b,d and
H2: between b,c,d;
X1: between a,b,c by H1, H2, B124and234then123;
per cases;
suppose b = c;
hence thesis by H1, Bqaa, Baaq;
end;
suppose b <> c;
hence thesis by X1, H2, BTransitivityOrdered;
end;
end;
theorem SegmentAddition:
between a,b,c & between a9,b9,c9 & a,b equiv a9,b9 & b,c equiv b9,c9
implies a,c equiv a9,c9
proof
assume that
H1: between a,b,c and
H2: between a9,b9,c9 and
H3: a,b equiv a9,b9 and
H4: b,c equiv b9,c9;
b,a equiv a,b by A1; then
Z2: b,a equiv a9,b9 by H3, EquivTransitive;
per cases;
suppose a = b;
hence thesis by H3, H4, A3, EquivSymmetric;
end;
suppose
Z1: a <> b;
a9,b9 equiv b9,a9 by A1; then
b,a equiv b9,a9 by Z2, EquivTransitive; then
a,b,a cong a9,b9,a9 by H3, Baaa;
hence thesis by Z1, H1, H2, H4, A5;
end;
end;
theorem CongruenceDoubleSymmetry:
a,b equiv c,d implies b,a equiv d,c
proof
X1: b,a equiv a,b & c,d equiv d,c by A1;
assume a,b equiv c,d; then
a,b equiv d,c by X1, EquivTransitive;
hence thesis by X1, EquivTransitive;
end;
theorem C1prime:
a <> b & between a,b,x & between a,b,y & a,x equiv a,y
implies x = y
proof
assume that
H1: a <> b and
H2: between a,b,x and
H3: between a,b,y and
H4: a,x equiv a,y;
consider m being POINT of S such that
X1: between b,a,m & a,m equiv a,b by A4;
X3: m <> a by X1, EquivSymmetric, A3, H1;
X2: between m,a,b by X1, Bsymmetry; then
x4: m,a,b,x are_ordered by H1, H2, BTransitivityOrdered;
m,a,b,y are_ordered by H1, X2, H3, BTransitivityOrdered;
hence x = y by X3, x4, H4, C1;
end;
theorem ::: SegmentSubtraction:
between a,b,c & between a9,b9,c9 & a,b equiv a9,b9 & a,c equiv a9,c9
implies b,c equiv b9,c9
proof
assume that
H1: between a,b,c and
H2: between a9,b9,c9 and
H3: a,b equiv a9,b9 and
H4: a,c equiv a9,c9;
per cases;
suppose a = b;
hence b,c equiv b9,c9 by H4, A3, EquivSymmetric, H3;
end;
suppose
Z1: a <> b;
consider x such that
Z2: between a,b,x & b,x equiv b9,c9 by A4;
Z3: a,x equiv a9,c9 by Z2, H2, H3, SegmentAddition;
a9,c9 equiv a,c by H4, EquivSymmetric; then
a,x equiv a,c by Z3, EquivTransitive;
hence b,c equiv b9,c9 by Z1, Z2, H1, C1prime;
end;
end;
theorem EasyAngleTransport:
o <> a implies
ex x,y st between b,o,x & between a,o,y & x,y,o cong a,b,o
proof
assume
X1: o <> a;
consider x such that
X2: between b,o,x & o,x equiv o,a by A4;
x,o equiv a,o by X2, CongruenceDoubleSymmetry; then
X5: a,o,x cong x,o,a by X2, A1, EquivSymmetric;
consider y such that
X6: between a,o,y & o,y equiv o,b by A4;
between x,o,b by X2, Bsymmetry; then
x,y,o cong a,b,o by X6, CongruenceDoubleSymmetry, X1, X5, A5;
hence thesis by X2, X6;
end;
theorem B123and134Ordered:
between a,b,c & between a,c,d implies a,b,c,d are_ordered
proof
assume between a,b,c & between a,c,d; then
between d,c,a & between c,b,a by Bsymmetry; then
d,c,b,a are_ordered by B124and234Ordered;
hence thesis by Bsymmetry;
end;
:: We now port Narboux's Coq proof of Gupta's result
:: a <> b & Babc & Babd -> Bacd or Badc.
:: with this one simplification: we isolate some lemmas. We begin
:: with two results that are not actually needed, but shed some light.
theorem BextendToLine:
a <> b & between a,b,c & between a,b,d
implies ex x st a,b,c,x are_ordered & a,b,d,x are_ordered
proof
assume that
H1: a <> b and
H2: between a,b,c and
H3: between a,b,d;
consider u such that
X1: between a,c,u & c,u equiv b,d by A4;
X2: a,b,c,u are_ordered by H2, X1, B123and134Ordered; then
X3: between u,c,b by Bsymmetry;
u,c equiv c,u by A1; then
X4: u,c equiv b,d by X1, EquivTransitive;
consider x such that
Y1: between a,d,x & d,x equiv b,c by A4;
Y2: a,b,d,x are_ordered by H3, Y1, B123and134Ordered;
Y4: b,c equiv d,x by Y1, EquivSymmetric;
c,b equiv b,c by A1; then
c,b equiv d,x by Y4, EquivTransitive; then
X6: u,b equiv b,x by X3, Y2, X4, SegmentAddition;
b,u equiv u,b by A1; then
u = x by H1, X2, Y2, C1, X6, EquivTransitive;
hence thesis by X2, Y2;
end;
:: We don't use this result, but there ought to be an easy proof of
:: it, and there is. The proof is largely due to Benjamin Kordesh.
theorem ::: GuptaEasy:
a <> b & between a,b,c & between a,b,d &
b <> c & b <> d implies not between c,b,d
proof
assume that
H1: a <> b and
H2: between a,b,c and
H3: between a,b,d and
H4: b <> c and
H5: b <> d and
H6: between c,b,d;
consider x such that
X2: a,b,c,x are_ordered & a,b,d,x are_ordered
by H1, H2, H3, BextendToLine;
c,b,d,x are_ordered by H5, H6, BTransitivityOrdered, X2;
hence contradiction by H4, BEquality, X2;
end;
:: The next result is like SAS: there are 5 pairs of segments, 4
:: equivalent. We say we apply Inner5Segments to abc-x and a9b9c9-x9
theorem Inner5Segments:
a,b,c cong a9,b9,c9 &
between a,x,c & between a9,x9,c9 & c,x equiv c9,x9
implies b,x equiv b9,x9
proof
assume that
H1: a,b,c cong a9,b9,c9 and
H2: between a,x,c and
H3: between a9,x9,c9 and
H4: c,x equiv c9,x9;
X1: a,b equiv a9,b9 & a,c equiv a9,c9 & b,c equiv b9,c9 by H1;
per cases;
suppose
x = c;
hence thesis by H1, A3, H4, EquivSymmetric;
end;
suppose x <> c; then
X2: a <> c by H2, A6;
consider y such that
X3: between a,c,y & c,y equiv a,c by A4;
consider y9 such that
X4: between a9,c9,y9 & c9,y9 equiv a,c by A4;
a,c equiv c9,y9 by X4, EquivSymmetric; then
X5: c,y equiv c9,y9 by X3, EquivTransitive;
X6: c,b equiv c9,b9 by H1, CongruenceDoubleSymmetry; then
a,c,b cong a9,c9,b9 by X1; then
X7: b,y equiv b9,y9 by X2, X3, X4, X5, A5;
X8: y <> c by X3, EquivSymmetric, A3, X2;
between y,c,a & between c,x,a by X3, H2, Bsymmetry; then
X9: between y,c,x by B124and234then123;
between y9,c9,a9 & between c9,x9,a9 by X4, H3, Bsymmetry;
then
X10: between y9,c9,x9 by B124and234then123;
y,c,b cong y9,c9,b9 by X6, X5, X7, CongruenceDoubleSymmetry;
hence thesis by X8, X9, X10, H4, A5;
end;
end;
theorem RhombusDiagBisect:
between b,c,d9 & between b,d,c9 &
c,d9 equiv c,d & d,c9 equiv c,d & d9,c9 equiv c,d implies
ex e st between c,e,c9 & between d,e,d9 &
c,e equiv c9,e & d,e equiv d9,e
proof
assume that
H1: between b,c,d9 and
H2: between b,d,c9 and
H3: c,d9 equiv c,d and
H4: d,c9 equiv c,d and
H5: d9,c9 equiv c,d;
between d9,c,b & between c9,d,b by H1, H2, Bsymmetry;
then consider e such that
X2: between c,e,c9 & between d,e,d9 by A7;
X3: c,d equiv c,d9 by H3, EquivSymmetric;
X4: c,c9 equiv c,c9 by EquivReflexive;
c,d equiv d9,c9 by H5, EquivSymmetric; then
c,d,c9 cong c,d9,c9 by X3, X4, H4, EquivTransitive; then
X5: d,e equiv d9,e by X2, EquivReflexive, Inner5Segments;
X6: d,c equiv c,d by A1;
c,d equiv d,c9 by H4, EquivSymmetric; then
X7: d,c equiv d,c9 by X6, EquivTransitive;
X9: c,d equiv d9,c9 by H5, EquivSymmetric;
d9,c9 equiv c9,d9 by A1; then
c,d equiv c9,d9 by X9, EquivTransitive; then
c,d9 equiv c9,d9 by H3, EquivTransitive; then
d,c,d9 cong d,c9,d9 by X7, EquivReflexive; then
c,e equiv c9,e by X2, EquivReflexive, Inner5Segments;
hence thesis by X2, X5;
end;
theorem FlatNormal:
between d,e,d9 & c,d9 equiv c,d & d,e equiv d9,e &
c <> d & e <> d implies
ex p,r,q st between p,r,q & between r,c,d9 & between e,c,p &
r,c,p cong r,c,q & r,c equiv e,c & p,r equiv d,e
proof
assume that
H2: between d,e,d9 and
H3: c,d9 equiv c,d and
H4: d,e equiv d9,e and
H5: c <> d and
H6: e <> d;
c <> d9 by H5, H3, EquivSymmetric, A3; then
consider p,r such that
X1: between e,c,p & between d9,c,r & p,r,c cong d9,e,c
by EasyAngleTransport;
d9,e equiv d,e by H4, EquivSymmetric; then
X3: p,r equiv d,e by X1, EquivTransitive; then
X4: p <> r by EquivSymmetric, H6, A3;
consider q such that
X5: between p,r,q & r,q equiv e,d by A4;
X6: between d9,e,d by H2, Bsymmetry;
c,p equiv c,d9 by X1, CongruenceDoubleSymmetry; then
X7: c,p equiv c,d by H3, EquivTransitive;
:: Apply SAS to p+crq & d9+ced
c,q equiv c,d by X4, X1, X5, X6, A5; then
c,d equiv c,q by EquivSymmetric; then
X8: c,p equiv c,q by X7, EquivTransitive;
X10: r,p equiv e,d by X3, CongruenceDoubleSymmetry;
e,d equiv r,q by X5, EquivSymmetric; then
X11: r,c,p cong r,c,q by EquivReflexive, X8, X10, EquivTransitive;
between r,c,d9 by X1, Bsymmetry;
hence thesis by X5, X11, X1, X3;
end;
theorem EqDist2PointsBetween:
a <> b & between a,b,c & a,p equiv a,q & b,p equiv b,q
implies c,p equiv c,q
proof
assume
H1: a <> b;
assume
H2: between a,b,c;
assume
H3: a,p equiv a,q & b,p equiv b,q;
:: a & b are equidistant from p & q. Apply SAS to a+pbc & a+qbc.
a,b,p cong a,b,q by H3, EquivReflexive; then
p,c equiv q,c by H1, H2, EquivReflexive, A5;
hence thesis by CongruenceDoubleSymmetry;
end;
theorem EqDist2PointsInnerBetween:
between a,x,c & a,p equiv a,q & c,p equiv c,q
implies x,p equiv x,q
proof
assume
H1: between a,x,c;
assume
H2: a,p equiv a,q & c,p equiv c,q;
:: a and c are equidistant from p and q. Apply Inner5Segments to apb-x & aqb-x.
X1: a,c equiv a,c & c,x equiv c,x by EquivReflexive; then
a,p,c cong a,q,c by H2, CongruenceDoubleSymmetry; then
p,x equiv q,x by H1, X1, Inner5Segments;
hence thesis by CongruenceDoubleSymmetry;
end;
theorem Gupta:
a <> b & between a,b,c & between a,b,d
implies between b,d,c or between b,c,d
proof
assume
H1: a <> b;
assume that
H2: between a,b,c and
H3: between a,b,d;
per cases;
suppose
b = c or b = d or c = d;
hence thesis by Baaq, Bqaa;
end;
suppose
H4: b <> c & b <> d & c <> d;
assume
H5: not between b,d,c;
consider d9 such that
X1: between a,c,d9 & c,d9 equiv c,d by A4;
consider c9 such that
X2: between a,d,c9 & d,c9 equiv c,d by A4;
x3: a,b,c,d9 are_ordered by H2, X1, B123and134Ordered; then
X3: between a,b,d9 & between b,c,d9;
x4: a,b,d,c9 are_ordered by H3, X2, B123and134Ordered;
X5: c <> d9 by X1, H4, A3, EquivSymmetric;
X6: d <> c9 by X2, H4, A3, EquivSymmetric;
X7: b <> d9 by x3, H4, A6;
X8: b <> c9 by x4, H4, A6;
:: now prove a stronger result than BextendToLine with much the same proof.
:: We find u & b9 with, essentially, a,b,c,d9,u and a, b,d,c9,b9
:: ordered 5-tuples with d9u equiv db & cb9 equiv bc.
consider u such that
Y1: between c,d9,u & d9,u equiv b,d by A4;
y2: b,c,d9,u are_ordered by X5, x3, Y1, BTransitivityOrdered;
consider b9 such that
Y3: between d,c9,b9 & c9,b9 equiv b,c by A4;
y4: b,d,c9,b9 are_ordered by X6, x4, Y3, BTransitivityOrdered;
Y5: between c9,d,b by x4, Bsymmetry;
Y6: d,c9 equiv c9,d & b,d equiv d,b by A1;
c,d equiv d,c9 by X2, EquivSymmetric; then
c,d9 equiv d,c9 by X1, EquivTransitive; then
Y7: c,d9 equiv c9,d by Y6, EquivTransitive;
d9,u equiv d,b by Y1, Y6, EquivTransitive; then
Y8: c,u equiv c9,b by Y1, Y5, Y7, SegmentAddition;
Y9: c9,b9 equiv b9,c9 & b9,b equiv b,b9 by A1;
b,c equiv c9,b9 by Y3, EquivSymmetric; then
Y10: b,c equiv b9,c9 by Y9, EquivTransitive;
between b9,c9,b by y4, Bsymmetry; then
b,u equiv b9,b by y2, Y10, Y8, SegmentAddition; then
Y11: b,u equiv b,b9 by Y9, EquivTransitive;
Y12: a,b,d9,u are_ordered by X7, x3, y2, BTransitivityOrdered;
a,b,c9,b9 are_ordered by X8, x4, y4, BTransitivityOrdered; then
Y13: u = b9 by H1, Y11, C1, Y12;
:: Show c9d9 equiv cd by applying SAS to b+c9cd & b9+cc9d.
c9,b equiv c,b9 by Y13, Y8, EquivSymmetric; then
b,c9 equiv b9,c by CongruenceDoubleSymmetry; then
Z2: b,c,c9 cong b9,c9,c by Y10, A1;
between b9,c9,d by Y3, Bsymmetry; then
Z3: c9,d9 equiv c,d by H4, Z2, X3, Y7, A5;
d9,c9 equiv c9,d9 by A1; then
d9,c9 equiv c,d by Z3, EquivTransitive; then
:: c,d9,c9,d is a ``flat'' rhombus. The diagonals bisect each other:
consider e such that
Z4: between c,e,c9 & between d,e,d9 & c,e equiv c9,e & d,e equiv d9,e
by X1, X2, RhombusDiagBisect;
U1: e <> c by H5, x4, Z4, EquivSymmetric, A3;
e = d
proof
assume
V2: e <> d; then
consider p,r,q such that
W1: between p,r,q & between r,c,d9 & between e,c,p &
r,c,p cong r,c,q & r,c equiv e,c & p,r equiv d,e
by Z4, X1, H4, FlatNormal;
:: r and c are equidistant from p and q, r <> c, B rcd9, hence also d9
c <> r by W1, U1, EquivSymmetric, A3; then
W3: d9,p equiv d9,q by W1, EqDist2PointsBetween; then
:: c and d9 are equidistant from p and q, c <> d9, B c,d9,b9, hence also b9.
W4: b9,p equiv b9,q by X5, W1, Y1, Y13, EqDist2PointsBetween;
:: d9 and c are equidistant from p and q, d9 <> c, B d9,c,b, hence also b.
between d9,c,b by X3, Bsymmetry; then
W5: b,p equiv b,q by X5, W3, W1, EqDist2PointsBetween;
:: b and b9 are equidistant from p and q, B b,c9,b, hence also c9.
W7: c9,p equiv c9,q by y4, W4, W5, EqDist2PointsInnerBetween;
:: c9 and c are equidistant from p and q, c9 <> c, B c9,c,p, hence also p.
between c9,e,c by Z4, Bsymmetry; then
w8: c9,e,c,p are_ordered by U1, W1, BTransitivityOrdered;
c9 <> c by Z4, U1, A6; then
p,p equiv p,q by w8, W7, W1, EqDist2PointsBetween; then
:: Now we deduce a contradiction from p = q.
q = p by EquivSymmetric, A3; then
p = r by W1, A6;
hence contradiction by V2, W1, EquivSymmetric, A3;
end;
hence thesis by X3, Z4, EquivSymmetric, A3;
end;
end;
definition
let S, a, b, c;
pred Collinear a,b,c means ::: :DefCollinear:
between a,b,c or between b,c,a or between c,a,b;
end;
definition
let S, a, b, x;
pred x on_line a,b means ::: :DefLine:
a <> b & (between a,b,x or between b,x,a or between x,a,b);
end;
definition
let S, a, b, x, y;
pred a,b equal_line x,y means ::: :DefLineEq:
a <> b & x <> y & for c holds c on_line a,b iff c on_line x,y;
end;
:: Using Gupta's theorem, we prove Hilbert's axiom I3, a line is
:: determined by two points.
theorem I1part1:
a <> b & a <> x & x on_line a,b &
c on_line a,b implies c on_line a,x
proof
assume that
H1: a <> b and
H2: a <> x;
assume x on_line a,b; then
X1: between a,b,x or between a,x,b or between x,a,b by Bsymmetry;
assume
H4: c on_line a,b;
between a,x,c or between a,c,x or between x,a,c
proof
consider m being POINT of S such that
X5: between b,a,m & a,m equiv a,b by A4;
X6: a <> m by H1, X5, EquivSymmetric, A3;
per cases by X1, Bsymmetry, H4;
suppose
X3: between a,b,x & between a,b,c; then
between b,x,c or between b,c,x by H1, Gupta; then
a,b,x,c are_ordered or a,b,c,x are_ordered
by X3, BTransitivityOrdered;
hence thesis;
end;
suppose
between a,b,x & between a,c,b; then
a,c,b,x are_ordered by B123and134Ordered;
hence thesis;
end;
suppose
between a,b,x & between c,a,b; then
c,a,b,x are_ordered by H1, BTransitivityOrdered;
hence thesis by Bsymmetry;
end;
suppose
between a,x,b & between a,b,c; then
a,x,b,c are_ordered by B123and134Ordered;
hence thesis;
end;
suppose
X4: between a,x,b & between a,c,b;
between m,a,b by X5, Bsymmetry; then :: m,a,c,b
between m,a,c & between m,a,x by X4, B124and234then123;
hence thesis by X6, Gupta;
end;
suppose
between a,x,b & between c,a,b; then :: c,a,x,b
between c,a,x by B124and234then123;
hence thesis by Bsymmetry;
end;
suppose
between x,a,b & between a,b,c; then
x,a,b,c are_ordered by H1, BTransitivityOrdered;
hence thesis;
end;
suppose
between x,a,b & between a,c,b; :: x,a,c,b
hence thesis by B124and234then123;
end;
suppose
between x,a,b & between c,a,b; then
between b,a,x & between b,a,c by Bsymmetry;
hence thesis by H1, Gupta;
end;
end;
hence thesis by H2, Bsymmetry;
end;
theorem I1part2:
a <> b & a <> x & x on_line a,b implies
a,b equal_line a,x
proof
assume
H1: a <> b & a <> x & x on_line a,b;
c on_line a,b iff c on_line a,x
proof
thus c on_line a,b implies c on_line a,x by H1, I1part1;
assume
H2: c on_line a,x;
b on_line a,x by H1, Bsymmetry;
hence c on_line a,b by H1, H2, I1part1;
end;
hence thesis by H1;
end;
theorem :::LineEqRefl:
a <> b implies a,b equal_line a,b; :::NS
theorem LineEqA1:
a <> b implies a,b equal_line b,a
proof
assume
H1: a <> b;
for c holds c on_line a,b iff c on_line b,a by Bsymmetry;
hence thesis by H1;
end;
theorem ::: LineEqSymmetric:
a <> b & c <> d & a,b equal_line c,d implies c,d equal_line a,b; :::NS
theorem ::: LineEqTrans:
a <> b & c <> d & e <> f & a,b equal_line c,d & c,d equal_line e,f
implies a,b equal_line e,f; :::NS
theorem ::: onlineEq:
x on_line a,b & a,b equal_line c,d implies x on_line c,d; :::NS
theorem I1part2Reverse:
a <> b & b <> y & y on_line a,b
implies a,b equal_line y,b
proof
assume
H1: a <> b & b <> y & y on_line a,b; then
Y1: a,b equal_line b,a & b,y equal_line y,b by LineEqA1; then
b,a equal_line b,y by H1, I1part2; then
a,b equal_line b,y by Y1;
hence thesis by Y1;
end;
theorem ::: I1:
a <> b & x <> y & a on_line x,y & b on_line x,y
implies x,y equal_line a,b
proof
assume
H1: a <> b & x <> y; then
P2: b,a equal_line a,b by LineEqA1;
assume
H2: a on_line x,y & b on_line x,y;
per cases;
suppose x = b; then
x,y equal_line b,a by H1, H2, I1part2;
hence thesis by P2;
end;
suppose
x <> b; then
P4: x,y equal_line x,b by H2, I1part2; then
x,b equal_line a,b by H1, I1part2Reverse, H2;
hence thesis by P4;
end;
end;
begin :: Construction of the Euclidean Example
definition
func Tarski0Space -> MetrTarskiStr equals
the naturally_generated TarskiExtension of ZeroSpace;
coherence;
end;
registration
cluster Tarski0Space -> Reflexive symmetric non empty;
coherence;
end;
definition let M be non empty MetrStruct;
attr M is close-everywhere means :Lem1:
for a,b being Element of M holds
dist (a,b) = 0;
end;
registration
cluster Tarski0Space -> close-everywhere;
coherence
proof
set M = Tarski0Space;
for a,b being Element of M holds
dist (a,b) = 0
proof
let a,b be Element of M;
aa: the MetrStruct of M = the MetrStruct of ZeroSpace by TADef;
reconsider a1 = a, b1 = b as Element of 2 by aa;
thus thesis by METRIC_1:27,aa;
end;
hence thesis;
end;
end;
registration
cluster Tarski0Space -> satisfying_CongruenceSymmetry
satisfying_CongruenceEquivalenceRelation
satisfying_SegmentConstruction
satisfying_SAS
satisfying_Pasch;
coherence
proof
set T = Tarski0Space;
a1: for a, b being POINT of T holds a,b equiv b,a
proof
let a, b be POINT of T;
dist (a,b) = dist (b,a);
hence thesis by NGDef;
end;
a2: for a, b, p, q, r, s being POINT of T holds
a,b equiv p,q & a,b equiv r,s implies p,q equiv r,s
proof
let a, b, p, q, r, s be POINT of T;
assume a,b equiv p,q & a,b equiv r,s; then
dist (a,b) = dist (p,q) & dist (a,b) = dist (r,s) by NGDef;
hence thesis by NGDef;
end;
a4: for a, q, b, c being POINT of T holds
ex x being POINT of T st between q,a,x & a,x equiv b,c
proof
let a, q, b, c be POINT of T;
take x = the POINT of T;
dist(q,a) = 0 & dist(a,x) = 0 by Lem1; then
T1: a is_Between q,x by Lem1;
dist (a,x) = 0 & dist (b,c) = 0 by Lem1;
hence thesis by NGDef,T1;
end;
a5: for a, b, c, x, a9, b9, c9, x9 being POINT of T st
a <> b & a,b,c cong a9,b9,c9 &
between a,b,x & between a9,b9,x9 & b,x equiv b9,x9
holds c,x equiv c9,x9
proof
let a, b, c, x, a9, b9, c9, x9 be POINT of T;
assume a <> b & a,b,c cong a9,b9,c9 &
between a,b,x & between a9,b9,x9 & b,x equiv b9,x9;
dist (c,x) = 0 & dist (c9,x9) = 0 by Lem1;
hence thesis by NGDef;
end;
for a, b, p, q, z being POINT of T st
between a,p,z & between b,q,z holds
ex x being POINT of T st between p,x,b & between q,x,a
proof
let a, b, p, q, z be POINT of T;
assume between a,p,z & between b,q,z;
take x = the POINT of T;
s2: dist(p,b) = 0 & dist(p,x) = 0 & dist(x,b) = 0 by Lem1;
dist(q,a) = 0 & dist(q,x) = 0 & dist(x,a) = 0 by Lem1; then
x is_Between p,b & x is_Between q,a by s2;
hence thesis by NGDef;
end;
hence thesis by a1,a2,a4,a5;
end;
end;
definition
func TarskiSpace -> MetrTarskiStr equals
the naturally_generated TarskiExtension of RealSpace;
coherence;
end;
registration
cluster TarskiSpace -> non empty;
coherence;
end;
registration
cluster TarskiSpace -> Reflexive symmetric discerning;
coherence;
end;
registration
cluster -> real for Element of TarskiSpace;
coherence
proof
let x be Element of TarskiSpace;
the MetrStruct of RealSpace = the MetrStruct of TarskiSpace by TADef;
hence thesis;
end;
end;
registration
cluster -> real for Element of RealSpace;
coherence;
end;
theorem
for a, b, c being Element of RealSpace st
b in [.a,c.] holds b is_Between a,c
proof
let a, b, c be Element of RealSpace;
assume b in [.a,c.]; then
B1: b >= a + 0 & c >= b + 0 by XXREAL_1:1; then
b2: c >= a + 0 by XXREAL_0:2;
A0: |.a-c.| = |.c - a.| by COMPLEX1:60
.= (c - b) + (b - a) by b2,COMPLEX1:43,XREAL_1:19
.= |.c-b.| + (b - a) by B1,XREAL_1:19,COMPLEX1:43
.= |.c-b.| + |.b-a.| by B1,XREAL_1:19,COMPLEX1:43
.= |.b-c.| + |.b-a.| by COMPLEX1:60
.= |.a-b.| + |.b-c.| by COMPLEX1:60;
A1: dist (a,c) = |.a-c.| by TOPMETR:11;
dist (a,b) = |.a-b.| by TOPMETR:11;
hence thesis by A1,A0,TOPMETR:11;
end;
registration
cluster TarskiSpace -> satisfying_CongruenceSymmetry
satisfying_CongruenceEquivalenceRelation
satisfying_CongruenceIdentity
satisfying_SegmentConstruction
satisfying_BetweennessIdentity;
coherence
proof
set T = TarskiSpace;
a1: for a, b being POINT of T holds a,b equiv b,a
proof
let a, b be POINT of T;
dist (a,b) = dist (b,a);
hence thesis by NGDef;
end;
a2: for a, b, p, q, r, s being POINT of T st
a,b equiv p,q & a,b equiv r,s holds p,q equiv r,s
proof
let a, b, p, q, r, s be POINT of T;
assume a,b equiv p,q & a,b equiv r,s; then
dist (a,b) = dist (p,q) & dist (a,b) = dist (r,s) by NGDef;
hence thesis by NGDef;
end;
a3: for a, b, c being POINT of T st
a,b equiv c,c holds a = b
proof
let a, b, c be POINT of T;
assume a,b equiv c,c; then
dist (a,b) = dist (c,c) by NGDef;
hence thesis by METRIC_1:2,1;
end;
xx: the MetrStruct of T = the MetrStruct of RealSpace by TADef;
a4: for a, q, b, c being POINT of T holds
ex x being POINT of T st between q,a,x & a,x equiv b,c
proof
let a, q, b, c be POINT of T;
set bc = dist (b,c), qa = dist (q,a);
per cases;
suppose q >= a; then
z0: q - a >= a - a by XREAL_1:9;
Z2: q - a = |. q - a .| by COMPLEX1:43,z0
.= qa by xx,METRIC_1:def 12;
set x = a - bc;
X1: bc >= 0 by METRIC_1:5;
reconsider x as POINT of T by xx,XREAL_0:def 1;
take x;
X2: dist (a,x) = |. a - x .| by METRIC_1:def 12,xx
.= bc by METRIC_1:5,COMPLEX1:43;
qa >= 0 by METRIC_1:5; then
X4: 0 <= qa * bc by X1;
X3: |. q - a .| = dist (q,a) by xx,METRIC_1:def 12;
dist (q,x) = |. q - x .| by xx,METRIC_1:def 12
.= |. q - a + bc .|
.= |. q - a .| + |. bc .| by ABSVALUE:11,X4,Z2
.= dist (q,a) + bc by X3,COMPLEX1:43,METRIC_1:5; then
a is_Between q,x by X2;
hence thesis by NGDef,X2;
end;
suppose q <= a; then
Z2: a - q = |. a - q .| by COMPLEX1:43,XREAL_1:48
.= |. q - a .| by COMPLEX1:60
.= qa by xx,METRIC_1:def 12;
set x = a + bc;
X1: bc >= 0 by METRIC_1:5;
reconsider x as POINT of T by xx,XREAL_0:def 1;
take x;
X2: dist (a,x) = |. a - x .| by xx,METRIC_1:def 12
.= |. - bc .|
.= |. bc .| by COMPLEX1:52
.= bc by METRIC_1:5,COMPLEX1:43;
qa >= 0 by METRIC_1:5; then
X4: 0 <= qa * bc by X1;
XX: |. a - q + bc .| = |. a - q .| + |. bc .| by ABSVALUE:11,X4,Z2;
X3: |. a - q .| = |. q - a .| by COMPLEX1:60
.= dist (q,a) by xx,METRIC_1:def 12;
dist (q,x) = |. q - x .| by METRIC_1:def 12,xx
.= |. x - q .| by COMPLEX1:60
.= dist (q,a) + bc by X3,XX,COMPLEX1:43,METRIC_1:5; then
a is_Between q,x by X2;
hence thesis by NGDef,X2;
end;
end;
for a, b being POINT of T holds between a,b,a implies a = b
proof
let a, b be POINT of T;
assume between a,b,a; then
b is_Between a,a by NGDef; then
0 = dist(a,b) + dist(b,a) by METRIC_1:1;
hence thesis by METRIC_1:2;
end;
hence thesis by a1,a2,a3,a4;
end;
end;