Topology and geometry should be very closely related mathematical subjects dealing with space. However, they deal with different aspects, the first with properties preserved under deformations, and the second with more linear or rigid aspects, properties invariant under translations, rotations, or projections. The present paper shows a way to go between them in an unexpected way that uses graphs on orientable surfaces, which already have widespread applications. In this way infinitely many geometrical properties are found, starting with the most basic such as the bundle and Pappus theorems. An interesting philosophical consequence is that the most general geometry over noncommutative skewfields such as Hamilton's quaternions corresponds to planar graphs, while graphs on surfaces of higher genus are related to geometry over commutative fields such as the real or complex numbers. 1. Introduction The British/Canadian mathematician H.S.M. Coxeter (1907–2003) was one of most influential geometers of the 20th century. He learnt philosophy of mathematics from L. Wittgenstein at Cambridge, inspired M.C. Escher with his drawings, and influenced the architect R. Buckminster Fuller. See [1]. When one looks at the cover of his book “Introduction to Geometry” [2], there is the depiction of the complete graph on five vertices. It might surprise some people that such a discrete object as a graph could be deemed important in geometry. However, Desargues -point -line theorem in the projective plane is in fact equivalent to the graph : in mathematical terms the cycle matroid of is the Desargues configuration in three-dimensional space, and a projection from a general point gives the configurational theorem in the plane. Desargues theorem has long been recognised (by Hilbert, Coxeter, Russell, and so on) as one of the foundational theorems in projective geometry. However, there is an unexplained gap left in their philosophies: why does the graph give a theorem in space? Certainly, the matroids of almost all graphs are not theorems. The only other example known to the author of a geometrical theorem coming directly from a graphic matroid is the complete bipartite graph , which gives the -point -plane theorem in three-dimensional space; see [3]. It is interesting that both and are minimal nonplanar (toroidal) graphs and both lead to configurational theorems in the same manner. In this paper, we explain how virtually all basic linear properties of projective space can be derived from graphs and topology. We show that any map (induced by a graph of vertices and edges) on an
References
[1]
S. Lavietes, New York Times obituary, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/07/world/harold-coxeter-96-who-found-profound-beauty-in-geometry.html.
[2]
H. S. M. Coxeter, Introduction to Geometry, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1961.
[3]
D. G. Glynn, “Theorems of points and planes in three-dimensional projective space,” Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 75–92, 2010.
[4]
P. Dembowski, Finite Geometries, vol. 44 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1968.
[5]
H. F. Baker, Principles of Geometry, vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, London, UK, 2nd edition, 1928.
[6]
D. Hilbert, Grundlagen der Geometrie, G?ttingen, 1899.
[7]
D. G. Glynn, “A note on configurations and theorems in projective space,” Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 15–31, 2007.
[8]
S. Huggett and I. Moffatt, “Bipartite partial duals and circuits in medial graphs,” Combinatorica, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 231–252, 2013.
[9]
L. Heffter, “Ueber das Problem der Nachbargebiete,” Mathematische Annalen, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 477–508, 1891.
[10]
J. R. Edmonds, “A combinatorial representation for polyhedral surfaces,” Notices of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 7, article A646, 1960.
[11]
B. Bollobás and O. Riordan, “A polynomial invariant of graphs on orientable surfaces,” Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 513–531, 2001.
[12]
B. Bollobás and O. Riordan, “A polynomial of graphs on surfaces,” Mathematische Annalen, vol. 323, no. 1, pp. 81–96, 2002.
[13]
G. A. Jones and D. Singerman, “Theory of maps on orientable surfaces,” Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 273–307, 1978.
[14]
J. Dieudonné, “Les déterminants sur un corps non commutatif,” Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France, vol. 71, pp. 27–45, 1943.
[15]
I. Gelfand, S. Gelfand, V. Retakh, and R. L. Wilson, “Quasideterminants,” Advances in Mathematics, vol. 193, no. 1, pp. 56–141, 2005.
[16]
W. Blaschke, Projektive Geometrie, Birkh?user, Basel, Switzerland, 3rd edition, 1954.
[17]
H. S. M. Coxeter, “Self-dual configurations and regular graphs,” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 56, pp. 413–455, 1950.
[18]
G. Gallucci, Complementi di geometria proiettiva. Contributo alla geometria del tetraedro ed allo studio delle configurazioni, Università degli Studi di Napoli, Napoli, Italy, 1928.
[19]
A. F. Moebius, “Kann von zwei dreiseitigen Pyramiden eine jede in Bezug auf die andere um- und eingeschrieben zugleich heissen?” Crelle's Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, vol. 3, pp. 273–278, 1828.
[20]
A. F. Moebius, “Kann von zwei dreiseitigen Pyramiden eine jede in Bezug auf die andere um- und eingeschrieben zugleich heissen?” Gesammelte Werke, vol. 1, pp. 439–446, 1886.
[21]
D. G. Glynn, “A slant on the twisted determinants theorem,” Submitted to Bulletin of the Institute of Combinatorics and Its Applications.