Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Therefore the cross-ratio is not intrinsic to projective geometry but depends on importing Euclidean or arithmetic structure through the back door.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Cross-ratio is projectively invariant under all projective transformations—the defining criterion for intrinsic geometric properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Cross-ratio can be defined purely combinatorially via harmonic conjugates using only incidence relations, without importing metrics.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If Euclidean structure were essential, cross-ratio would vary under projective maps; its constancy proves independence from metric geometry.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Cross-ratio definitions require distance ratios or harmonic division, which presuppose metric concepts absent from pure projective axioms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Projective geometry's primitive notions are only incidence and collinearity; cross-ratio emerges only after adding coordinate systems.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Historical development shows cross-ratio entered projective geometry via analytic geometry and perspective theory, not synthetic projection.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.