[HN Gopher] The Sylvester-Gallai Theorem
___________________________________________________________________
The Sylvester-Gallai Theorem
Author : surprisetalk
Score : 23 points
Date : 2026-07-31 14:00 UTC (6 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.futilitycloset.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.futilitycloset.com)
| emil-lp wrote:
| Futility closet is fantastic!
| hyperhello wrote:
| > Every finite set of points in the Euclidean plane that is not
| collinear has a line that passes through exactly two of the
| points.
|
| I can't make out the point here (no pun). Of course a line can
| pass through any two points. It could pass through three if those
| points were collinear but the statement says they're not. So what
| is the new fact?
| chenb4425 wrote:
| It's that the line passes through _exactly_ two points, which
| if you think about it is not exactly obvious.
| math_loser wrote:
| > So what is the new fact?
|
| For _all_ arbitrarily sized (but finite) sets of not collinear
| points, there 's _always_ a line that passes through _exactly_
| two points in the set.
| tzs wrote:
| It can help to think about theorems like this by restating them
| as a puzzle asking for a counterexample.
|
| Given N points, N > 2, can you arrange them in a Euclidean
| plane so that (1) they are not all on the same line, and (2)
| every line that goes through two of the points must also go
| through at least one more of the points?
|
| The theorem says that you cannot do this.
| glimshe wrote:
| Try to come up with a set non-colinear points where NO line
| passes through two and ONLY TWO points and you'll see the value
| of the statement.
|
| You may think "I'm sure I can arrange these points in a way
| where EVERY line will cross three or more points" but you will
| fail if you try unless ALL points are colinear.
| scythe wrote:
| This is true for _finite_ sets. For infinite sets, the
| Sierpinski triangle is a counterexample.
| Sniffnoy wrote:
| I think what's going on here is that you've misunderstood the
| theorem's hypothesis. The hypothesis isn't that _no three_ of
| the points are collinear; rather, it 's the weaker statement
| that there isn't any one _single_ line that all the points lie
| on. It 's true that with your version of the hypothesis the
| theorem would be trivial; but with the actual hypothesis it is
| is nontrivial.
| Nail2680 wrote:
| I might be too stupid to understand why this is interesting and
| useful. If it helps I am a working physicist, and a lot of pure
| math is lost on me. I think I followed this, but I don't know why
| one would care or this would be interesting.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-08-07 04:00 UTC)