Some Lemmas to Hopefully Enable Search Methods to Find Short and Human Readable Proofs for Incidence Theorems of Projective Geometry

  • Dominique Michelucci
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6877)

Abstract

Search methods provide short and human readable proofs, i.e. with few algebra, of most of the theorems of the Euclidean plane. They are less succesful and convincing for incidence theorems of projective geometry, which has received less attention up to now. This is due to the fact that basic notions, like angles and distances, which are relevant for Euclidean geometry, are no more relevant for projective geometry. This article suggests that search methods can also provide short and human readable proofs of incidence theorems of projective geometry with well chosen notions, rules or lemmas. This article proposes such lemmas, and show that they indeed permit to find by hand short proofs of some theorems of projective geometry.

Keywords

Intersection Point Projective Geometry Dynamic Geometry Software Conic Curve Geometry Theorem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Apel, S., Richter-Gebert, J.: Cancellation patterns in automatic geometric theorem proving. Talk at ADG 2010, Munich, Germany (July 2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chou, S.C., Gao, X.S., Zhang, J.Z.: Automated generation of readable proofs with geometric invariants, ii. theorem proving with full-angles. J. Automated Reasoning 17, 325–347 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chou, S.-C., Gao, X.-S., Zhang, J.-Z.: A deductive database approach to automated geometry theorem proving and discovering. J. Autom. Reason. 25, 219–246 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coxeter, H.: Projective Geometry. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gao, X.-S.: Chapter 10: Search methods revisited. In: Gao, X.-S., Wang, D. (eds.) Mathematics Mechanization and Application, pp. 253–272. Academic Press (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gelernter, H.: Realization of a geometry theorem proving machine. In: IFIP Congress, pp. 273–281 (1959)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gelernter, H.: Realization of a geometry-theorem proving machine. In: Siekmann, J., Wrightson, G. (eds.) Automation of Reasoning 1: Classical Papers on Computational Logic 1957-1966, pp. 99–122. Springer, Heidelberg (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gelernter, H., Hansen, J.R., Loveland, D.W.: Empirical explorations of the geometry-theorem proving machine. In: Siekmann, J., Wrightson, G. (eds.) Automation of Reasoning 1: Classical Papers on Computational Logic 1957-1966, pp. 140–150. Springer, Heidelberg (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Magaud, N., Narboux, J., Schreck, P.: Formalizing Desargues’ theorem in Coq using ranks. In: Shin and Ossowski [16], pp. 1110–1115Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Michelucci, D., Foufou, S.: Interrogating witnesses for geometric constraints solving. In: ACM Conf. Solid and Physical Modelling, San Francisco, pp. 343–348 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Michelucci, D., Schreck, P.: Incidence constraints: a combinatorial approach. Int. J. Comput. Geometry Appl. 16(5-6), 443–460 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Michelucci, D., Schreck, P., Thierry, S.E.B., Fünfzig, C., Génevaux, J.-D.: Using the witness method to detect rigid subsystems of geometric constraints in CAD. In: SPM 2010: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Solid and Physical Modeling, Haïfa, Israël. ACM (September 2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pouzergues, R.: Les hexamys, web document (2002) (in French)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Richter-Gebert, J.: Meditations on Ceva’s theorem. In: Davis, C., Ellers, E. (eds.) The Coxeter Legacy: Reflections and Projections, pp. 227–254. Fields Institute American Mathematical Society (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Richter-Gebert, J.: Perspectives on Projective Geometry: A Guided Tour Through Real and Complex Geometry. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shin, S.Y., Ossowski, S. (eds.): Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, March 9-12. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilson, S., Fleuriot, J.D.: Combining dynamic geometry, automated geometry theorem proving and diagrammatic proofs. In: Proceedings of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software (ETAPS) Satellite Workshop on User Interfaces for Theorem Provers (UITP), Edinburgh, UK (April 2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dominique Michelucci
    • 1
  1. 1.LE2I, UMR CNRS 5158Dijon cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations