Timeline for Does any real projective plane incidence theorem follow from axioms?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2020 at 21:13 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | If you do not have access to Vámos's paper, you might want to look at a later paper by Mayhew, Newman and Whittle on the same topic. | |
| Jan 10, 2020 at 11:09 | comment | added | Geva Yashfe | I learned these things by studying some matroid theory. I'm fairly sure there is no finite description in terms of incidence statements only: see Vamos, "The Missing Axiom of Matroid Theory is Lost Forever" (unfortunately not free for access as far as I can tell.) The real-representable matroids also have the property of having infinitely many excluded minors, and one can translate between your incidence statements and the language used by Vamos (if you allow conjugation and disjunction). | |
| Jan 10, 2020 at 11:00 | vote | accept | R. Matveev | ||
| Jan 10, 2020 at 10:58 | comment | added | R. Matveev | What would be a good reference to educate myself about these matters? | |
| Jan 10, 2020 at 10:55 | vote | accept | R. Matveev | ||
| Jan 10, 2020 at 10:55 | |||||
| Jan 10, 2020 at 10:54 | comment | added | R. Matveev | Amazing. Thank you. The statements you give seem to be independent for different $p$'s. Is there some sensible description of real projective incidence theorems? E.g. is there finite axiomatics? | |
| Jan 9, 2020 at 23:58 | history | answered | Geva Yashfe | CC BY-SA 4.0 |