Projective Geometry 2

PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY PART 2
Three Dimensional Projective Geometry
Figure #T1
In three dimensions flat planes exist as undefined elements in addition to points and lines. The
added axioms of incidence are: three distinct non-collinear points have one plane in common and
dually three distinct non-collinear planes have one common point; a line not in a plane meets it in
one point and dually a non-incident line and point share one common plane; two distinct lines meet
in one and only one point, or are skew. Two distinct planes meet in one line. Duality is now
between points and planes so that any theorem involving points and planes is equally true if the
roles of the points and planes are swapped. Lines are now self-dual.
An axial pencil is defined as the planes sharing

a common line. Its cross-ratio is obtained by
finding that of a transversal e.g. of the range
ABCD in which a line meets the planes .
Two projective axial pencils intersect in the
lines common to corresponding planes, giving
rise to ruled quadric surfaces such as the
regulus and cone which will be described later.
Just as lines may envelope a curve, so planes
may envelope a surface. In the plane all curves
are flat but in space they may be twisted curves
which can be very beautiful. Dual to a curve is
Figure #T2 a single-parameter set of planes called a
developable. The path curves studied in the plane will appear as sections of three-dimensional
surfaces either described by points or enveloped by planes. The set of all possible lines in a point is
called a bundle of lines, while the set of all planes sharing (or "in") a common point is a bundle of
planes. Projectivities may be set up between bundles, for example in two projective bundles of
lines those corresponding lines that intersect do so in a twisted curve, while dually two projective
planes of lines define a developable of planes common to those corresponding lines that are
coplanar.
There are infinitely many distinct points on a line and the number of such points will be denoted by
1, the index 1 denoting the number of degrees of freedom of the points. In a flat pencil in a plane
there are 1 lines each with 1 points, so the number of points in the plane will be denoted by 2,
the 2 denoting the number of degrees of freedom, for there is one choice of a line and one of a point
on it. In space there are 2 lines in a bundle of lines and 1 points on each line, so there are 3
points in space. The cardinal number c of points is the same for a line, a plane and space itself, but
that does not reveal the degrees of freedom involved, hence the convention now adopted. Dually
there are 1 planes in an axial pencil, 2 planes in a bundle, 2 lines in a plane and 3 planes in
space. Since the cardinal number of points in space and on a line is the same, theoretically it should
be possible to map the points of space onto a line. However that requires a diversion into the theory
of infinitesimals which will not be pursued here. Since flat pencils and ranges have been denoted
e.g. by {P} using braces, henceforth aggregates with 1 elements will use the brace notation, while
bundles and other aggregates with 2 elements will be denoted e.g. by .
There is an ideal line in every plane of space, and their aggregate is called the ideal plane (at
infinity). Just as the Euclidean plane is extended by adding an ideal line, so Euclidean space is
extended by adding an ideal plane. Two parallel planes meet in an ideal line on the ideal plane. By
the axioms of incidence two lines determine a unique plane, so two ideal lines determine a plane
which must be the ideal plane, which is why it is a plane and not a huge sphere.
Related Axial Pencils
Figure #T3A
Figure #T3A shows two axial pencils in perspective, in that they share a flat pencil.
If two ranges ABC and A'B'C' are given on two skew lines p and q respectively, then a unique
projectivity exists between them, analogously to the Fundamental Theorem in two dimensions.
Referring to Figure #T3B top, join AA' BB' and CC' to give three skew lines and select any point L
on AA'. There is a unique line through L that intersects both BB' and CC', for the two planes
[L,BB'] and [L,CC'] intersect in a unique line r which must intersect BB' and CC' in points M and N
respectively. The planes [r,AA'], [r,BB'] and [r,CC'] form an axial pencil with axis r, which is
indicated by the coloured triangles in the figure. The two ranges are said to be axially perspective
since each plane of the axial pencil contains a corresponding pair of points. Note that L was
arbitrarily chosen on AA', so in fact there are infinitely many possible axes.
The lower diagram of #T3B shows a fourth point D of the range on p, which is projected by the
axial pencil into a point D' on q. If the cross-ratio [AB, CD] is k, then the axial pencil has that
cross-ratio, in which case so does A'B'C'D' i.e. [AB, CD] = [A'B', C'D']. Thus any two projective
ranges on skew lines are axially perspective.
Figure #T3B
The Regulus
Figure #T4
The regulus is well known as the "lampshade" made of strings, although it need not have a circular
cross-section. It may be constructed as indicated in Figure #T4 by joining two projective ranges of
points on two conics, but that assumes much. It is more fundamental to do it with lines. First of all
choose three mutually skew lines such as a b and c together with a point P on c. There is one
unique line p through P which meets b and a, for the two planes determined by bP and aP intersect
in a unique line which must contain P and meet b and a. Similarly choose Q R and S on c giving
three more lines intersecting a b and c. The complete regulus may be constructed in this manner, so
a regulus is determined by three skew lines. The red lines of the regulus are called its rulers while
the three lines a b and c are called directrices.
The rulers through P Q R and S intersect the directrix b in a range, say P 1 Q1 R1 and S1 respectively.
It has been shown that an axial pencil exists projecting P Q R into P 1 Q1 R1 which will also project S
into S1 such that PQRS and P1Q1R1S1 are projective. Clearly that applies also to a. It also follows
that an axial pencil exists projecting the points PP 1P2 on the ruler p where it is met by the three
directrices into QQ1Q2 on q, and similarly for all the other rulers. Furthermore any fourth point P 3
on p will be projected into Q3 on q to give two projective ranges on p and q, and similarly for all the
other rulers. Since the line joining P 3 and Q3 is axially perspective with the directrix c, it intersects
the other rulers through R S etc, and so is a fourth directrix. Similarly for the lines through P 4 Q4
etc. (not shown), so there exists a regulus of directrices to the original one which is known as the
conjugate regulus. To sum up: one unique regulus exists intersecting any three mutually skew
lines, and the latter are three lines of a conjugate regulus all of whose lines intersect those of .
The ranges on the rulers projected by their intercepts with the directices are projective, and similarly
for ranges on the lines of the conjugate regulus.
If two skew lines contain two projective ranges then the joins of corresponding points form a
regulus. This follows since the projective ranges on b and c above generated the regulus.
A general plane meets a regulus in a conic. For, the axial pencil in the directrix b projects the lines
of the regulus i.e. each of its planes contains a ruler. Similarly for the axial pencil in c, and those
two pencils are projective with corresponding planes intersecting in the rulers. Thus a regulus may
also be generated as the lines of intersection of corresponding planes of two projective axial
pencils.
Those axial pencils intersect any plane not containing a ruler or directrix in two flat pencils,
which are thus projective. Hence corresponding rays intersect in points on a conic C. Since a line p
in meets C in at most two points, it follows that p meets the regulus in at most two points. This is
true of any general line q as the above argument applies to any plane containing q. Thus a regulus
is a second order surface, the order being defined as the maximum number of points (distinct or
coincident) in which the surface may be met by a general line.
If the axes of the two generating axial pencils intersect in a point V then every ruler contains V,
yielding a quadratic cone. If the axes are parallel that becomes a cylinder.
Given four lines a b c d such that d does not lie in the regulus determined by a b and c, it follows
that d meets in at most two points, P and Q say. There will be two directrices p and q of
through P and Q respectively which thus intersect all four lines a b c and d and are called
transversals of them. This illustrates the fact that four given lines not sharing a regulus have at
most two transversals.
Since two reguli meet a general plane in two conics which may intersect in up to four points (unless
coincident), the curve in which the reguli meet is a quartic curve. Such a curve is defined to be
such that it meets a general plane in at most four points (see below). It may be a continuous twisted
curve or it may break up into simpler parts e.g. two conics or two lines and a conic or a twisted
quadrilateral or a line together with a third order curve (see below).
Another example of a regulus is that generated by two equal ranges on two skew lines. It is
generally a parabolic surface and is easy to construct.
Projective Bundles
In what follows bundles of lines and planes will be said to be projective. It was shown that four
corresponding pairs of elements determine a transformation of the plane (c.f. Figure $35) and since
a bundle may be projected onto a plane as lines or points where that result applies, it follows that
four pairs of corresponding elements determine a two-dimensional projectivity such as between
bundles, or between planes, or between planes and bundles.
Quadrics
A quadric surface (or quadric) in space is such that a general line meets it in at most two points,
and thus is analogous to the conic in plane geometry. A general plane not in the surface meets the
quadric in a curve, and since any line in that plane meets the quadric in two points it must meet the
curve in two points (at most) i.e. a plane intersects a quadric in a conic. The surface on which a
regulus lies is a quadric since its cross-sections are conics, and generally there are three kinds of
quadric in pure projective geometry: ruled, elliptic and imaginary. The regulus is an example of a
ruled quadric - a ruled surface being one composed of lines - while elliptic ones are not ruled.
Imaginary quadrics will be discussed later. If the ideal plane is singled out then elliptic quadrics
may be classed as ellipsoids which do not intersect the ideal plane (the sphere is an example),
paraboloids which touch the ideal plane and non-ruled hyperboloids which meet it in conics.
Figure #T5
An elliptic quadric may be generated projectively as follows (Figure #T5). Take a bundle of planes
 in P and a bundle of lines <Q> in Q projective with . A line intersects its corresponding
plane in a point, and there are 2 such points forming a surface. On an arbitrary line p in space
every point X determines a line QX of <Q> to which corresponds a plane of meeting p in X'.
As X varies X and X' describe two projective ranges which will have two self-corresponding points
where a plane of intersects a line of <Q> on p. Thus the surface is met by a general line in two
points, showing that it is a quadric surface. There is an axial pencil {} of planes of in the line
PQ, and therefore a flat pencil {z} of <Q> corresponding to {}. The lines of {z} can only meet the
planes of {} in Q, so Q is covered 1 times. It follows that the plane of {z} is tangential to the
surface as it contains no other points of the surface apart from Q, and that the quadric contains Q.
Also the line PQ as a line of <Q> corresponds to a plane of so P also lies on the quadric.
The projectivity on the transversal p may be the identity containing 1 points of the surface, in
which case the projective bundles determine a quadric containing a ruler. The planes of the axial
pencil {p} in p all meet the quadric in conic sections each of which contains p and so is degenerate
as a line pair. Thus the quadric is ruled.
Twisted Curves in Space
A straight line is of order 1 since it meets an arbitrary plane in 1 point while a conic is of order 2 as
it intersects a plane in at most 2 points. Clearly the cases when the line or conic lie in the plane are
excluded. After the conic a most important and fundamental curve in space is the twisted cubic
which is of order 3 (Figure #T6 left).
Figure #T6
It may arise in a number of ways. First it may be projectively generated by two projective bundles
of lines, say and <Q> (Figure #T6 centre). Generally two corresponding lines of those bundles
are skew, but some intersect in points of the curve, say . There is a line of <Q> corresponding to
PQ considered as a line of so Q lies on the curve. Similarly for P. Each bundle meets a general
plane in points, their projectivity inducing a projective transformation of . That has an invariant
triangle with three self-corresponding points in each of which two corresponding lines of the
bundles meet. Hence those points lie on the curve which is accordingly of the third order. Given
two points A and B of on a chord, there are two corresponding lines a' of <Q> and a of 
meeting in A, and similarly b of and b' of <Q> meeting in B. The flat pencil {ab} of 
corresponds to {a'b'} of <Q> so they intersect AB in two projective ranges with A and B as double
points. Thus a chord of the curve meets it in at most two points.
Since four pairs of corresponding elements determine a two-dimensional projectivity it follows that
there is a unique twisted cubic containing six points no three of which are collinear. For, choice of
the centres of the bundles together with four suitable points in which corresponding pairs intersect
determines the projectivity between the bundles. If only five points are given the sixth may be
chosen, so there is a net of 2 twisted cubics in five points. For, given a plane there are 2
suitable points in it each of which will determine a twisted cubic. Given any other point X of space
not on , the twisted cubic it determines cuts in three points any of which could have been chosen
instead of X. Although there is duplication in , it is not infinite so 2 twisted cubics share five
suitable points. There is a pencil of twisted cubics sharing five suitable points and a secant k, as
there are 1 points on k determining 1 cubics. There is also a net sharing four points and a chord
k, for any two suitable points on k together with the four points determine a cubic, and there are 2
choices of two points on a line. Thus there are 2 twisted cubics circumscribed to a tetrahedron.
There is an axial pencil in a chord AB and in each plane of that pencil there is a third point of the
curve as it is of order 3. Conversely given a point X of , XAB is a plane of that pencil. Thus there
is a one-to-one correspondence between the planes of the axial pencil and the points of the curve.
The cross-ratio of four points on the curve is defined to be that of the four planes of such an axial
pancil. Given two such axial pencils, there is a one-to-one projective correspondence between their
planes (Figure #T6 right), so they generate a regulus of lines in the points of , and lies on that
surface.
Suppose A is a fixed point on and H is a general point of space not on . Given some point X on
, the plane AHX contains a third point Y of . Conversely given Y the plane AHY is the same as
AHX and so X and Y are a corresponding pair of an involution on . That involution may have two
double points M and N so that AHM then meets in only two points, the double point being where
the plane AHM is tangential to .
The planes of an axial pencil with its axis in a point X of each meet it in two other points of a
chord. Those chords form a ruled surface S (Figure #T7).
Figure #T7
There is one and only one chord of in a general point X of space. For, the two axial pencils {XP}
and {XQ} are projective if corresponding planes intersect in the points of , generating a regulus.
Furthermore those pencils are in perspective since the common plane XPQ contains P and Q of
and hence a third point Z of . Thus the regulus consists of lines in the plane of the axes of the
pencils, forming a flat pencil since Z is self-corresponding, each line of which is a chord. One line
of the pencil contains X which is a chord through X. Conversely two chords must be skew or else
their common plane would contain four points of , so two chords cannot pass through X. Hence
one and only one chord passes through X.
is also projectively generated by three projective axial pencils of planes {a} {b} and {c}, say,
with mutually skew axes a b and c. {a} and {b} have corresponding planes meeting in 1 lines
each of which meets the corresponding plane of
{c} in a point. Thus there are 1 points in which
corresponding planes of all three pencils meet,
generating a curve in space. A general plane is
met by {a} and {b} in two projective flat pencils
{A} and {B} in A and B, say, which define a
conic C1 in on which corresponding planes
meet. Similarly {A} and {C} determine a conic
C2 in . C1 and C2 intersect in at most four points
one of which is A. If P Q and R are the other
three points, clearly three corresponding planes of
Figure #T7A {a} {b} and {c} meet in them c.f. dashed lines for
P. Hence they are points on the curve. But that is not true of A, so the curve meets in three points
and so is a twisted cubic.
Among the many possible space curves the twisted or space quartic curve, which meets any plane in
four points, is important. It arises as the curve common to two intersecting quadric surfaces which
is easy to see, for, given two quadrics S1 and S2, they meet a
general plane in two conic sections which in turn meet in at
most four points. It can happen that the curve has two
branches, or decomposes into a twisted cubic together with
one of its chords, or two conics, or a skew quadrilateral
consisting of four non-coplanar lines, pairs of which meet in
the four vertices.
The figure shows in red the visible portion of the curve for
two intersecting cylinders, which has two branches.
It is proved in Appendix #D that if two quadrics intersect in

a twisted cubic they are both ruled, their rulers being chords of that cubic, and they possess a
common directrix which is a chord of the twisted cubic.
Six points may be chosen to determine a twisted cubic, two being the centres of its generating
bundles, together with two points for the centres of the bundles of planes. Since two quadrics were
constructed sharing those eight points in Appendxi #D, it follows that eight points are insufficient to
determine a unique quadric. It is proved in Appendix #E that nine points no four of which are
coplanar determine one proper quadric. The proof is not easy, whereas an algebraic proof takes
only one line of reasoning (see later). However the latter yields little insight compared with that in
Appendix #E, which also gives insight into correlations.
The dual theorem states that a unique quadric touches nine general planes.
Pencils and Ranges of Quadrics
Two quadric surfaces meet in a space quartic as seen previously. It turns out that 1 quadrics may
share the same quartic curve . The case when is a twisted cubic and a chord has already been
seen to contain two reguli, but in fact it contains 1. It was shown that in this case the two reguli
possess eight common points, so given a general line in space there are 1 points on it each of
which determines a regulus together with the initial eight since nine points generally determine a
quadric. That is called a pencil of reguli.
It will be recalled that a number of quadrics may be found

lying in eight points P1 to P8, and again a pencil arises if P9
describes a general line. If they are not reguli then is not a
twisted cubic together with a chord, but a more general
space quartic passing through the common points P1 to P8.
An example is shown on the left, noting that this example
does not in fact intersect itself, the apparent crossings arising
as it is projected onto a plane. When a quartic does intersect
itself, however, the points of intersection are called nodes,
and there can be no more than two nodes as otherwise a
plane through three of them would be met by the curve in
six points i.e. three nodes each counted twice, making the
curve sixth order. An example where the base quartic separates into two branches has already been
demonstrated for two intersecting cylinders. There are other possibilities which will not be
followed up here.
Dually a range of quadrics touches eight general planes, and an axial pencil of planes provides the
ninth planes of the range. There is a base quartic developable the cuspidal edge of which is a
quartic curve.
Polarity in Three Dimensions
Figure #T8
Figure #T8 shows a sphere with a cone touching it at a yellow circle (in perspective) lying in a
yellow plane. The vertex of the cone is said to be the pole of the plane while the latter is the polar
of the point. Any quadric could be considered instead. Thus in three dimensions points are poles of
planes, not of lines, but lines may be polar to lines. In two dimensional geometry polarity was
introduced as a special type of correlation, and Figure $46 is reproduced below for convenience
(Figure #T8A) as cross-sections of the three dimensional case reproduce that in two dimensions.
The conic on the left may be regarded as the cross-section of a quadric surface, the tangent lines
representing a tangent cone and e the plane of the conic in which the cone touches the quadric.
Figure #T8A
Since for any line through E such as EQ (on the right) meeting its polar in Q, the intercepts S and T
with the conic separate E and Q harmonically, the same clearly applies in the three dimensional case
i.e. a line through the vertex V of the cone in Figure #T8 intercepts the sphere in two points
harmonically separating V and the plane of tangency. On the right of Figure $T8A EU and EV
represent a cone with its vertex at E, and e=UV where the polar plane cuts the page. F is harmonic
to Q with respect to U and V. The axial pencil in the line EF intersects the quadric in planes each
with a configuration similar to Figure $T8A right, and two of those planes will be tangential to the
quadric. Q is thus the two-dimensional pole of EF in the plane shown.
Now let the diagram on the left represent that, where
the line e is the join of the tangent points of those
tangent planes, E being where EF meets the plane, and
the tangents represent the intercepts of the tangent
planes. A plane in EF meets the diagram in the line u
meeting e in Q. Then the harmonic properties show
that the polar points on e are the locations of Q for the
planes in the axial pencil in EF. Thus e is polar to the
line EF, and the poles of the axial pencil lie on a line.
By symmetry the polar planes of the points on EF form
an axial pencil in a line e through Q. Thus the polars of a range form an axial pencil and their base
lines are polar (conjugate) lines with respect to the quadric. Or, two conjugate lines are
symmetrical, the axial pencil on each having its poles on the other. The line v represents the plane
through the point Q' harmonic to Q, and since Q and Q' belong to an involution of conjugate points,
so the planes of the axial pencils are in involution.
Pencils of quadrics have similar properties to pencils of conics. As shown below a general line of
space is met by the quadrics of a pencil in pairs of points in involution (Desargue's Theorem), the
polar planes of a point all lie in a line, while the poles of a fixed plane all lie on a fixed twisted
cubic.
Desargue's Theorem follows at once by taking any plane in the line, cutting the pencil in a pencil of
conics, for which that theorem is true.
For the polars of a point P, consider a cross-
section of the pencil by a plane in P as
shown. Then from the two-dimensional
theory (Figure $48) the lines in which the
polar planes of P meet the page form a flat
pencil in some point P'. Thus the polar
planes share a point in the plane of the page.
Taking another plane in P yields another
such shared point, say P", so now the polar
planes of P all share the line P'P" and so
form an axial pencil as claimed.
The beautiful theorem about the twisted

cubic of poles of a fixed plane is easy to
prove. Take any three non-collinear points
on the plane, then it has been shown that the polar of each of those points with respect to the pencil
of quadrics belongs to an axial pencil, and three projective axial pencils generate a twisted cubic
(c.f. Figure #T7A).
Since a line is self-dual, a new possibility in space is to find the figure formed by the conjugates of
a fixed line p with respect to a pencil of quadrics. Take any two points on p and find their polar
axial pencils. Those pencils are projective and a pair of corresponding planes meets in a line which
is conjugate to p since it lies on two planes polar to two points of p. Thus the axial pencils meet in
lines forming a regulus i.e. the conjugate lines of p lie on a regulus.
Transformations of Space
Transformations of a line into itself were shown to have two invariant points while those of the
plane had three, forming a triangle. This scheme extends to space where there are four invariant
points forming an invariant tetrahedron. The lines and planes of the latter are invariant as a whole
(i.e. not pointwise) just as the lines of the invariant triangle are invariant in the plane. This will now
be proved.
Take two bundles of lines and <Q>. A space collineation will transform them into two other
bundles <P'> and <Q'> respectively. and <P'> intersect in a
twisted cubic 1 while <Q> and <Q'> intersect in another cubic
2. If X lies on both 1 and 2 then the lines p and p' of and
<P'> meet in X, and also q and q' of <Q> and <Q'> meet in X, so
X is self-corresponding. Also the collineation determines two
projective axial pencils in the lines PQ and P'Q', so if p lies in a
plane of {PQ} then p' lies in the corresponding plane ' of
{P'Q'}, so X lies on the ruler ' of the regulus determined by
{PQ} and {P'Q'}. Every point C 1 of 1 lies on a ruler as p and p'
lie in corresponding planes, but q' corresponding to q=QC1 will
not meet ' in C1 unless the latter is self-corresponding.
However, the point is that since all the points of 1 lie on rulers
of it follows that 1 lies in . Similarly 2 lies in it, so 1 and
2 do meet in invariant points such as X on . Since six points
determine a unique twisted cubic it follows that generally 1 and
2 meet in at most five points. In fact it is not possible for there
to be five and only five invariant points, say V W X Y Z, as in
the axial pencil {YZ} for example there would be three invariant
planes XYZ WYZ and VYZ, making the collineation the identity
and every point invariant, so there can only be four non-coplanar
invariant points in the general case. Thus a general space
collineation determines an invariant tetrahedron as claimed.
However it is possible that 1 and 2 only meet in two
significant points giving a semi-imaginary tetrahedron
containing two invariant points on one invariant line. A dual
argument shows that there are also two invariant planes
containing those points, and consequently a second invariant line
where they meet. Finally an imaginary tetrahedron arises if 1 and 2 have no significant common
points, which consists of two skew lines. This will be shown more readily when a practical way of
working with the invariant tetrahedron is shown below.
The reason for the terms semi-imaginary and imaginary will become clear later when so-called
imaginary points, lines and planes are introduced.
Figure #T9
The scene is now set to transform space based on an invariant tetrahedron, XYZW in Figure #T9.
In what follows familiarity with the transform of the plane using an invariant triangle is assumed
c.f. Figure $35. The space transformation is determined by three measures constructed on three
non-coplanar edges such as YZ ZW and XY as shown, as a space transformation induces
projectivites within planes and points (c.f. Figure $33). To transform a point P (Figure #T9 left),
join XP meeting the invariant plane YZW in the point E and then use the measures on YZ and ZW
to transform E to F. Then join XF. Next join WP meeting the plane XYZ in the point U and
transform U to V using the measures on XY and YZ. Finally join WV meeting XF in the
transformed point P1. Note that WV and XF necessarily intersect because incidences are preserved
in projective transformations, and they are the transforms of WU and XE respectively which meet
in P.
Transforming a plane is easier and is shown in Figure #T9 right, where the plane to be transformed
meets the sides YZ ZW and XY in the points A 1 A2 and A3. The transformed (red) plane is B1B2 B3.
Transforming a line is simply a matter of finding the points where it meets two of the invariant
planes and transforming them.
Figure #T10
It was observed above that the invariant tetrahedron may be semi-imaginary, having two invariant
points X and Y as in Figure #T10, two invariant planes and two invariant lines. In Figure #T10 the
invariant planes have been made parallel so that the second invariant line is at infinity. To
transform a point P, join XP as in Figure #T9 to meet the lower invariant plane in a point A, and join
YP to meet the upper invariant plane in B. Now the measures are required. In the top plane two
measures are required, one being a growth measure and the other, since there is only one invariant
point in the plane, a circling measure on the line at infinity (c.f. Figure $43). That leads B to B' via
a rotation for the circling measure and a radial expansion due to the growth measure. Similarly the
point A moves to A' via the same rotation and a different growth measure. Note that since APB lie
in a plane, A'P'B' must also as incidences are preserved, which is why the circling measures in the
top and bottom planes are the same. Thus the circling measure rotates the plane XYAB to XYA'B'.
Finally join XA' and YB' to meet in Q, the transform of P.
There is also a breathing measure induced between X and Y on the vertical axis e.g. by the
orthogonal radial intercepts through P and Q. If that is also changed to a circling measure then there
are no real invariant points at all, and all that is left of the tetrahedron are the two invariant lines i.e.
the vertical axis and the invariant line at infinity. Of course those lines may be anywhere provided
they are skew. This is the case mentioned earlier where the two twisted cubics 1 2 did not have a
common point. An example of a ruled hyperboloid formed by joining corresponding points of two
circling measures on the red and blue lines is shown in Figure #T11:
Figure #T11
This is a more general version of Figure $4 which used circling measures of equally space points to
produce a paraboloid.
Path Curves in Three Dimensions
Two dimensional path curves were described c.f. Figures $36 to $39. In three dimensions they are
referred to an invariant tetrahedron and pass between opposite vertices. Figure $37 showed an egg
form which is reproduced here with an added construction of a path curve constructed by points:
Figure #T11A
This can be regarded as a cross-section of an invariant tetrahedron as in Figure #T10 with a vertical
axis and two parallel horizontal invariant planes intersecting the page in the parallel lines of the
triangle. The growth measures on those lines are what was indicated in Figure #T10, but the
rotation of the circling measures needs explanation. A path curve in that figure would be obtained
by repeating the construction to produce points A" and B" and so on to go to the next point after Q
so that the points P Q ... would lie on a path curve winding round the vertical axis. It is clear that
two-dimensional spiral path curves would arise in the top and bottom planes because of the circling
measures, corresponding points of which would be joined to X and Y as were A and B. In Figure
$43 the spiral path curves were shown to be logarithmic spirals, which have the property that they
intersect any radial line through the pole in a geometric series, which is a growth measure c.f.
Figure $44 . That explains the growth measures in Figure #T11A which arise there as sections of
the spirals in the invariant planes. The construction with green lines shows a path curve constructed
with points, which is of the same family but a different maximum radius (what constitutes a family
will be explained later). This corresponds better with the three-dimensional constructions, as in
three dimensions it is clearer to construct the path curve by points rather than tangents. The method
follows Figure #T10, as shown in Figure #T12:
Figure #T12
The spirals in the top and bottom planes achieve the required measures of Figure #T10 because of
their property that rotations through equal angles result in a growth measure of the radii as in Figure
$43. X and Y are the invariant points and a line XA is drawn in the top plane intersecting the spiral
in A, and then Y is joined to A. To define a plane in the axis XY a line YA' is drawn in the lower
plane parallel to XA and intersecting the spiral in that plane in A'. Then X is joined to A' meeting
YA in the point P on the path curve. The plane is now rotated according to the circling measure,
meeting the top spiral in B and the bottom one in B', and then XB' and YB meet in the next point P'
on the path curve. This procedure is repeated to find the next point, and so on. The result is shown
in Figure #T13:
Figure #T13
Here a smaller angle for the circling measure is taken than in the previous construction, and the red
points describe the path curve, which winds round the axis from Y to X. Since the spirals take care
of both the growth and circling measures, any plane in the axis may be taken and its intercepts with
the spirals used to construct a point on the path curve. That shows that the path curve is continuous
even though it was initially constructed discretely. Notice that the two spirals, which are not the
same, are winding in opposite directions which results in the curve approaching both X and Y. A
calculated curve that fits the construction is shown in red. The profile is slightly egg-shaped, which
is only evident if the twisted curve is "unwound" by plotting a two-dimensional curve of height
against radius out from the axis. Figure #T14 shows that:
Figure #T14
The profile is found using the measures implied by the spirals on lines in the top and bottom planes.
It shows that the spiral lies in the surface of an egg-shape surface, for if the profile is rotated about
the vertical axis such a surface will be created, and clearly the path curve must lie in it.
Figure #T15
If the spirals wind in the same sense as shown in Figure #T15 then a vortex path curve is obtained
which has a profile like that in Figure $38. A calculated three dimensional vortex has been fitted to
the result. The practical use of path curves will be explained in a later section.
The dual aspect is where path curves arise from planes rather than points, which is the three
dimensional counterpart of path curves in two dimensions enveloped by lines such as in Figure
#T11A.
Figure #T16
Instead of starting with a point, a plane is to be transformed such as the blue one in Figure #T16. It
intersects the top and bottom invariant planes in the parallel lines u and v respectively. Then the
spirals touching u and v in those planes are found. The plane cuts the vertical axis in the point H
and touches the curve at the point P which lies in the plane of the diagram. The transformed (green)
plane is found by applying the circling measure to the lines u and v to give the parallel lines s and t
touching the same spirals, yielding a plane touching the curve at Q (not in the plane of the diagram).
The dual of a curve is a developable formed of planes, and here the path curve arises as the so-
called cuspidal edge of the developable as follows. Had a very small rotation of u and v been made
the point P would have moved a very short way round the path curve in either direction, so the
curve lies momentarily in the blue plane, which is thus an osculating plane of the curve. Generally
an osculating plane of a curve is such that the point of contact is momentarily moving in that plane.
The line PH is the normal to the curve which lies in the osculating plane while the line orthogonal
to the diagram at P is called the binormal. The normal, binormal and tangent are mutually
orthogonal vectors. The curve arises for very small angular rotations of the circling measure as the
locus of the points such as P. Formally, the cuspidal edge of the developable is the curve for which
the planes of the developable are its osculating planes. Recall that a developable is a single-
parameter set of planes which thus does not envelope a surface, but instead envelopes a curve as
it were.
So far the surface has been assumed to be circularly symmetrical about the vertical axis. This need
not be the case and any horizontal path curve may replace the circle. Shown below is a surface
composed of vertical vortex profiles through a spiral cross-section:
Line Geometry
So far geometric objects composed of points and planes have mostly been considered, but an
extensive part of projective geometry concerns assemblages of lines, which will only be sketched
here. The simplest configuration of lines is the flat pencil, and in three dimensions the regulus, each
composed of 1 lines. Also in a plane the 1 tangents to a conic are called a disc quadric. Now
there are 4 lines in space, for given two distinct planes meeting in a line k, any of the 2 points of
one not on k may be joined to any of the 2 points of the other not on k, yielding 4 lines without
duplication. There are also 3 lines meeting k as there is a bundle of 2 lines in each of its 1
points, but that adds a smaller infinitude to those already constructed and so the total remains 4.
Just as subsets of points may be taken to give lines, curves, planes and surfaces, so subsets of the
lines of space may be taken which may contain 1, 2 or 3 lines.
Figure #T17
A subset of 2 lines is called a line congruence, the simplest example of which consists of all the
lines in a bundle. That is a degenerate case and the simplest non-degenerate case consists of the
lines intesecting two skew lines called directrices (or bearer lines). For if those lines are p and q,
every point of p contains a flat pencil of 1 lines intersecting q, and there are 1 points on p. This
particular congruence is called a linear hyperbolic congruence. It is linear because through every
point of space not on a directrix there passes one and only one of its lines, while in any plane not
containing a directrix there lies one and only one of its lines. For, given a point X there is one line
of X intersecting both directrices since the planes [X,p] and [X,q] meet in one line. Dually an
arbitrary plane of space meets each directrix in a point, the join of those two points being the only
line of the congruence in that plane. This is an example of a (1,1) congruence, for it is of order 1
since it has one line in every point and of class 1 as it has one line in every plane. Linear
congruences are always (1,1). Two hyperbolic congruences with all directrices skew intersect in -
or share - the two transversals of the four directrices, unless the latter lie on a regulus in which case
they share that regulus.
If the directrices coincide in k then the congruence is defined by a correlation between the points
and planes of k, yielding the beautiful parabolic congruence or parabolic strip. As a point moves
along k its corresponding plane rotates about k with the point as the centre of a flat pencil in the
plane. A third kind is the elliptic congruence which has no real directrices.
Given two projective bundles of planes and <Q>, for each plane in there is a
corresponding plane in <Q> meeting in a line u, say. There are 2 planes in each bundle and
hence 2 lines like u determined by the projectivity, forming a congruence. Given any point X in
space there is an axial pencil {PX} which is projective with an axial pencil {QY}, say, noting that
the axis of {QY} need not contain X. They generate a regulus of lines one ruler of which will
contain X, so the order of the congruence is 1. But given a plane in space each bundle meets it in
all its lines and the projectivity between the bundles induces a projective transformation of . That
transformation has an invariant triangle of three self-corresponding lines which therefore belong to
the congruence, so it is a (1,3) congruence. It is closely related to the twisted cubic. For there is
one chord of a twisted cubic C in every point of space, and 1 points on such a chord, so there are
2 chords of a twisted cubic forming a (1,3) congruence. It is of order 1 because there is one chord
in every point, and of class 3 because C meets an arbitrarty plane in three points thus giving three
chords in that plane.
All the lines joining points on a conic and a straight

line form a (2,2) congruence. For, given a point in
space, it determines with the line a plane which meets
the conic in up to two points, and a plane meets the
conic in up to two points and is met by the line in one
point.
Now consider all the lines intersecting a given directrix k. There are 2 lines in every point of k
yielding 3 in all. Such a subset or assemblage of 3 lines is called a line complex. Given a point
X not on k, there is a flat pencil of lines in X intersecting k, while a plane not containing k meets k
in one point which is the centre of a flat pencil of lines of the complex in that plane. This is the
simplest of all complexes and is called a linear complex because it throws flat pencils in all points
and planes. If an arbitrary line p in space skew to k is chosen, there is a hyperbolic congruence of
lines with p and k as directrices, which thus belongs to the complex. Given any two skew lines p
and q which are both skew to k, there is a regulus of lines meeting k with p q and k as directrices,
which thus belongs to the complex. Every twisted cubic contains 1 chords in the complex, as there
is one chord through every point on k. Two such complexes with directrices m and n meet in a
hyperbolic congruence of lines with m and n as directrices. Three complexes with skew directrices
k m and n share a regulus determined by those directrices, while four complexes with skew
directrices share the two transversals of the directrices.
The above complex is known as a special linear complex.
There is one other type of linear complex which does not
have a directrix, called a general linear complex. It also
throws a flat pencil in every point and plane. Sylvester's1
method constructs such a complex from two non-coplanar
perspective pencils, centres A and B, say, such that AB is
self-corresponding. Then the lines of the complex are given
by the transversals of corresponding rays i.e. by 1
hyperbolic congruences. For, given a point P there are two
projective axial pencils {AP} and {BP} for which PAB is a
common self-corresponding plane, so the residual lines of
the regulus they generate form a flat pencil of lines in P
intersecting corresponding rays of {A} and {B}.
Figure #T18 Given a plane meeting the planes of the pencils in the lines
QU and QV, the pencils determine two perspective ranges on QU and QV since Q is self-
corresponding, and thus a pencil of lines of the complex in the plane QUV. Thus the complex is
linear, and general as no line can be a directrix k because that would determine with each pair of
corresponding rays of the flat pencils a regulus. Thus there would be 2 lines of the 1 reguli in k,
not 3.
A line p not belonging to the complex contains a flat pencil of complex lines in each of its points.
Take two such pencils {P} and {Q} say. Their planes intersect in a line p'. Now take a point R on
p'. It contains the two lines RP and RQ of the complex so the flat pencil of the complex in R must
contain p. That is true for all the points on p', and once those pencils are established the same
reasoning applies to the points of p i.e. every flat pencil in a point of p contains p'. Thus the lines of
the complex in a line not of the complex form a hyperbolic congruence.
The lines of a linear complex intersecting one of its own lines p form a parabolic congruence since
in every point of p there is a pencil of the complex which contains p, those pencils thus lying in the
axial pencil {p}. Clearly the range {P} of pencil centres is projective with their planes as the
correspondence is one-to-one and projective. Given a
line r at infinity the planes of {p} meet it in a range {R}
projective to {P}, a line RP being a line of the complex.
Now the planes orthogonal to p meet the ideal plane in
a line s. Such a plane meets p in a point P and s in a
point S, say, giving a line of the complex and
congruence SP=k orthogonal to p i.e. the lines of the
complex orthogonal to p meet the ideal plane in a line.
The axial pencils {p} and {s} meet in those lines which
thus form a regulus.
Given a plane containing a vertical line v of the regulus in the origin O, a regulus exists such that
when k becomes orthogonal to v it is at infinity. That is an important regulus that will be called the
prime regulus .
1 James Joseph Sylvester FRS (3 September 1814 15 March 1897)

Figure #T18B
There is a useful relation between the length OP and
the angle in the diagram. The line u in is
orthogonal to v, met by k in A. M is the point on u
where a vertical line through P meets it. The point P
can be seen as part of a growth measure on p, and
since the ranges {P} and {S} are projective that means
the points S where k meets s form a breathing measure
between the points sv and su on s. That breathing
measure is projected from P onto u as a growth
measure, so A corresponds to P in the projective
measures on u and p. The length OP=mh for the multiplier m of the growth measure applied to a
constant h of a reference point. Similarly MA=m'h' for a corresponding reference point on u. The
length MA = MPcot = m'h'. Now (m'h')(mh) = n is constant as m and m' vary together, so
MPcot = nmh = nOP. Thus cot is proportional to OP in the prime regulus.
If an involution exists between the rulers of a regulus then a linear complex may also be generated
by the lines meeting corresponding pairs of rulers. For, a plane intersects the regulus in a conic
the points of which are in involution, so the joins of corresponding points on the conic form a flat
pencil in . Given a point P the planes subtended in P by two pairs of corresponding rulers generate
two lines in P determining a plane, and the lines of the complex in that plane form a flat pencil
which is centred on P as it contains two lines in P.
In particular, given a prime regulus, an involution exists between rulers in points P and P'
equidistant from O on either side of it, as the points O P P' and the point at infinity on p are
harmonic.
Generally two linear complexes intersect in a linear congruence. In every point of space there are
two flat pencils, one of each complex, which share one line in general, and similarly in every plane
there are two flat pencils sharing a line, so the shared lines form a (1,1) congruence.
Sylvester's Theorem shows that there is a pencil of hyperbolic congruences forming a general linear
complex.
The next type of complex is a quadratic complex which
throws quadratic cones in points and disc quadrics in
planes. A simple example consists of all the tangents to a
quadric surface, for its tangent lines in a point form a cone,
while a plane intersecting it contains a disc quadric of
tangents to its conic in that plane. An important type of
quadratic complex is formed of all the lines intersecting the
faces of a tetrahedron in a given cross-ratio. It relates
closely to path curves, for a transformation of space leaves
the invariant tetrahedron T fixed but transforms a line p into
another line p' which must meet T in the same cross-ratio as
p since cross-ratio is preserved by projective
transformations. Thus the tangents to a path curve all have the same cross-ratio as they transform
into one another, and so belong to a tetrahedral complex. It may be constructed by a generalisation
of Sylvester's method where given two projective flat pencils in two planes, again the lines of the
complex are those of the hyperbolic congruences with corresponding rays of the pencils as
directrices. The pencils meet the common line k of the planes in two projective ranges having two
double points C and D, giving a tetrahedron ABCD. There is an axial pencil {AB} in the line AB in
which the projective pencils determine a projectivity, the two invariant planes being ABC and ABD.
A line p of the complex meets four planes of {AB}: two where it intersects two corresponding rays
of the flat pencils, and also ABC and ABD. Another line p' of the complex meeting the same
corresponding rays meets the same four planes and thus p and p' meet the four planes of the
tetrahedron in the same cross ratio. Thus all the lines of a congruence in two corresponding rays
meet the tetrahedron in the same cross-ratio. Now the congruences need to be related, which
requires a special case as follows. The original line p meets the planes ABC and ABD in two points
U and V, say, giving two lines CU and DV in the planes ABC and ABD. Given two corresponding
rays r and s for another congruence, there are two transversals of the lines r s CU and DV one of
which is t, say. Then t meets ABC on CU and ABD on DV. The ranges in which p and t meet the
tetrahedron are then in axial perspective via the axial pencil {CD}, since pairs of corresponding
points lie in the planes ACD BCD UCD and VCD (e.g. where p and t meet ACD). Thus those
ranges are projective (c.f. Figure #T3) and hence have the same cross-ratio. Then all the other lines
of the congruence containing t meet the tetrahedron in the same cross-ratio as t, as shown above.
The same reasoning applies to all the congruences, so all lines of the complex meet the tetrahedron
in the same cross-ratio, thus proving that a tetrahedral complex has been generated by the
transversals of corresponding rays of two non-coplanar projective pencils. As in Figure #18 a
general plane meets the two planes of the pencils in lines containing projective ranges which in this
case generate a disc quadric, making the complex quadratic.
Two quadratic complexes intersect in a (4,4) congruence, for in a general point there are two cones
with up to four common rulers in general, while in a plane the two disc quadrics may share up to
four tangents in general. A linear complex meets a quadratic one in a (2,2) congruence, for in any
point the flat pencil of the first may share up to two lines with the cone of the second, while in any
plane the flat pencil and disc quadric likewise may share up to two lines.
Polarity in Line Systems
Polarity with respect to a general linear complex is twofold: linewise and between points and
planes. The latter is simple. Given a flat pencil of the complex in a plane or point, the plane is said
to be polar to the centre of the pencil. It is clearly self-dual. Given a line p not belonging to the
complex, there are flat pencils in all its points which belong to a hyperbolic congruence as already
proved. p is a directrix of the congruence and the planes of those pencils form an axial pencil in the
other directrix p', defined as the polar of p. From that it is clear that the polarity is mutual i.e. p is
the polar of p'.
A line p of the complex is self-polar since the points of p are polar to the planes of the axial pencil
{p}, every such plane containing a flat pencil of the complex with its centre on p since p belongs to
that pencil.
For a quadratic complex polarity with respect to a disc quadric is

involved. Given a line p not of the complex, in each of its planes
there is a disc quadric, and a point P which is the pole of p with
respect to the conic enveloped by that disc quadric. The axial pencil
in p thus determines a range of poles such as P which lie on a straight
line p', the polar of p. For, given a point R on p, a disc quadric of the
axial pencil {p} contains two lines u and v in R such that RP and p
separate u and v harmonically since P is the polar of p. There are two
lines in R such as u and v for every disc quadric in {p}, forming a
cone in R since the complex lines in a point form a cone. Thus the
lines such as RP are all harmonic to p with respect to that cone, and
thus so are the poles of p on them. But the points harmonic to a cone with respect to a line
themselves form a conjugate line as was seen for quadrics in general (c.f. Figure #T8A following)
i.e. the poles P with respect to the disc quadrics lie on a line as claimed. Unlike for the linear
complex, polarity need not be reciprocal which means the polar of p' need not be p but a third line
p. That is the case for a tetrahedral complex, and the sequence of polars starting from p lie on a
regulus for which its tetrahedron is self-polar. That is proved in Appendix #F.
Note that every disk quadric of the above pencil lies within the cone, so their aggregate forms a
quadric, as the above reasoning is true for all choices of R on p.
The Null System
It was shown above that a general linear complex establishes a polarity between the points and
planes of space, determined by its flat pencils in planes where the centre of such a pencil was
defined as the pole of its plane. This is of a special kind called a null polarity as it is the only linear
contact correlation. By that is meant that poles and polars are incident, for the pole of a plane lies
in that plane and vice versa. This contrasts with the polarity described earlier (c.f. Figure #T8)
where that was not the case. The lines of the associated linear complex are called null lines, and are
self-polar since the axial pencil in such a line contains flat pencils all of whose centres lie on the
line because they must contain it. Other lines have distinct polar lines as was shown, and polarity
between them is reciprocal. In the Eighteenth Century G. Monge showed that the null system has
an important application to systems of forces, where the lines of action of pairs of forces equivalent
to a given pair are conjugate lines of a null polarity. These results will be proved later.
There is a flat pencil of the linear complex associated with a null system in the plane at infinity, and
the centre P of that pencil determines a set of parallel lines which are called the diameters of the
system. Thus there is a diameter through every point of space. The line conjugate to a diameter d
lies in the plane at infinity, for each complex pencil in a plane of d contains a complex line at
infinity, so the centre of that pencil is at infinity. Thus the centres of all the pencils in the planes of
d lie at infinity, and as they lie on the polar line of d that line must be at infinity.
Figure #T18A
A null system is determined by the choice of three planes and their
poles A B and G provided the point lies in the plane ABG but not on a
side of ABG. The diagram shows the three planes and points and a general
plane (yellow) meeting the line in the point U and in V. The lines
AB and are conjugate lines by definition so the poles of the axial pencil
{AB} lie on and vice versa, and similalarly for AG and , and BG and
. The axial pencil in AB meets in a flat pencil one line u of which
contains the point U where meets . Since the poles of the planes in
{AB} lie on and each such plane contains its pole, U and ABU are pole
and polar. Since contains the pole of ABU the latter must contain the
pole of , which must therefore lie on u. Similarly one plane of {AG}
meets in a line v through the point V where meets , the pole of
lying on v. Thus the pole of is the point P=uv. Hence the pole of every
plane may be found, and consequently the null system is fully defined. In a given null system
three planes meet in a point X whose polar plane must contain the poles A B and G of and
respectively i.e. X lies in ABG. However if X lies on AB, say, then A X B are collinear in which
case so are and , in which case the above proof would fail as then =. Of importance for
later on, however, is that the proof remains valid if X coincides with A B or G.
Algebraic Projective Geometry
A full account of the algebraic approach to projective geometry is given by Semple and Kneebone,
especially with regard to certain rigorous aspects of allowable representations of coordinate
systems. Here a brief sketch of the subject will be given and the validity of the use of real and
complex numbers will be assumed without recourse to non-commutative or other more limited
bases.
In coordinate geometry each point in space is assigned three coordinates representing its position
with respect to a reference system of rectangular coordinates. The numbers involved are real
numbers representing lengths. So far projective geometry has been described as embedded in a flat
Euclidean frame of reference, see Appendices #A and #B. The Euclidean plane and then space have
been augmented by the addition of ideal elements to secure universality of the axioms of incidence,
and the problems associated with the parallel axiom were dismissed for that reason as unnecessary
for projective geometry. That is valid for pure projective geometry but such issues become
important for metric geometry.
Ideal points are not readily handled by length-based coordinates as the handling of infinity becomes
problematic e.g. assigning coordinates ( ) for an ideal point provides no useful information
about it e.g. in which direction it lies in space. Traditionally the coordinate system was extended to
homogeneous coordinates e.g. based on a barycentric analogy which replaces the non-projective
notion of length by another non-projective notion viz weight. As no rigour is thereby attained and
weight is no more projective than is length, here a straight forward extension to homogeneous
coordinates will be made without spurious justifications.
Consider the point P in two dimensions with coordinates (x y).

The direction of the point may be represented by the gradient of
the line OP i.e. by y/x. If P goes to infinity along the line OP its
location ceases to be well defined but it still lies in a well
defined direction which the coordinates can no longer express.
To remedy that the coordinates are extended to homogeneous
coordinates (x y w) such that the cartesian coordinates in the x
and y directions are defined to be x/w and y/w, the coordinates
then being (x y 1), noting that x and y then represent lengths again. This brings in ratios and now
the point at infinity in the direction of OP is represented by (x y 0). An attempt to revert to cartesian
coordinates fails as they would be the improper numbers x/0 and y/0, BUT, the direction of OP has
successfully been retained i.e. y/x, albeit it is improper if x=0, but that improper ratio does now
have meaning. The coordinate (0 y w) means that the point lies on the y-axis while (x 0 w) means it
lies on the x-axis. Since (x y 0) means that the point lies on the ideal line at infinity, by analogy that
line is taken to be a third coordinate axis, so homogeneous coordinates are referred to a triangle of
reference. The analogy is imperfect, though, as (0 y w) refers to points not on the x-axis but on the
y-axis, whereas (x y 0) refers to points on the ideal line.
The final step, then, is to extend the Euclidean plane to the
projective plane so that the ideal line becomes just another
line, and to redefine the homogeneous coordinates so that
(0 y w) lies on the x-axis and similarly (x 0 w) lies on the
y-axis. In projective geometry the triangle of reference may
be taken as any convenient triangle e.g. for two-
dimensional transformations it is often taken to be the
invariant triangle. The meaning of (x y w) becomes harder
to visualise, but one way is to regard the coordinates as the
ratios of the separations of the lines OP, XP and YP. Thus
(0 y w) gives a point on the x-axis located at a position in the ratio y:w along that axis, whereas on
the y-axis the ratio is x:w=0 and on the w-axis it is x:y=0. Generally the point is located on the
lines OP, XP and YP such that YP meets the x-axis in the ratio y:w, XP meets the y-axis in the ratio
x:w and OP meets the third axis in the ratio x:y. This fully realises the starting point that directions
may be represented by ratios, and the coordinates should represent that. The actual ratios are now
undefined in other terms, although in practice they are ratios of distances or of angles. Reversion to
cartesian coordinates now means the x-coordinate is y/w and the cartesian y-coordinate is x/w.
Finally, (kx ky kw) where k is a non-zero constant represents the same point as (x y w) since it
yields the same ratios. There is no point (0 0 0). The vertices of the reference triangle have the
coordinates O=(0 0 1), X=(0 1 0) and Y=(1 0 0) as e.g. for (0 0 kw) k may be taken as 1/w.
Linear Equations
The linear equation ax+by+cw=0 represents a straight line in the plane, where a b c are constants.
For, reverting to cartesian coordinates the equation is ay'+bx'+c=0 where x'=y/w and y'=x/w, which
is the well known equation of a straight line. If c=0 then x/y=-b/a i.e. the ratio x:y is constant which
means the equation represents the line OP in the above diagram, and similarly if a or b is zero it
represents YP or XP. Otherwise the three points in which it meets the sides of the triangle are given
by -b/a, -c/a and -c/b.
If x y and w are held constant giving a point P, and a b and c are varied to satisfy the above
equation, clearly each valid triple a b c gives the equation of a line containing P. Thus a b c can be
regarded as the coordinates of those lines i.e. the equation is that of a flat pencil.
Replacing x y and z by x0 x1 and x2, and a b and c by k0 k1

2
and k2 the equation becomes k j x j=0 and neatly
0
encapsulates the law of duality between points and lines in
the plane as it is symmetrical in kj and xj, the line and flat-
pencil being dual. The vertices of the re-arranged triangle
now have the coordinates X2=(0 0 1) when x0=x1=0,
X1=(0 1 0) and X0=(1 0 0).
The coordinate lines have the equations X2X0: x1=0, X2X1: x0=0 and X0X1: x2=0, which is clear from
the diagram but may be verified using equation (%1) below.
The line joining the points A=(a0 a1 a2) and B=(b0 b1 b2), or aj and bj, is found by solving for the k j
from the two equations kjaj=0 and kjbj=0 to give
( a 1 b2 a2 b1 ) x 0+ ( a2 b0 a0 b2 ) x 1+ ( a0 b1 a1 b0 ) x 2=0 (%1)
Note that symbols such as xj in isolation indicate a point or line with coordinates x 0 x1 and x2, the
symbol j having no fixed value and merely serving to indicate that x is like a vector.
If (x0 x1 x2)=(a0 a1 a2) then equation (%1) is satisfied (by design) and also for (x 0 x1 x2)=(b0 b1 b2).
Now consider the point (a0+b0 a1+b1 a2+b2) substituted in (%1). Abbreviating (%1) to
Ex0+Fx1+Gx2=0 gives Ea0+Fa1+Ga2+Eb0+Fb1+Gb2 = Ea0+Fa1+Ga2+(Eb0+Fb1+Gb2)=0, so
(a0+b0 a1+b1 a2+b2) is a point on the line distinct from a j and bj, more conveniently represented as
aj+bj or as A+B. When =0 it is aj and when = it is bj. Although it is customary to accept the
for brevity and convenience, if for any reason that is undesirable then the points on the line
joining aj and bj may be expressed as aj+bj as that also satisfies (%1). Some expositions of the
subject start with the idea of multiplying symbols for points such as A by numbers, which on the
face of it is meaningless, but is satisfactory if A is taken to stand for a j. This use of a parameter has
wide and important application in the algebraic study of projective geometry, and the first use it will
be put to now is how cross-ratio is calculated from the coordinates of points.
Cross-ratio
Recall that the cross ratio of a range of four points A B C D is given by
( AC)/( AD)
(BC)/(BD)
where e.g. A-C represents the signed distance between the points A and C. Since the points lie on a
line they may be represented by M+AN, M+BN, M+CN and M+DN in terms of two points M and
N defining the line they inhabit. The cross ratio is then
( A C ) / ( A D )
(%2)
( B C ) / ( B D )
To justify this, note that the length A-C is derived from the cartesian coordinates a0/a2 and a1/a2 of A,
2 2
and similarly for C, giving ( a0 /a2c 0 /c 2 ) + ( a 1 /a2c 1 /c 2 ) . Now aj=mj+Anj and cj=mj+Cnj so
the length is
( m0 + A n0 m0+ C n0 2 m1+ A n 1 m1 + C n 1 2

m2 + A n2 m2+ C n2
2
)(
+
2
)
m2+ A n 2 m2 + C n 2
( m2 n0m0 n2 ) + ( m2 n1m1 n 2 ) ( A C )
=
( m2 + A n2 ) ( m2 + C n 2)
The square root term will be the same for A-D, B-A and B-D and so will cancel in the cross-ratio,
and the denominators will cancel between them, leaving (%2) as claimed. When length is not
admitted in pure projective geometry expression (%2) is still valid but on other bases depending
upon the axioms adopted.
Two lines A+B and C+D intersect in a point P such that P=A+B=C+D. This implies the three
equations
a0+b0=c0+d0
a1+b1=c1+d1
a2+b2=c2+d2
and as they are homogeneous it is only necessary to solve the first two for and :
( a0 d 1a1 d 0 )+ ( c 1 d 0c 0 d 1 )
=
( b1 d 0b 0 d 1 )
(%3)
( a0 b1 a1 b0 ) + ( b0 c 1b1 c 0 )
=
( b1 d 0b 0 d 1 )
and then substituting in A+B or C+D to give P.
Conics
The equation of a conic in cartesian coordinates is ax 2+by2+2cxy+2dx+2ey+f=0, which is converted

to homogeneous coordinates by replacing x by x 0/x2 and y by x1/x2 to give the projective equation
2 2 2
a x 0 +b x 1+ f x 2+2 c x 0 x 1 +2 d x 0 x2 +2 e x 1 x 2=0. Given a line kjxj=0 and substituting for x1 gives a
quadratic equation in x0/x2 and thus the two points in which the line meets the conic. If the roots are
equal then the line is a tangent, if complex then the line does not meet the conic of course, but that
suggests an extension of the projective plane to include imaginary points represented by those roots.
More on that later. If x2=0 then solution of the equation a x 20 +b x 21+ 2c x 0 x 1=0 gives the points
(x0 x1 0) in which the conic meets the ideal line at infinity. If the roots are real and distinct the curve
is a hyperbola, if equal the curve is a parabola touching the ideal line, while if complex then it is an
ellipse. The equation was written in the above form so that it may be expressed as a matrix
equation (see Appendix #H for an explanation of matrices):
[ ][ ]
a c d x0
[ 0 1 2 ] c b e x 1 =0
x x x (%4)
d e f x2
where the conic is now represented by the symmetrical matrix of constants. This equation may be
denoted by ijxixj=0 where represents the matrix so that 00=a, 01=10=c etc., and summation is
assumed for repeated suffices e.g. ijxixj=0jx0xj+1jx1xj+2jx2xj. Then 0jx0xj=00x0x0+01x0x1+02x0x2
etc. giving finally 00x02+11x12+22x22+201x0x1+202x0x2+212x1x2=0 since the matrix is symmetrical
with ij=ji when i j. This recovers the equation of the conic with a=00, b=11 etc.
Since the square matrix in equation (%4) contains six homogeneous unknowns, five points no four
of which are collinear suffice to determine a conic, for five points give five independent equations
from (%4) which may be solved for the ratios a/f b/f c/f d/f and e/f provided f is not zero. Else take
say a/b.
Suppose now two conics are given, say ijxixj=0 and ijxixj=0, then a pencil of conics is given by
ijxixj+ijxixj=0 since ijxixj+ijxixj=(ij+ij)xixj=0 which is another conic with the matrix
[ ]
00 + 00 10+ 10 20 + 20
01 + 01 11+ 11 21 + 21
02 + 02 12+ 12 22 + 22
As varies a pencil of conics arises as each is clearly distinct from the others. The reason it is a
pencil is that if zj is a common point of the conics, then ijzizj=0 and ijzizj=0 so (ij+ij)zizj=0 i.e. zj
is shared by all the conics of the pencil. It is often convenient to represent a conic by S and a pencil
by S1+S2.
Polarity
Suppose yj is a fixed point not on the conic ij. Take any line yj+zj that intersects the conic. Then
the equation ij(yi+zi)(yj+zj)=0 gives ijyiyj+2ijyjzi+2ijzizj=0 (the Joachimstal equation). There
are two values 0 and 1 satisfying this for which yj+zj lies on the conic. If zj is such that 0+1=0
then the parameters of yj zj and the points on the conic are 0 0 and -0 . Their cross-ratio is -1,
using (%2), so that yj and zj then separate the intercepts with the conic harmonically and are thus
conjugate points. Since the sum of the roots of the quadratic equation is zero, ijyjzi=0 (theory of
quadratic equations). Then zi lies on the line qi=ijyj which is thus the polar line of y j, as any line
through yj could be taken and zj found on that line to give equal roots as above. It follows that the
polar line of a point yj is ijyj. If yj lies on the conic then ijyiyj=0 so yj lies on its polar line which is
thus a tangent to the conic.
A matrix may have an inverse (like a reciprocal) such that ijjk=Iik where I is the unit matrix
[ ]
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 1
for which Ijj=1 and Iij=0 for ij, provided the determinant of is not zero (See Appendix #H).
Notice that summation occurs over one suffix to give a 3x3 matrix which is the unit matrix I in this
case. Multiplying any matrix by I leaves it unchanged e.g. Irsxs=xr as I0sxs=I00x0+I01x1+I02x2=x0 since
I01=I02=0, and similarly I1sxs=x1 and I2sxs=x2.
For yj lying on , and noting that jrrsys=Ijsys=yj, ijyiyj=(ijyi)yj=(ijyi)(jrrsys)=jr(ijyi)(rsys)=0.

Thus jr represents the conic by its tangents since ijyi and rsys both represent the tangent at the
point Y=yj. So rshrhs=0 is the dual equation of the conic where h r is a variable tangent, and is
known as a class conic. Dually for polarity, the point rsgr is the pole of a line gr not touching .
If yj describes a conic jk so that jkyjyk=0, then the figure polar to jk is derived as follows:
jk y j y k = jk ( jr rs y s ) ( kv vu y u )
= jk jr kv ( rs y s ) ( vu y u )
=kr kv ( rs y s )( vu y u )
= rv ( rs y s ) ( vu y u )=0
where the matrices jk and jr were multiplied to give kr which was then multiplied by kv to give
the matrix rv. Since rsys and uvyv represent the line polar to a point yj with respect to , rv
represents a class conic with those lines as tangents. Thus the polar of a conic is a class conic c.f.
Figure $47.
Transformations
A polarity effects a transformation, namely a correlation between points and lines, and two distinct
polarities combine to produce a collineation. Thus the point y j was transformed into the plane ijyj.
A class quadric is will transform a line hs into a point ishs, so if hs= sjyj then the collineation issjyj
yields a point, for issjyj = ijyj = zi, say. Thus the matrix ij represents a collineation transforming
yj into zi. This is a short cut to establishing that a transformation of the plane is a linear
transformation represented by a square 3x3 matrix. Dually a collineation transforming lines into
lines comes from transforming a line h j by ij to give a point yi=ijhj, and then transforming yi by ij
to give the line gs=siijhj=sjhj. The invariant points vj are given by ijvj = vj, the factor allowing
for the fact that the coordinates are homogeneous so v j is the same point as vj i.e. vj is invariant as
it is transformed into itself. In the theory of matrices v j is called a latent-vector or eigen-vector of
the matrix ij, and for a 3x3 matrix there are three of them (c.f. Appendix #H), giving three invariant
points as was proved before c.f. Figure $34.
ij above is not the most general case as it is a symmetrical matrix since ij and ij represented
conics. Any non-symmetrical matrix also represents a projective transformation. These
transformations are linear since no elements are raised to higher powers than 1, which is why
projective transformations are called linear transformations.
If a transformation is based on coordinates referred to the
invariant triangle then it may take place in three steps. Given a
point P=xj, first move it along the line X 0P to a new position P0
with coordinates (x'0 x1 x2)=(ax0 x1 x2), say. Then move P0 along
the line X1P0 to P1 with coordinates (ax0 bx1 x2) and finally move
P1 along X2P1 to the transformed position P2 with coordinates
(ax0 bx1 cx2) for suitable a b and c. This transformation may be
represented by the matrix multiplication:
[ ][ ] [ ]
a x0 x'0
b x1 = x ' 1
c x2 x '2
where the zeros are not shown. The transformation matrix is thus a diagonal matrix. Hence if the
coordinates are referred to the invariant triangle then ij is a diagonal matrix such that an element
ij=0 if ij, and the elements jj are distinct (unlike for Ijj). Such a diagonal transformation is called a
canonical transformation and is clearly much easier to work with. Iij then represents the identity
transformation.
Applying this to a polarity with coordinates referred to the invariant triangle, the matrix ij
representing the conic must be a diagonal one, and it follows that the equation of a conic referred to
the invariant triangle as reference triangle is 00x02+11x12+22x22=0 as ij=0 for ij, which is the
canonical equation of a conic. Clearly 00 11 and 22 must not all be of the same sign if there are to
be real solutions of the equation.
Three Dimensions
The above theory generalises to three dimensions very easily. A point now has the homogeneous
3
coordinates (x0 x1 x2 x3) where x3=0 for the ideal plane at infinity. The equation k j x j=0
0
where the kj are four constants does not represent a line, as in two dimensions, but a plane. For, the
points P on a plane may be found from three fixed points A B and C by
taking a point X=B+C on BC and then the point P = A+X
=A+(B+C)=A+B+C, setting =. This gives the four equations
x0=a0+b0+c0
x1=a1+b1+c1
x2=a2+b2+c2
x3=a3+b3+c3
Solving the first two for and gives
( x 0 c1x 1 c 0 ) + ( a 0 c1a1 c 0 )
=
( b0 c 1b1 c 0 )
( x0 b 1x1 b 0 )+ ( a0 b1 a1 b0 )
=
( b 1 c 0 b0 c 1 )
They may be expressed as =r1x0+s1x1+t1 and =u1x0+v1x1+w1 where r1=c1/(b0c1-b1c0) etc. Solving
the third and fourth equations for and yields similar equations, replacing suffices 0 by 2 and 1
by 3, which again may be re-expressed as =r2x2+s2x3+t2 and =u2x2+v2x3+w2. Equating the
equations for gives r1x0+s1x1-r2x2-s2x3+t1-t2=0, and dividing by t1-t2: rx0+sx1+r'x2+s'x3+1=0,
defining r s r' s' accordingly. Similarly equating the equations for gives ux0+vx1+u'x2+v'x3+1=0.
Finally, equating these two gives (r-u)x0+(s-v)x1+(r'-u')x2+(s'-v')x3=0, which is a linear equation in
3
the xj. Hence k j x j=0 represents a plane for constant kj, and if instead xj is held constant for
0
a fixed point X then varying the k j gives the planes containing X, so the k j may be taken as the
coordinates of a plane and again duality is beautifully expressed, this time between a plane of points
and a bundle of planes.
If x1=x2=0 then the equation gives k0x0+k3x3=0, so x0/x3=-k3/k0 is where the

plane intercepts a coordinate axis, and similarly for x1 and x2, and for a
cartesian system the plane given by the plane coordinates may be
visualised as in the diagram, the plane being represented by the red
triangle.
Lines are most readily handled with a parameter e.g. as x j=yj+zj, although
it is possible to define coordinates of a line. Axial pencils may be handled
similarly, where x y and z are then planes. Thus a line has coordinates (x0+y0 x1+y1 x2+y2 x3+y3)
noting that all the coordinates are linear functions of , and any variable point may be expressed in
such a form provided more than one coordinate is variable. For, suppose the point is
(x0+y0 x1 x2 x3)=(x0 x1 x2 x3)+(y0 0 0 0) then since (y0 0 0 0)(1 0 0 0) the point is actually fixed.
Now consider the points (x0+2y0 x1+y1 x2+y2 x3+y3). They meet a fixed plane (a b c d) in points
satisfying ax0+a2y0 bx1+by1 cx2+cy2 dx3+dy3=0 which is a quadratic equation with two roots, so
there are two points in every plane and thus the points lie on a conic. Hence in general a curve may
be represented in this way its order being that of the highest order of the parameter. Twisted cubics
and quartics, for example, may be represented thus.
Using similar reasoning as for conics, a quadric is given by a 4x4 symmetrical matrix ij where i
and j range from 0 to 3. There are 10 homogeneous unknowns in ij as it is symmetrical, so 9
suitable points determine a quadric. A class quadric is given by ijhihj=0 where hj is a variable
tangent plane. When the coordinates are referred to the invariant tetrahedron as tetrahedron of
reference then the canonical equation of a quadric is 00x02+11x12+22x22+33x32=0, similar to the
case demonstrated earlier for conics. There are three kinds of quadric in pure projective geometry
depending upon the signs of the ij. If one of the ij is negative then the quadric is an ellipsoid,
noting that for pure projective geometry there is no ideal plane. If two are negative then it is ruled,
while if all are positive (or all negative) then it has no real points and is called an imaginary quadric.
The ruled case arises as follows. The equation becomes 00x02-11x12=22x22-33x32, to take one of the
three distinct cases. The two sides factorise giving (ax0-bx1)(ax0+bx1)=(cx2-dx3)(cx2+dx3) where
a2=00 etc.. The points given by ax0-bx1=0 lie on a line, and since that line implies x 2=x3=0 the right
hand side is also zero and thus the equation is satisfied. Hence that line lies on the quadric. But a
quadric containing one line is necessarily ruled.
If an ideal plane at infinity is singled out then the ellipsoid case gives rise to proper ellipsoids,
paraboloids and hyperboloids e.g. if 11<0 then 00x02-11x12+22x22=33x32 and for x3=0 the residual
equation is 00x02+22x22=11x12 giving a conic on the plane at infinity, and hence a hyperboloid of
two sheets intersecting the ideal plane in that conic.
The polar plane of a point yj is given by the same expression ijyj, the reasoning being identical to
the two dimensional case, the Joachimstal equation now having indices ranging from 0 to 3. ijyj
represents the polar plane of yj.
Three dimensional transformations are represented by 4x4 matrices based on similar reasoning as
for two dimensions, and have four latent vectors giving the four invariant points of the invariant
tetrahedron.
Line Geometry
Ideally line geometry requires the introduction of line coordinates, but to avoid a lengthy digression
lines will be handled in parametric form.
The regulus has been seen to be represented canonically by e.g. 00x02-11x12-22x22+33x32=0 where
two of the terms are negative.
The generation of a regulus, and in particular the prime regulus, was
shown earlier, and will now be used to construct an elliptic congruence.
If a prime regulus is rotated about the vertical axis a congruence of 2 lines

is obtained. For each radius OP a regulus arises, and clearly those reguli
do not intersect, so through every point of space there passes just one line.
An arbitrary plane intersects two given planes and in two lines v and
u' respectively. The reguli meet and in corresponding
points so that the join of two such points is a ruler of a
regulus. To the line u' in there corresponds a line u in
meeting v in a point P. There is a point P' on u' in
corresponding to P, and the line PP' is thus a ruler of a
regulus. As u and v only meet in one point there is only one
such ruler in . Thus the congruence is linear (1,1). Since
no two lines of the congruence intersect it cannot be
hyperbolic or parabolic and so is elliptic. It has an axis
which is the vertical line through O and is easily visualised
as composed of reguli all sharing that axis, which grow in
diameter from a singular one consisting of the axis itself to
another singular one consisting of the line at infinity
conjugate to the axis, an intermediate regulus having all its
rulers intersecting a circle at a fixed angle to the waist
plane OPR. There are many ways of regarding this congruence. For example instead of circles in
the waist plane, concentric ellipses all with the same eccentricity determine a set of elliptic reguli,
or concentric hyperbolae all having the same eccentricity determine a set of hyperbolic reguli
making up the congruence. A parabolic version consists of parabolae in the waist plane passing
from a degenerate one in a line k through O to another degenerate one in the line orthogonal to k:
George Adams (Ref. Adams) made a special study of this congruence, and worked with lemniscates
in the waist plane:
An interesting finding of his is that if such a lemniscate is projected onto the vertical plane
orthogonal to its axis using the lines of the congruence a circle is obtained:
The figure above shows a calculated image of the green congruence lines projecting the lemniscate.
Figure #T18C
On the left is an extract of the above diagram clarifying

how the projection works. The circle intersects the
lemniscate at its extremities. Starting at O with the
turquoise lines of the congruence, as they progress
round the lemniscate the points on the circle move
round from B, and so on. The movements round the
lemniscate and circle are continuous. A metrical proof
is given in Appendix #I. The idea of using a linear
congruence instead of a star of lines to project a figure
is an interesting one which is one reason for exhibiting
an example here. Any figure either flat or three
dimensional may be projected in this way.
Now for complexes. Recall that there is a close relationship between the linear complex and the
null system, the latter being the polarity between points and planes established by the flat pencils of
a linear complex. It will now be treated in some detail as it has important applications. Suppose
there is a transformation matrix ij such that the plane hi=ijxj is incident with xj i.e. hixi=0 which in
turn means ijxjxi=0. A symmetrical matrix for a conic satisfies this for its points, but not for all
points of space. If however ij is skew symmetrical, meaning that ij = -ji in which case jj=0, then
expanding and omitting zero terms gives:
01x0x1+02x0x2+03x0x3+12x1x2+13x1x3+23x2x3 + 10x1x0+20x2x0+30x3x0+21x2x1+31x3x1+32x3x2=0
because ijxixj+jixjxi=0. Thus a skew-symmetrical matrix expresses a contact correlation in which a
point lies in its transformed plane for all points of space. Given a point x j its polar plane is ijxj, and
if yi is another point lying in that plane then ijxjyi=0 so the line xj+yj belongs to the linear complex
associated with the null system, and is a null-line. The pole of the plane h i=ijxj is xj as pole and
polar always coincide, so the pole of hi is kihi i.e. kiijxj=xk so transforming planes uses the inverse
of ij.
The ideal plane j has the coordinates (0 0 0 1) so that any point at infinity (x0 x1 x2 0) lies in it.
Now the pole P of the ideal plane is ijj = i33 = (03 13 23 0) and the flat pencil {P} of null
lines in the plane at infinity is centred on it. Any other line containing P is called a diameter of the
system. The diameter through a point x j is (x0+03 x1+13 x2+23 x3) where is a parameter. Its
conjugate line is in the ideal plane because it contains the centre of {P } and so its conjugate line
must lie in the plane of that pencil. Clearly all diameters are parallel.
Any plane orthogonal to the diameters meets the ideal plane in a line k which intersects the pencil
{P} and thus has its conjugate line through P i.e. is a diameter. Thus there exists one diameter d
through P for which the parallel planes in its conjugate line k are orthogonal to it, known as the
axis of the null system. A rectangular cartesian system will now be used to derive some of the
significant properties of a null system. It was shown before that three points and their polar planes
may be chosen to determine a null system, so the plane at infinity and P will now be chosen
together with two other plane/point pairs.
Let, then, the null system be defined as follows (Figure #T19):
1. The axis d is the vertical coordinate line joining the points (0 0 0 1) and (0 1 0 0 0).
2. The polar plane of the origin (0 0 0 1) is the OXZ plane (0 1 0 0).
3. The polar plane of the point (1 0 0 0) is the OXY plane (0 0 1 0).
4. The common point X of the chosen planes does lie in the plane OXY and coincides with the
vertex X, so the required condition is met for the above choice to yield a valid null system (c.f.
Figure #T18A).
For ease of reference, note that the plane (1 0 0 0) is opposite the vertex (1 0 0 0) etc.;
then P is the point Y in the ideal plane XYZ (brought onto the page for clarity);
Figure #T19
d is the line (0+03 0+13 0+23 1)=(0 13 0 1).
Thus 03=23=0. The flat pencil of the complex with
(0 0 0 1) as its centre lies in the horizontal plane OXZ,
by design, because OX is a null line. The plane polar
to O=(0 0 0 1) is i3x3=(03 13 23 0) since x3=1 is the
only non-zero element of O, which is defined as
(0 1 0 0) so 03=23=0. The plane polar to X=(1 0 0 0)
is i0x0=(0 10 20 30) which has been defined as
(0 0 1 0) so 10=30=0. Finally the plane polar to
Y=(0 1 0 0) is i1x1=(01 0 21 31)=(0 0 0 1) so
01=21=0, giving the null polarity as
[ ]
1
0 0 02 0
[ ]
0 0 02 0 1
0 0 0 13 0 0 0 13
the inverse of which is
02 0 0 0 1
02 0 0 0
0 13 0 0
1
0 13 0 0
The latter is easily verified by multiplying the above two matrices.

The plane OXQ belongs to the pencil OXZ+OXY = (0 1 0 0)+(0 0 1 0) = (0 1 0). The pole P of
this plane is
[ ]
1
0 0 0
[][ ]
02

1 0 02
0 0 0 13 1 0
=
1 0
02 0 0 0 0
1
1 13
0 13 0 0
so P=(-/02 0 0 1/13). The parameter may thus be equated to tan (see the diagram) as =0 and
90o when =0 and respectively. The distance of P from O is 31/02 = k tan, defining k
accordingly, so k is the distance of P from O when =45 o. This null system may thus be specified
by that characteristic distance as all else follows from it, and setting 02=1 gives 31=k. Thus as P
moves out along OX, varies so the plane OXQ=(0 1 0) of the flat pencil rotates about q since q
is a member of it, becoming vertical (containing d) when P is at infinity at (1 0 0 0).
All axial pencils in lines orthogonal to d behave similarly, with =45 o when OP=k. Although appeal
could be made to axial symmetry, it is instructive to show that directly. Take a point E=(1 0 0) on
XZ to give a line OE orthogonal to d. The plane OEY is (- 0 1 0) as its inner products with E O
and Y=(0 1 0 0) are zero. The plane OEZ=OXZ=(0 1 0 0) so the plane OEQ is OEY+ OEZ=
(- 1 0), which correctly is (0 1 0) when =0. The pole of this plane is
[ ][ ] [ ]
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1/k 1 = 0
1 0 0 0
0 1/k 0 0 0 1/k
i.e. the point P on q is (k 0 k 1). The distance OP is thus k 1+ 2 .
In the diagram OP is the line q and PA is the line orthogonal to OP and at 45 o to the plane OXZ. is
the angle between OP and OX. The perpendicular PB to OP in the
OXZ plane must equal AB in the OYZ plane for a 45o angle.
OB=OP/cos(90-)=OPcosec, and AB=BP=OPtan(90-)=OPcot.
Thus tan=AB/OB=cot/cosec=cos.
Now the angle is determined by =tan.
1 1 1
Hence tan =cos = = i.e. = so OP=k.
1+ tan 1+
2 2
1+ 2
The pencils of null lines in planes containing the axis are parallel lines orthogonal to it, while those
in planes orthogonal to d have their centres on d.
The null system is also known as a screw because a rotation about the axis combined with a
translation along it transforms the null system into itself. Repeating such a transformation gives
path curves that are helical spirals.
A null system is related to a system of forces as noted earlier, and that is described in Appendix #G.
Appendix #D
Quadrics Sharing a Twisted Cubic
The idea of this proof is to use the projective definition of quadrics to establish the result.
Suppose two projective bundles of lines <L> and <M> are given, and a bundle of planes 
projective to <L> and another <Q> projective to <M>. and <L> will generate a quadric (c.f.
Figure #T5) and so will <Q> and <M>. Now a two dimensional projectivity is determined by four
corresponding pairs, so the projectivity between <L> and <M> may be determined by choosing four
corresponding pairs that meet in four points A B C and D, say. Then the projectivity between 
and <L> may be determined by choosing four planes of containing A B C and D, and that
between <Q> and <M> similarly. A B C and D lie on both quadrics and hence on their common
curve . The bundles <L> and <M> meet in a twisted cubic , and if X is any common point of the
two quadrics then the line u of <L> meets the corresponding plane of in X, and v of <M>
meets of <Q> in X, so u and v meet in X which thus lies on . Hence contains all the common
points of the quadrics. Now the converse must be proved i.e. that every point of lies on both
quadrics.
Noting that contains the four points L M P and Q, the axial pencils {LP} and {MQ} each contain
two points of and their planes thus intersect in points on , establishing a projectivity between
them. That projectivity is determined by any four points on , so taking the four common points A
B C and D determines it. It is thus the same projectivity induced initially by the projectivities
between <L> and <M>, <L> and and <M> and <Q>. Then every point on contains two of
those planes and two intersecting lines of <L> and <M> and hence lies on both quadrics.
Hence the curve contains that twisted cubic. As is of order 4 it must also contain a straight line
k along with so that any transversal plane of the two quadrics is met in four points: in three
points, the fourth being where k meets it.
That means k is a common ruler of the two quadrics, and the planes of the axial pencil {k} in k all
meet the quadrics in conic sections each of which contains k and so is degenerate as a line pair.
Thus the quadrics are ruled when contains a twisted cubic. In a plane containing k there are
three points E F G of the twisted cubic and three lines: k (common to both quadrics) and two rulers
u and v one of each quadric. Now u and k must contain E F G between them, and likewise for v,
and k must meet each of u and v in one point of . Therefore all three lines are chords of in EF
EG and FG. Thus if two quadrics intersect in a twisted cubic they are both ruled, their rulers being
chords, and they possess a common directrix which is a chord of the twisted cubic.
Appendix #E
Nine Points Determine a Unique Proper Quadric Surface
It will be proved that nine points no four of which are coplanar determine a unique quadric. The
proof will be based on the projective construction of a quadric c.f. Figure #T5. Figure 1 below
shows a conic representing a quadric with six points BCDEPL on it. They are not coplanar.
Figure 1
P is the centre of a bundle of planes and L of a bundle of lines determining a quadric through the
above six points as for Figure #T5 e.g. the line LB corresponds to a plane in PB. The remaining
three points which will determine the quadric are XYZ in some plane . The plane corresponding
to LB meets in the line b while that in PC corresponding to LC (not shown) meets in the line c.
Similarly, but not shown, are lines d and e in corresponding to LD and LE respectively. They are
shown in the figure on the right where Q=bc and R=de. w=QR corresponds to W=qr The points
BCDE are where LB LC LD and LE meet . There is thus a correlation in for which bB cC dD
and eE are corresponding pairs.
As for other two-dimensional projectivities four corresponding pairs uniquely define the correlation.
Given any line p in the lines corresponding to its points form a flat pencil such that a point A on p
corresponds to a line of the pencil meeting p in A', say. The ranges {A} and {A'} are projective
with two double points M and N which lie on their corresponding lines m and n. Such incident
pairs mN and nN are known as lineal elements. Thus there are two lineal elements on a general
line, so the lineal elements of a correlation have their points lying on a conic . That conic meets
q=BC and r=DE in the double points M N and M' N' respectively. It will also meet BD BE CD and
CE in pairs of double points. is where the quadric meets . The problem to solve is to find how
may contain X Y and Z. For that the planes corresponding to LX LY and LZ must meet in lines
x y z containing X Y and Z respectively, in which case xX yY and zZ lie on and thus on the
quadric. The initial correlations between the bundles determine a quadric which may be varied by
rotating any plane such as Pb, so the problem is solved by finding how to rotate any or all of the
planes Pb Pc Pd and Pe to make the quadric contain X Y and Z. Those rotations are about the lines
PB PC PD and PE in the lefthand figure so that P L B C D and E remain on the varying quadric.
The four points BCDE in form a fixed quadrangle as shown in blue in Figure 2 below, as the lines
of the bundle <L> are not varied, only the planes in . The corresponding lines bcde form a
variable quadrilateral shown in green in Figure 2, as varying the planes in rotates them
respectively about the points B C D and E in where the latter is met by PB PC PD and PE.
Figure 2
Of great importance is that the blue quadrangle is
fixed, so various cross-ratios are fixed and relate
to cross-ratios of varying elements in the green
quadrilateral. The green line b in the upper
quadrilateral corresponds to the blue point B in
the lower quadrangle, and rotates about B as
before. Similarly for other pairs (C D and E
are not shown). The upper diagonal w=QR
corresponds to the lower point W=qr. C B lie on
q which corresponds to Q=cb, and so on.
Ignore the line XR to start with. The point B
contains a flat pencil (q t, XB h), denoting it by
its cross-ratio, which is fixed and corresponds to
the upper range (Q T, X H). The point X is thus
determined. Now projecting that range from R
gives the pencil (w d, x' e) where x'=RX, which
is fixed and also equals that of the lower range
(W D, X1 E) on the line r corresponding to R.
The line x corresponding to X passes through X
because the lines XB XD XE XW form a pencil in X which thus corresponds to a line which is x,
Figure 3
and the line XB corresponds to a point where x and b
meet, XD to where x and d meet and so on. Since the
pencil X(WDX1E) has the same cross-ratio as
(q t, XB h) (they are perspective) X is the point xb i.e.
x passes through X. The aim is to make x pass
through X. That would be achieved if x' (Figure 2)
coincided with the line XR, which requires XB to
coincide with XR. That is not the case in Figure 2
where a general case is assumed before the problem
has been solved. Now XB is a fixed line and clearly d
and e may be rotated about D and E (not shown) to
place R on XB. Then X will lie on x. Figure 3 depicts
the result. If the points Y and Z are included then a
similar procedure could in principle be followed to
bring them onto CT and EQ, for if b and c rotate to
keep Q on w then X remains fixed due to the constant
cross-ratio (w x, d e) and thus x remains undisturbed.
The correlation is thereby changed (and the
corresponding quadric) and thus may be altered until Y
lies on .
Now it will be shown that given BCDEBCDE and XYZ in , a correlation may be established
for which X Y and Z lie on the quadric in the light of the above. This is shown in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4
The lines BC and DE are given, as
are x through B, y through C and z
through E. Just as x is to go through R,
so y is to go through T and z through Q
to synchronise with fixed cross-ratios as
did x. DE meets x in F, and since
XTH will project from R into FDE,
w=QR must meet DE in a point Q.
Q is thus found next (before Q) since
the cross-ratio (Q F, D E) =
(Q X, T H) which equals (w x, d e)
determined by the blue quadrangle as
shown before.
Now choose a line b through B. Then
Q=bz, w=QQ, c=CQ, R=wx, d=DR,
e=ER which determines the green
quadrilateral, given x z and b. But, y
should contain T which is not
necessarily true as shown. Then b may
be rotated about B until it does. The correlation has thus been set up so that the quadric contains X
Y and Z i.e. it is possible to construct a quadric through nine points no four of which are coplanar.
The correlation is fully determined, so the quadric is unique as no further adjustment of b c d or e is
possible to incorporate a tenth point, although such a point could accidentally lie on it.
Original Proof
If nine points are given no three of which are collinear and no four of which are coplanar, referring
to Figure #T5 let the centres of the bundles be P 1 and P2 and then choose four lines in P 1 intersecting
four planes in P2 in the points P3 to P6, determining a projectivity between and <P2> which
generates a quadric. Let the variable planes in the axial pencils {P1P3} to {P1P9} be 3 to 9
respectively. Let p7 to p9 be the variable lines of in P7 to P9 respectively. 7 will meet p7 in
some point X, but if 3 is rotated the projectivity is changed thus rotating 7, so 3 may be rotated
until X coincides with P7. If now 4 is rotated X will move away from P 7, and then 3 may be
rotated until X coincides with P7 again. Thus there are corresponding positions of 3 and 4 for
which X coincides with P7 so a projectivity 7 exists between 3 and 4 such that while 3 rotates, 4
rotates to keep X coincident with P7. Selecting positions of 3 and 4 for which that is true
determines a different quadric that contains P7 as well as P1 to P6. 5 and 6 are assumed fixed.
This may be repeated, again with fixed 5 and 6, to bring P8 instead of P7 onto a quadric. As 3
varies a projectivity is established within the axial pencil { 4} by the two procedures, which has two
double planes. Now the plane 4 can lie in P1 (Q in Figure #T5) in which case the quadric is
degenerate as every plane of the axial pencil in P1P2 meets the quadric in P1 so e.g. P7 is contained
by one plane of that pencil and is met by P1P7 since the line in <P1> corresponding to 4 is
indeterminate. Thus one of the two double planes of the above projectivity in the axial pencil { 4}
is real so the other is also real. Hence there is one position of 4 which together with the
corresponding 3 determines a non-singular quadric containing P7 and P8.
Holding a pair 3 4 fixed and repeating the whole of the above procedure similarly but for variable
5 and 6 and Z on p9, there is one position of 5 and 6 for which both P7 and P9 (instead of P8) lie
on a non-singular quadric. For different pairs 3 4 different pairs 5 6 are obtained, so there is a
relationship between the pairs 3 4 and 5 6. The pairs 3 4 determine lines 34 which form a
bundle in P2, and similarly for the lines 56, and thus a projectivity exists within <P2> between u-
lines, say, representing 34 when the quadric contains P8 and v-lines representing 56 when the
quadric contains P9. Now a quadric in all nine points is obtained if a u-line coincides with its
corresponding v-line i.e. a double-line of the projectivity. There are up to three double lines in each
of which 3 4 5 and 6 form an axial pencil. They yield up to three possible quadrics in all nine
points as they are simultaneously both u- and v-lines. There is an axial pencil of 3 4 5 and 6 in
P1P2 which yields a singular quadric as already noted, and secondly a degenerate pencil in the line
[P2P3P4, P2P5P6] i.e. when 3 and 4 coincide and also 5 and 6, giving rise to a singular quadric.
The other possibility is that there is only one real double line. That leaves only one of the three
double lines to give a proper quadric. Thus nine general points contain a unique proper quadric.
Appendix #F
Polarity with respect to a Tetrahedral Complex
The following facts are needed to establish the desired result.
1. The vertices of the tetrahedron are termed total points because the cross-ratios of the lines in
those points are singular and so those lines are counted as belonging to the complex. Dually the
planes of the tetrahedron are termed total planes for a similar reason.
2. The disc quadric Q of the tetrahedron in a plane

containing a vertex V is degenerate as a pair of
flat pencils, one in V and the other in a point of the
opposite face. For, meets the Sylvester
configuration in two perspective ranges so Q
becomes a flat pencil which contains the line q in
the face opposite V where meets it. As that
plane is a total plane q is a line of the complex and
so belongs to the pencil, so the centre of the latter
lies in . Since V is a total point the pencil in V
and is the other part of Q. The diagram
illustrates this as it shows the disc quadric in a
plane very close to a vertex.
3. A tetrahedron may be self-polar with respect to a quadric surface, for given a quadric and any
point X there exists a plane polar to X, and any three points on have polar planes meeting in X
and hence form a self-polar tetrahedron. Such a quadric will be termed self polar for convenience.
An arbitrary plane cuts the tetrahedron in a quadrilateral and the quadric in a conic. By
Desargue's Theorem (c.f. Figure $31) any line p in cuts that conic and opposite edges of the
quadrilateral in three pairs of an involution. Thus any line meets the quadric and opposite faces of
the tetrahedron in three pairs of an involution. Since the quadric is self-polar that means the points
on the quadric harmonically separate opposite faces.
4. There is a self polar regulus containing any general line p as a directrix, for there is an axial
pencil of planes harmonic to the points of p the axis q of which is a directrix of any self polar
regulus containing p. q meets any plane in p in a point through which passes a line harmonic to p
with respect to the tetrahedron. That line is a ruler of a self-polar regulus for which p and q are
directrices. There are 1 such rulers and hence a unique self polar regulus containing p.
If the plane 1 in p contains a vertex V 1 of the

tetrahedron then the disc quadric becomes a pair
of flat pencils centred on V1 and a point K1 in the
opposite face at a point on K1P determined by
the cross ratio of the complex. V 1K1 meets p in
L1. The point M1 harmonic to L1 with respect to
V1 and K1 is the polar point of p with respect to
the degenerate disc quadric, so the polar
conjugate p' of p with respect to the complex
passes through K1. But, K1 is also harmonic to L1
with respect to the tetrahedron, so if p belongs to
a self-polar regulus then its polar conjugate
with respect to the tetrahedron also passes though M1. Taking another plane 2 in p containing
another vertex V2 the same will apply i.e. p' is the line M1M2. Since M1 and M2 are both harmonic
to p with respect to the tetrahedron, p and p' are directrices of a self-polar regulus . If p is any
other directrix of then the same reasoning shows that its polar conjugate both respect to the
complex and the tetrahedron is another directrix of i.e. the polars of all the directrices of with
respect to the complex are also directrices of .
Finally the conjugate regulus may be taken in its own right, and thus if p is any ruler of a regulus
then its polar conjugate both respect to the complex and the tetrahedron is another ruler of i.e. the
polars of all the rulers of with respect to the complex lie in . The sequence of polars p, p', p ...
thus lies on a self polar regulus.
Appendix #G
Forces and The Null System
Knowledge of vector notation and algebra will be assumed in this appendix, and letters in bold type
will represent vectors rather than scalars.
Given two skew forces in space, there are infinitely many pairs of skew forces which have the same
effect. For given a pair of skew forces F and G as vectors with definite magnitudes, there is a line
p orthogonal to both vectors along which accordingly there is a zero resultant. There is then a line
q orthogonal to p along which the components of the forces act equally and oppositely i.e. again a
zero resultant. Thus the resultant force R is perpendicular to p and q, acting along r=pxq with
magnitude F.r+G.r i.e. R=(F+G).r and R=Rr. p q and r are assumed to be unit vectors.
The remaining components not included in this are F.q and G.q which by hypothesis are equal and
opposite in magnitude but have distinct parallel lines of action in the general case, and thus form a
couple. If the lines of action of F and G intersect then the couple is zero. If R=0 then we only have
a couple. Thus every pair of forces is equivalent to the sum of a single force and a couple, either of
which may be zero. A couple has the peculiarity that it has no unique axis of rotation as that may be
orthogonal to any point on the parallel line equidistant from the two forces involved. Also a force
considered in isolation from a point of application (on a body) has only a signed magnitude and a
line of action i.e. it can slide along that line, and is sometimes called a "spear". The couple has a
moment M given by (F.q)ps where 2s is the distance along p between the lines of the forces.
Choosing any force A parallel to q, At=(F.q)ps can be constructed by suitable choice of t, and thus
M=At when combined with a second force -A in the plane of the couple. Then two forces B and C
may be chosen acting at t on p in the direction of r to give a resultant R (signed) which when
added respectively to A and - A give two forces yielding the same resultant and couple as F and G.
Thus there are infinitely many pairs of forces equivalent to the originals. The situation is more
general than in this example because the forces are really spears. This gives an intuitive feel for this
fact about pairs of forces. Can, now, an encompassing picture of all these pairs of equivalent forces
be found?
It was discovered at the end of the 18th Century by E. Monge that the lines of action of all those
equivalent pairs of forces determine a null polarity with respect to which they are mutually polar
pairs of lines. Truly a remarkable insight!
The line p orthogonal to both forces is an example of a null line so-called because the moment
about it is zero. In fact any line intersecting the lines of action of F and G is a null line since F has
no moment about it, and neither has G. Thus the hyperbolic congruence of lines with F and G as
directrices is entirely composed of null lines.
Consider further the forces B and A as t increases: B remains constant since together with C it gives
the fixed resultant R. But for the moment of the couple to remain constant the magnitude of A must
decrease, so the force E which is the resultant of B and A decreases in magnitude and rotates about
p as t increases, becoming vertical and equal to B when t=. Of course a real system cannot reach
t= so the couple does not in practice become indeterminate. The same applies to the resultant of
C and -A. If instead t decreases towards zero then A increases until E would become infinite acting
along the line q. The resultant H of C and A behaves similarly but rotates in the opposite sense.
Each pair of equivalent forces E and H form the directrices of a hyperbolic congruence of null lines
since if they are null for E and H they must be so for F and G. Thus a pencil of hyperbolic
congruences of null lines exists as t varies, forming a line complex K.
The lines of the forces E are the joins of points T on the line p and the tips
of E and similarly for H. Now E and H are equidistant from O and as t
varies their lines of action form a prime regulus (c.f. Figure #T18B). It
was proved that the lines intersecting corresponding rulers of a prime
regulus form a linear complex, which means the total set of null lines
forms a null system as Clifford showed. Since two conjugate lines are met
by a hyperbolic congruence of null lines it follows that the forces F and G
are equivalent to two forces acting along those lines given suitable
magnitude and direction. Thus the pairs of skew forces equivalent to F
and G lie in pairs of conjugate lines of a null system.
Appendix #H
Matrices
The following is a crash-course on matrices, necessarily only a sketch. Familiarity with vectors and
their inner products is assumed. The inner product of (a b) and (c d) is (a b).(c d)=a c + b d.
Suppose the vector OP is rotated through to OP'. If OP=OP'=r then
the coordinates of P are:
x=r cos, y=r sin
and of P':
x'=r cos(-)=r cos cos + r sin sin = x cos+y sin
y'=r sin(-)=r sin cos - r cos sin = y cos-x sin
The coordinates (x' y') are thus obtained from linear equations in x and y, and schematically this
may be written
[
cos sin x = x '
sin cos y y'][ ] [ ]
which implies a multiplication rule: the top row of the square array on the left is multiplied term-
by-term by the vector []
x
y
to give x' in the vector
x'
y' [ ]
on the right i.e. the inner product of the
vectors {cos sin}.(x y)=x cos+y sin = x'. Similarly the inner product of the bottom row of the
array on the left with []x
y
is evaluated to give y'. The array on the left is called a matrix.
Generally a matrix may have any number of rows and columns, each row having the same number
of terms and likewise for each column. It is a convenient way of expressing a number of linear
equations, but has additional advantages as will be seen. A matrix with the same number of rows as
columns is a square matrix with more useful properties. A three-dimensional transformation of
coordinates like that above would employ a 3x3 matrix. A vector as above is a 1x2 matrix, but a
vector may also be 2x1 if the vector comes first in the multiplication. What becomes possible is
matrix algebra where algebraic rules permit them to be added, multiplied and inverted. In contrast
to a matrix a single variable like x is called a scalar but can be regarded as a 1x1 matrix.
The addition and subtraction of matrices is trivial e.g.:
[ a b c k
d e f
+][
n
l m
p q
= ][
a+ k b+l c +m
d +n e+ p f + q ]
Of course the two matrices must have the same number of rows and columns.
Multiplication is generally an ordered sequence of inner products of rows and columns as seen
earlier. Shown in full is that for two 3x3 square matrices where the top row on the left is multiplied
(i.e. inner product) with each column of [ p q r ...] to give the top row on the right, and so on:
[ ][ ][ ]
a b c p q r ( a b c ) . ( p s v ) ( a b c ) . ( q t w ) ( a b c )( r u x )
d e f s t u = ( d e f ) . ( p s v ) ( d e f ) . ( q t w ) ( d e f )( r u x )
g h j v w x ( g h j ) . ( p s v ) ( g h j ) . ( q t w ) ( g h j )( r u x )
i.e.
[ ][
a
d
g
b
e
h
c p q
f s t
j v w
r
u
x ][
=
a p+b s+ c v
d p+e s+ f v
g p +h s + j v
a q+ b t+c w
d q+e t+ f w
g q+h t + j w
a r +b u+ c x
d r +e u+ f x
g r+ h u+ j x ]
A typical use of multiplication is to combine two transformations of coordinates into a resultant
single transformation equivalent to applying them in sequence, so the matrix on the right is
equivalent to transforming first by the matrix [p q r ...] and then by [a b c ...]. Thus two rotations in
two dimensions could be combined:
[cos
sin ][
sin cos
cos sin ][
sin = cos cos sin sin
cos
cos sin + sin cos
sin coscos sin sin sin +cos cos ]
=
[ cos( +) sin(+)
sin(+) cos(+) ]
which is what is expected: a rotation by +.
Two matrices must be conformable if multiplication is to make sense, which means the number of
columns of the first must equal the number of rows of the second. That is clear as each row of the
first is multiplied by each column of the second.
It is often convenient to symbolise a matrix by an upper case letter in bold type e.g. M, whereas a
vector is usually represented by a lower case such letter e.g. x.
The unit matrix plays the role of the number 1 for multiplication and is symbolised by I e.g.
[ ][ ] [ ]
1 0 a =a
0 1 b b
It has 1's in the leading diagonal and 0's elswhere. That is true when I is 3x3, 4x4 etc.
The inverse or reverse of a transformation is sometimes needed. What is the matrix to rotate by -
for example?
Given a two-dimensional transformation M, for example, then the inverse matrix is M-1 which must
give M-1M=I i.e. the product of a matrix and its inverse gives the unit matrix. Thus:
[ ][ ] [ ]
p
r
q a
s c
b =1
d 0
0
1
which requires that pa+qc=rb+sd=1 and pb+qd=ra+sc=0, and we want to find p q r and s.
Eliminating s and then r from rb+sd=1 and ra+sc=0 gives
c a
r= s=
ad bc adbc
and eliminating q and then p from pa+qc=1 and pb+qd=0 gives
d b
p= q=
adbc adbc
so the inverse matrix is
[ ]
d b (a db c)
c a
where division by the scalar quantity ad-bc means each term of the matrix is divided by it. ad-bc
must not be zero, or else there is no solution. It is called the determinant of the matrix. The matrix
before division by the determinant is known as the adjoint matrix and is often useful in projective
geometry as the use of homogeneous coordinates means it may not be necessary to divide by the
determinant. In the above example multiplication of the original matrix by the adjoint gives ad-bc
in the leading diagonal, so that dividing finally by the determinant gives I.
When there is no solution it means the original equations implied by the matrix M are not
independent i.e. one or more are really the same equation or can be deduced from the others, so a
test for the independence of a set of equations Mx=y is to ensure that the determinant of M is not
zero. The determinant of the matrix is written as
a b
c d
and symbolised by |M|.
Notice that applying the above to the inverse of a rotation would give
[ ]
cos sin (cos2 +sin2 )
sin cos
which is correct.
For higher order matrices the determinant and inverse are more complicated, although the principles
and terminology are the same. The rules are derived from the solution of simultaneous equations by
successive elimination of the unknowns, as was done above. As this is not a textbook on matrices
the results will be quoted and the reader may consult standard texts on determinants and matrices if
interested, or derive them personally as above! Note that only square matrices may be inverted.
The result uses the definition of minors and cofactors. In the following 3x3 determinant

a
d
g
b
e
h
c
f
j
the minor e.g. of d is the the determinant that remains when its row and column are omitted i.e.
b c
h j
the placing being as in the original determinant. A signed minor has its sign reversed if the sum of
its row number and column number is odd, so the sign of the minor of d would be inverted to give
the signed minor, which is also known as the cofactor of d, which will be symbolised (for d) as D.
The determinant of the above 3x3 matrix is then shown in textbooks to be aA+bB+cC. This is a
recursive relationship as the cofactors are of lesser order, so this rule enables evaluation of any
determinant by treating each cofactor in a similar way until 2x2 determinants are reached, which are
already known. For the 3x3 case this gives

a e f +b f j +c d e
h j d g g h
=a e j+b f g+c d ha f hb jdc e g
so that a 3x3 determinant is easily visualised as the sum of the products of the forward diagonals
less the sum of the products of the backwards diagonals, noting that wrap around is applied e.g. b
f wraps around to g to give bfg. Unfortunately that does not generalise to higher order
determinants. A 4x4 determinant is then evaluated as aA+bB+cC+dD, where each of A B C and D
are 3x3 and thus easily evaluated. This suffices in this book as higher order matrices are not used,
although the principles are the same.
The transpose of a matrix is what is obtained if the columns are replaced by the rows:
'
[ ][ ]
a b c a d g
d e f =b e h
g h j c f j
symbolised as M'.
The adjoint matrix is defined as the transpose of the matrix obtained when every element is replaced
by its cofactor. Thus in the original 2x2 example, first replace d by a, a by d, b by -c and c by -b
and then transpose to give d replaced by a, a by d, b by -b and c by -c. The inverse matrix is then
the adjoint divided by the determinant.
It is also convenient to use suffix notation to symbolise matrices and vectors. A matrix M has
elements that may be written as m00 for the first element, m01 for top element of the second column
and so on. Then mij refers to the element in the i'th row and j'th column. The matrix as a whole is
often written as mij where i and j range over the rows and columns respectively. The cofactor of m ij
is written as Mij, and the adjoint matrix is then n ij=Mji, noting that i and j are swapped to transpose
the matrix.
3
When a matrix M is multiplied by a vector x the result is mij x j= y i which is
j=0
y0=m00x0+m01x1+m02x2+m03x3 for the first row of M, and similarly for the other rows. The
summation is elegantly abbreviated to mijxj where a repeated suffix like j is tacitly assumed to be
summed as above, the range of summation being given by the context. If two matrices are
multiplied the product is written as pij=miknkj, which means the i'th row of pij is obtained from the
inner products of the i'th row of m ij with each column of nkj, the inner products coming from the
repeated suffix k. This is shown below to clarify that for a 2x2 case:
[ ][
m00 m01 n00 n 01
m10 m11 n10 n11 ][
m n +m n
= 00 00 01 10
m00 n 01+m01 n11
m10 n 00+ m11 n10 m10 n 01+ m11 n11][ p
= 00
p10
p01
p11 ]
Notice that in every product such as m01n10 the second index of m equals the first of n, which is the
effect of the repeated suffix k.
An important question from the more advanced theory of matrices concerns the question: are there
vectors which are transformed into themselves by a matrix, and if so how many? In the main text
this concerned the number of invariant points of a projective transformation. What is required then
is to find vectors x such that Mx=x. The factor is essential as solutions are only possible up to a
common factor of the elements of x, which well suits homogeneous coordinates. Thus a solution of
(M-I)x=0 is required excluding the trivial case x=0, noting that Ix=x. To ensure this requirement
note that for a non-singular transformation M the determinant must not be zero. But if |M-I|0
then the only possible solutions of (M-I)x=0 occur for x=0 as the equations are then independent.
So a solution only exists if |M-I|=0. This will be exhibited for a 3x3 matrix:

m00 m01 m02
M I = m10 m11 m12 =0
m20 m21 m22
The determinant is thus a cubic equation in , known as the characteristic equation. The roots are
known as eigen values (from the German) or latent roots or characteristic roots in English,
although many English writers use the German term. For each root there is a corresponding vector
known as a latent vector (or eigen- or characteristic-vector) as follows. Substituting a root in
(M-I)x does not give x directly which is why they are latent vectors; hidden. The three rows of
(M-I)x=0 for one of the roots give three intersecting vectors since the determinant is zero, making
them dependent i.e. (mjj-)x0+mj1x1+mj2x2=0. Solving any two of them for x0 and x1 in terms of x2
gives the latent vector in homogeneous terms. If the solution fails no matter which two equations
are chosen then the three vectors coincide in a line of self-corresponding points (geometrically a
homology). Hence a two dimensional projective transformation denoted by a 3x3 matrix has in
general three latent vectors and thus an invariant triangle, while a 4x4 transformation of space has
four latent roots and hence an invariant tetrahedron. It is clear from this that the characteristic
equation for a two-dimensional transformation must have at least one real root but the other two
may be complex conjugates, giving the spiral path curves. For a three dimensional transformation
there may be four real roots giving a fully real tetrahedron, or two real and two imaginary roots
giving what is called a semi-imaginary tetrahedron in the main text, or no real roots giving an
imaginary tetrahedron.
Appendix #I
Lemniscate to Circle
In this Appendix it will be proved that a lemniscate projects into a circle c.f Figure #T18C. This is a
brief metrical account to prove the fact. The rationale involving the part played by imaginary
numbers is explained fully in Ref. Adams.
Let P be a point on the lemniscate, which is lying in the horizontal

OXZ plane with its axis along OX and its node at O. If r=OP and is
as shown then the equation of the lemniscate is r 2=a2cos(2), where a
is half the length of the axis. P is projected onto the OXY plane by a
line PQ through P that is orthogonal to OP and at an angle to the
horizontal. PQ is by hypothesis a line of an elliptic congruence with
OY as its axis, and thus belongs to a regulus such that r=k.cot for
some constant k. It will be assumed that =45o when P is on OX with
OP=a, making k=a. The vectors OP and PQ are
OP=( r cos , 0,r sin )

PQ=(PR sin , RQ , PR cos )
=(r tan sin ,r tan tan , r tan cos)
Then OQ=OP+PQ:
OQ=(r cos +r tan sin , r tan tan , r tan cos r sin )
r
=
cos ( )
, a tan , 0 so the length of OQ is
OQ =

r2
2
cos
a
+a 2 tan 2 =
a
cos
cos 2 (2 )+sin 2
=
cos
cos 2 sin2 +sin2 giving
OQ = a
Thus Q lies on a circle as claimed.

Projective Geometry 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Projective Geometry 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY PART 2

Three Dimensional Projective Geometry

An axial pencil is defined as the planes sharing

Related Axial Pencils

Twisted Curves in Space

It is proved in Appendix #D that if two quadrics intersect in

Pencils and Ranges of Quadrics

It will be recalled that a number of quadrics may be found

Polarity in Three Dimensions

The beautiful theorem about the twisted

Path Curves in Three Dimensions

All the lines joining points on a conic and a straight

1 James Joseph Sylvester FRS (3 September 1814 15 March 1897)

For a quadratic complex polarity with respect to a disc quadric is

Consider the point P in two dimensions with coordinates (x y).

Replacing x y and z by x0 x1 and x2, and a b and c by k0 k1

Recall that the cross ratio of a range of four points A B C D is given by

and then substituting in A+B or C+D to give P.

The equation of a conic in cartesian coordinates is ax 2+by2+2cxy+2dx+2ey+f=0, which is converted

For yj lying on , and noting that jrrsys=Ijsys=yj, ijyiyj=(ijyi)yj=(ijyi)(jrrsys)=jr(ijyi)(rsys)=0.

If x1=x2=0 then the equation gives k0x0+k3x3=0, so x0/x3=-k3/k0 is where the

If a prime regulus is rotated about the vertical axis a congruence of 2 lines

On the left is an extract of the above diagram clarifying

The latter is easily verified by multiplying the above two matrices.

Quadrics Sharing a Twisted Cubic

Nine Points Determine a Unique Proper Quadric Surface

Polarity with respect to a Tetrahedral Complex

The following facts are needed to establish the desired result.

2. The disc quadric Q of the tetrahedron in a plane

If the plane 1 in p contains a vertex V 1 of the

Forces and The Null System

The addition and subtraction of matrices is trivial e.g.:

and eliminating q and then p from pa+qc=1 and pb+qd=0 gives

Let P be a point on the lemniscate, which is lying in the horizontal

OP=( r cos , 0,r sin )

Thus Q lies on a circle as claimed.

You might also like