Angles and Parallels

In Euclid, parallelism is defined negatively by the absence of an intersection. But, even if they are not explicitly mentioned in this definition, the phenomenon of parallelism is ultimately about angles, because line intersection is also ultimately about angles (in particular, about the angle thus determined) – this is common sense, I think –; thus, in the end, parallelism is not about the angle between the parallel lines themselves (which does not exist) but about the angles produced by other, non-parallel, lines (otherwise, as I just mentioned, there would be no angles).


In this context, we can think of axiom SAS as an extreme, simpler case of how to answer a more general question: how are angles are parallels related? The other extreme is to say that they are completely independent, which is what José Gil is currently exploring. But there is an ample space between one extreme and the other. Remember that, according to SAS, if two straight lines (well, to be historically accurate, we would have to say, "segments") are parallel, then the opposite angles generated by a third straight line that intersects them will be the same. Thus, we can generate new notions of parallelhood if we allow for the angles not to be exactly the same, yet there be a function that determines the measure of the one in terms of the other. This would allow for different parallel lines to intersect without inconsistency.

Comentarios

Entradas más populares de este blog

¿Qué es el Pluralismo Ontológico?

Condiciones de Verdad

Los límites del Lenguaje en Wittgenstein