Talk:Hyperbolic geometry/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lorentzian ≠ hyperbolic

This edit introduces the sentence "The geometry turns out to be hyperbolic because of Lorentz invariance." What is the intent? As it stands, it is false: the geometry of the four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime is not hyperbolic. Even a space-like flat section of it is a Euclidean 3-space. The hyperboloid model shows that a complete hyperbolic 3-space can be embedded isometrically in a Minkowski space, but that is clearly not the intent. The space of subluminal velocities (or equivalently, the space of time-like points at infinity) is a hyperbolic space, but this is as abstruse as saying that the space of directions in a Euclidean space is an elliptic geometry. So what is it that the source is saying? —Quondum 15:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Undone now M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 16:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

From the edit summary: the sources talk about the line element and its hyperbolic nature. I do not have the source, but I guess this might be referring to the geometry of the space of lines. It would correspond to my point about the space of points at infinity. Since the article is about hyperbolic geometry, it may make sense to include a corrected form of this statement, along the lines of the space of velocities that I mentioned above – if that is what the source was saying. —Quondum 17:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've found a mention in the reference. In referring to a "line element", it is speaking of the (infinitesimal) difference of velocities in the space of velocities. I've re-added the statement as a stand-alone paragraph (it is quite distinct from the other geometries being referred to), reworded so that hopefully it will make sense to the lay reader. WillemienH, any comment would be welcome so that I can massage this statement for clarity and ease of understanding. —Quondum 14:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late reply, but my edit summary already summarized the response at least vaguely. The sources just talk about the invariance of the line element, that Lorentz boosts are hyperbolic rotations in spacetime, and mention that SR involves a non-Euclidean spacetime, without mentioning the geometry is hyperbolic. I have nothing more to say or intentions to clear up, sorry. M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 17:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

L&L is a bit more specific than that, now that I've managed to find the reference. To quote: "The required line element dl, is the relative velocity of two points with velocities v and v + dv" and "From the geometrical point of view this is the line element in three-dimensional Lobachevskii space—the space of constant negative curvature". There is also a formula for calculating dl² in terms of v and dv only. To me, my edited re-insertion captures this clearly enough – they are saying that the distance measure makes the space of velocities into a three-dimensional Lobachevskian (i.e. hyperbolic) space, without any ambiguity. This is not to be confused with four-dimensional spacetime. It also fits exactly with the hyperboloid model, so it is a correct interpretation. The group of Lorentz transformations (including rotations) does act on this velocity space, just not in the same way as we are familiar with for normal spacetime. I was not asking for further help, but was merely asking whether someone feels that it needs further clarification, which I feel I could do if so. If not, it can stay as it is now. —Quondum 21:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

From your honored lay reader :) WillemienH (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I do think that by now I knew something about hyperbolic geometry, but maybe you are talking about general relativity or space time, in which case you are correct, I try to stay away of it (I interest is in Geometry, not in Physics :), I think it all boils down to a confusion between Minkowski geometry and hyperbolic geometry, Minkowski geometry is an affine geometry, which hyperbolic geometry is not, And I am wondering is space time isotropic? (I guess not)

I stay away from editing the sections on "Geometry of the universe (including relativity)" and "The hyperboloid model" just because I am not familiar with them.

(I only started the section "Geometry of the universe (including relativity)" to save the "Geometry of the universe (pre dating relativity)" from edit wars, confusing the two.

I do think the hyperboloid model is quite useless for hyperbolic plane geometry as it is not embedded in euclidean space. (it is embedded in Minkowski space , but what does that mean, is Euclidean space not an Minskowski space ? , see here my knowledge is really in deficient) Lorentsian or not? I don't know, i don't even know what it means , so back to you , the not-so-lay person. :) WillemienH (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm only a lay person myself, just with an interest in physics and mathematical structure, though I only discovered abstract geometry very recently, in particular Klein's approach. Physics gives only one application for geometry; one can tackle this entirely from a geometric perspective.

A four-dimensional Euclidean space can be projectively completed; the additional points (the points at infinity) form a three-dimensional elliptic space; I mention this as a framework that I assume you are familiar with. In a geometric sense, four-dimensional Minkowski space is not isotropic (in the linked sense; there is another sense of the word which means the opposite), since there is a light cone which separates timelike directions from spacelike directions. Similarly to the Euclidean case, the points at infinity form a geometry of is own, in this case two geometries: the one (timelike) set of points at infinity form a three-dimensional hyperbolic space, and the other (spacelike) set forms a three-dimensional de Sitter space. The crucial point as that the points at infinity are a different set (or space) from the points of the affine geometry in both the Euclidean and Minkowski cases. A Euclidean space is not a Minkowski space, even though both are affine spaces of the same dimension. A spacelike section of Minkowsi space is a three-dimensional Euclidean space, so in that sense Minkowski space contains Euclidean subspaces. It would be nice if somehow we can turn this discussion into text in the article to make it simple and understandable. Perhaps we should refer to the points at infinity rather than the space of velocities (these being equivalent)? —Quondum 04:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A so we are both non cognanti in this. I am wondering about the whole relation between Minkowski geometry and Minkowski space-time and I don't think any of them gets any good of mixing the two up.

As you explain it now doesn't make any sense either (sorry I am being very critical here) If the hyperboloid model is embedded in an geometry that is not Euclidean, then the relations between the models loses its meaning. (because the other models are embedded in Euclidean geometry) Maybe I just don't understand minkowski geometry I am now reading a bit on it. but it looks like it has nothing to do with what is written at Minkowski space (if only lets start with it as only a geometry start with the 2 dimensional case, its relations with affine geometry and euclidean geometry. forgetting all about special relativity. If you like I can start with a stub idea. i found some (not a lot) links for a start of an articcle WillemienH (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Minkowski spacetime and Minkowski geometry are the same thing. The hyperboloid model is isometrically embedded in Minkowski space. The Poincaré and Klein models are non-isometrically embedded in Euclidean space, which is to say the "euclidean" part of it is irrelevant. So in a sense, the hyperboloid model is more faithful than the Poincaré and Klein models are. My description should not be at odds with Minkowski space. —Quondum 17:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree Minkowski spacetime and Minkowski geometry are definitly not the same thing. (if anything Minkowski spacetime has 4 dimensions while Minkowski geometry also exists in 2 dimensions, found a nice link : [1] see nothing to do with spacetime at all. I am intrigued what do you mean by "The hyperboloid model is isometrically embedded in Minkowski space" ? (Do you mean the length of the curve is a measure of the distance between the points? or something else) WillemienH (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing Cayley-Klein metric may assist in resolving geometric differences.Rgdboer (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Rgdboer, sorry, that does not help me much, even though the content relates.

WillemienH, are you saying that you want to reserve "Minkowski space" to mean specifically the four-dimensional case, and "Minkowski geometry" to mean any number of dimensions)? (Or only two dimensions?) This is a rather trivial point of terminology and is not of concern to me. Yes, I mean the length of any curve on the hyperboloid is the same as measured in the hyperbolic space and as measured in the embedding space, using the Minkowski metric. The link you gave is quite cute, but I haven't read through all of it. But the gryphon is clearly talking about the same thing as I am. —Quondum 23:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Quondum, I moved (or restarted ) the discussion about Minkowski geometry at Talk:Minkowski space#Splitting off Minkowski geometry I think that is the better place to discuss it. (hope you can agree that there is the better place) I am not sure about your "Yes, I mean the length of any curve on the hyperboloid is the same as measured in the hyperbolic space and as measured in the embedding space, using the Minkowski metric." That's all to advanced for me. I noticed that something similar is written at the hyperboloid model but that did not mean anything to me either. (while I think I do understand distances in the other models, a bit) WillemienH (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I need to check that statement on isometric embedding, though I have no reason to doubt it. I'll have to spend a little time doing the math from first principles; not complicated, but I'm rusty. It would help if my statement is checked and made explicit at Hyperboloid model. I'll leave some time for replies at the Minkowski space talk page; yes, that is a better space for such a discussion, though obviously you already know my feeling on the subject

. —Quondum 13:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hyperbolic geometry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammy1339 (talk · contribs) 14:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The article has severe deficiencies in scope that will require very substantial changes to fix. Nowhere is the notion of hyperbolic distance mentioned, or any of the nice formulas such as area of a triangle = sum of its angles. I'd like to see geodesics in the hyperbolic plane explained, and for someone to tell me that a hyperbolic circle is a circle. There ought to be a picture of a right-angled hexagon.

The topic of the article is not exactly clear - I'm gathering it's really about hyperbolic plane geometry as it doesn't discuss higher dimensions or hyperbolic surfaces. Very problematically, nowhere is "hyperbolic" clearly defined. The article should better explain what "constant negative curvature" means. The statement that hyperbolic plane geometry is the geometry of "saddle surfaces" is strange and a bit misleading - while the embedding into euclidean 3-space makes it easier for laypeople to visualize, this embedding is never used in the rest of the article and serves largely to create confusion when the article goes on to talk about different models.

Several statements in the article are unclear, for example the connection to Minkowski space. I guess that the connection is that a mass shell in phase space is a hyperboloid model of hyperbolic 3-space, and knowing this would allow one to add rapidities. Some of the details could be explained.

The final section, "Homogeneous structure," is not very readable and lacks context. The notion of a hyperbolic isometry should be plainly laid out, and the action of the automorphism group PSL(2,R) should be explained, perhaps with explicit examples. While I don't advocate dumbing things down, readers who understand the notion of a "Riemannian symmetric space of noncompact type" are not the target audience for this article, so such notions need to be explained, or at least expanded upon, as they are introduced.

✗ Fail --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this review. I agree with many of its criticisms and it encapsulates well some of the things that I was finding myself uncomfortable with in the article, which were causing me to hold off on doing a review myself. (Also, now that someone else has done a review, I no longer feel that I should delay making improvements to the article to avoid disqualifying myself as a reviewer.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Start of thanks for review by willemienH

Thanks for your review, gives lots of things to work on. The problem is a bit it is quite a complex subject and I want to make it understandable to the interested lay person, my idea was to make hyperbolic geometry the introduction to the subject while the more complex points could go to hyperbolic space. I do find the points you raise almost all fair, but to give a point by point comment:

the notion of hyperbolic distance, correct needs explaining It is just the length of the shortest path, geodesic between the points.

Well, there are formulas, though. In the half-plane model, if you define $u(z,w)={\frac {|z-w|^{2}}{4\Im {z}\Im {w}}}$ then $d(z,w)=arccosh(1+2u(z,w))$ . --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

that is only about the Poincare half-plane model therefore I would not add it in this article.WillemienH (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

the nice formulas such as area of a triangle = sum of its angles No that is not a valid formula in hyperbolic geometry, the valid formula is mentioned see hyperbolic geometry#Standardized Gaussian curvature "The area of a triangle is equal to its angle defect in radians."

Very stupid of me, sorry. Should be \pi minus the sum of angles, as you said. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget to multiply by radius of negative curvature squared JFB80 (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see geodesics in the hyperbolic plane explained again crazy enough it is just a straight line.

No, in the half plane and disc models, they are lines or circles which intersect the boundary orthogonally. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

that is only about the Poincare half-plane model and Poincare disk model therefore I would not add it in this article. WillemienH (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

for someone to tell me that a hyperbolic circle is a circle: but a circle is a circle, there is nothing more to it. (exept that its circumference and area differ)

The set of points equidistant from a point z in the hyperbolic half plane is a Euclidean circle, but centered at a point lying somewhere above z. That's a non-trivial fact. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

that is only about the Poincare half-plane model therefore I would not add it in this article.(last time) WillemienH (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There ought to be a picture of a right-angled hexagon good idea, but there is nowhere (yet) a good spot to put it. (the article only mentions triangles, nowhere it mentions other polygons. mayby when I find a right-angled hexagon on a saddle surface.

Better to show it in the disk model - and yes, the current lack of a place to put it is the real problem. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The topic of the article is not exactly clear - I'm gathering it's really about hyperbolic plane geometry as it doesn't discuss higher dimensions. Fair point I will try to add something to the lead, but it is correct that the article is mainly about hyperbolic plane geometry. (I wanted to keep it simple, for higher dimensions there is hyperbolic space.

It doesn't discuss hyperbolic surfaces not sure what you mean by this.

Compact Riemann surfaces of genus at least two admit a hyperbolic metric. They can be created by quotienting the hyperbolic plane by the action of a discrete group of hyperbolic isometries. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't find the hyperbolic metric something inportant again it is (in my eyes)mostly belonging to some models

Very problematically, nowhere is "hyperbolic" clearly defined. Fair point, but the problem is it doesn't really mean anything, it is just the name given to this geometry by Felix Klein.

As I understand it, hyperbolic means constant negative scalar curvature. Although I might just be making this up: Benedetti and Petronio use a more restrictive definition, which is equivalent to saying that a hyperbolic manifold is one that is locally isometric to some hyperbolic space. In two dimensions it's the same thing, anyway. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. The Killing-Hopf theorem says that these two definitions are equivalent. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The article should better explain what "constant negative curvature" means. Fair point, but it is a bit a mix between "Gaussian curvature", "constant curvature" and "negative curvature"

The statement that hyperbolic plane geometry is the geometry of "saddle surfaces" is strange and a bit misleading - while the embedding into euclidean 3-space makes it easier for laypeople to visualize, this embedding is never used in the rest of the article and serves largely to create confusion when the article goes on to talk about different models. It is not misleading hyperbolic plane geometry is the geometry of "saddle surfaces" with a constant curvature. I think this is how Riemann saw it. But I agree it needs more explaining, but unfortunedly this becomes very quickly very complicated. (a saddle surface with a constant curvature is nothing more than a part of an "pseudospherical surface of the hyperbolic type" but then there is not yet an article on pseudospherical surfaces, let alone that it mentions the different types)

Maybe an idea to make a section on "the geometry of saddle surfaces" where all the points about saddle surfaces are described and explained.

I think the whole bit about saddle surfaces should be no more than a footnote. We should focus on the half-plane, disk, and maybe hyperboloid models. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A saddle point for negative curvature only occurs in a Euclidean representation and the only plane example of it is the pseudosphere. Hyperbolic space is importantly represented on a hyperboloid in Minkowski space where there is no saddle point. On the subject of saddle points there is duplication in the two articles Hyperbolic plane geometry as the geometry of saddle surfaces and Physical realizations of the hyperbolic plane JFB80 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Several statements in the article are unclear, for example the connection to Minkowski space. : Fair point, I find Minkowski geometry quite unclear myself. (but do you mean this in the section hyperbolic geometry#Geometry of the universe (Special relativity) or in the section hyperbolic geometry#the hyperboloid model

The connections to relativity could be clarified better, in both places. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess that the connection is that a mass shell in phase space is a hyperboloid model of hyperbolic 3-space, and knowing this would allow one to add rapidities. Some of the details could be explained. I am not sure about this myself.

The final section, "Homogeneous structure," is not very readable and lacks context. The notion of a hyperbolic isometry should be plainly laid out, and the action of the automorphism group PSL(2,R) should be explained, perhaps with explicit examples. While I don't advocate dumbing things down, readers who understand the notion of a "Riemannian symmetric space of noncompact type" are not the target audience for this article, so such notions need to be explained, or at least expanded upon, as they are introduced: Fair points again, I don't understand this section myself. was thinking about moving it to hyperbolic space (that is a bit where i want to move every ting complicated to).

That makes sense. This topic is a good candidate for an audience split, like introduction to general relativity. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review it give lots to work on. (But a bit sad that you demoted it from B-class to C-Class on the quality scale, I thought the article improved since my major edits in Januari 2015.) Still thanks for you work I hope you can comment on the things I found unclear and other comments you my have. WillemienH (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and I don't mean to insult your work. The topic is a fairly big one and writing a comprehensive article on it will be a large task. Explicitly restricting the scope might help - such as by splitting to introduction to hyperbolic geometry and hyperbolic plane. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the 13th we were almost editing this post at the same time :), I added a bit to the lead addressing the name and that in this article is mainly about the 2 dimensional case. I disagree to add formula's to the article that are only about one particular model of geometry (but feel free to add them to the Poincare half-plane model), I want the article general. the halfplane model is just one of the 4 models of hyperbolic geometry and then we could add the related formula's of the other models and so on. I will add more later, I was thinking about a new section on "geometry of saddle shaped surfaces",to adress the points about curvature and saddle points, but first extend the "properties" section to address the points you made on circles , distances and lines (and to add a link to Absolute geometry in the mean time) why was that one missing.WillemienH (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your claim that distance formulas are unimportant. Yes, they are model-specific, so they should be given in more than one model, but without them there is no basis for any kind of numerical calculation in this geometry. By analogy, the (Pythagorean) formula for distances in Euclidean geometry is equally important (it's the single displayed formula in Euclidean geometry), and also equally dependent on a specific model (Cartesian coordinates). The fact that it depends on the Cartesian coordinate system is not a good reason for ignoring it. Same here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the addition from User:JRSpriggs about coordinate distance [2] because it is general and aplies to all models. (although it could be more specific that it is about Lobaschevski coordinates and so, see we need an article on hyperbolic coordinate systems Martin's "foundations of geometry and the non-euclidian plane" has a nice chapter with i thought 4 different hyperbolic coordinate systems and that just for the 2 dimensional case) , see this article just keeps growing :) WillemienH (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding coordinate systems for the hyperbolic plane. One can define coordinate systems for the hyperbolic plane by pulling the standard coordinate systems used with Euclidean geometry (Cartesian and radial) back through the maps which take the hyperbolic plane to its Euclidean models. It is also possible to define coordinate systems directly in the hyperbolic plane using the geometric constructions available there as was done at Hyperbolic geometry#Distance. This one is not associated with any of the standard models, but does give a one-to-one correspondence between the points of the hyperbolic plane and elements of ℝ×ℝ.

I noticed that the straight lines have equations of the form

x=C

or

\tanh y=A\cosh x+B\sinh x\quad {\text{ when }}\quad A^{2}<1+B^{2}

where A, B, and C are real parameters which characterize the straight line.

Is it worthwhile to include this in the article? JRSpriggs (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure, maybe it would better in a new article for hyperbolic plane coordinates where we could describe all kinds of hyperbolic coordinates systems. (Martin mentions 4.) But until that page is started, I think it will be okay. I was wondering what are the formulas of lines in the hyperboloid model and would like to have that at that page. WillemienH (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Justifying the classification of isometries

In a hidden comment in the text of section Hyperbolic geometry#Isometries of the hyperbolic plane, WillemienH (talk · contribs) questions whether the classification includes all isometries which can be achieved with three reflections. I will explain the derivation of our classification.

First, I take it as obvious that the isometries of S¹ (a one-dimension "sphere", i.e. a circle) are:

identity (zero reflections, zero degrees of freedom),
reflection (one reflection, one degree of freedom), and
rotation (any two reflections separated by half the angle of the turn, one degree of freedom).

A third reflection just cancels one of the reflections already being used, changing the rotation back to a reflection. Therefor, the isometries of the hyperbolic plane (or of the Euclidean plane or of the 2-sphere) which hold a given point fixed will have the same classification.

Now consider an arbitrary isometry U of the hyperbolic plane. Choose any point p. If U(p)=p, then we are done because the above classification is a sub-classification of the one given in this article. If U(p)≠p, then draw a line segment from p to U(p). Find its midpoint and construct the perpendicular bisector. Let R be the reflection through that perpendicular bisector. R(U(p))=p by the construction of R. Since R is a reflection, the composition of R with itself R∘R=I is the identity. Thus U=U∘R∘R. Let us now consider U∘R, see that U∘R(U(p))=U(p). That is, U∘R holds U(p) fixed. So we can apply the above classification to U∘R.

If U∘R is the identity, then U=U∘R∘R=I∘R=R which is just a reflection through a line.

If U∘R is a reflection Q, then U=Q∘R. Consider the two lines through which the reflections reflect. They cannot be the same because the line for R does not pass through U(p), but the line for Q does pass through U(p).

If the lines for Q and R intersect at the midpoint (between p and U(p)), then they are perpendicular and U is the inversion through that midpoint.

If the lines intersect elsewhere, then U is a rotation around that intersection.

If the lines do not intersect but are asymptotically parallel, then U is a "rotation" around the ideal point to which the lines tend.

If the lines are ultraparallel, then construct a third line perpendicular to both of them. Then U will be a translation along that third line.

If U∘R is a rotation around U(p), then we can choose two lines through U(p) separated by half the turn angle. Let the first of them be the line (of reflection S) which passes through p (and the midpoint). Then U∘R=T∘S, so U=T∘S∘R. Then S∘R will be the inversion through the midpoint. Drop a perpendicular from the midpoint onto the line of T. Let the lines of V and W be perpendicular intersecting at the midpoint (so that S∘R=W∘V) with the line of V being the perpendicular dropped onto the line of T. Then U=T∘W∘V and T∘W is a translation along the line of V since the lines of T and W are both perpendicular to the line of V.

Is that clear? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry your answer is not very clear but also that was not my question (sorry I was not very clear either).

My question is more specific "Is every combination of 3 reflections a single reflection or a glide reflection, a glide reflection described as a combined reflection through a line and translation along the same line?".

Especially how can you prove that 3 reflections that don't combine to a single reflection (because the reflection lines are part of the same pencil) always combine to a glide reflection, a combined reflection through a line and translation along the same line? WillemienH (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, every composition of three reflections in the hyperbolic plane is equivalent to either a single reflection or a glide reflection.

I already proved it above, especially in the last paragraph. Just take U to be your composite of three reflections.

I thought about trying to give another kind of argument for you, but there are just too many cases to consider. You really need to use p and R to make the simpler argument work. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if I give an overview or executive summary of the relevant part of my proof. To your three reflections, I add a fourth carefully selected reflection. This reduces them to just a rotation, i.e. two reflections. To cancel out the change that I made when I added the fourth, I add it again (since it is its own inverse). Now we have a reflection and a rotation. I break the rotation into a reflection perpendicular to the reflection I added and another reflection. The two perpendicular reflections form an inversion. So we now have that your three reflections are equivalent to an inversion and a reflection. The inversion can be broken into a reflection perpendicular to the reflection and another reflection. So we now have two reflections, both perpendicular to a third reflection. The two form a translation along the line of the third, i.e. it adds up to a glide reflection. OK? JRSpriggs (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Lemma: If A and B are reflections and p is any point, then there are reflections C, D and E such that p lies on the line of D, and A∘B=C∘D=D∘E.

Any two reflections form a rotation, horolation, or translation. If a rotation, let the line of D be the line connecting p to the center of the rotation. If a horolation, let the line of D connect p to the ideal point shared by A and B. If a translation, then let the line of D be the line one gets by dropping a perpendicular from p to the line along which A and B are translating. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@WillemienH: Suppose we have three reflections which I will call 1, 2, 3 (applied in that order). Pick any point q on the line of 3, but not on the line of 2. Using the lemma, shift 1 and 2 to 1' and 2' so that 2' goes thru q. Then 2' and 3 form a rotation about q (or the identity which reduces this to just a single reflection 1'). Drop a perpendicular from q onto the line of 1'. Call the foot of that perpendicular m. Now shift 2' and 3 to 2' ' and 3' so that 2' ' goes thru m. Then 1' and 2' ' meet perpendicularly at m, so they form an inversion thru m. Drop a perpendicular from m onto the line of 3', and call its foot n. Shift 1' and 2' ' to 1' ' and 2' ' ' so that 1' ' goes thru n. Then 1' ' and 2' ' ' still meet perpendicularly at m, but now 1' ' and 3' also meet perpendicularly at n. Thus 3∘2∘1=3∘2'∘1'=3'∘2' '∘1'=3'∘2' ' '∘1' ' is the composition of a reflection 1' ' and a translation 3'∘2' ' ' along the line of 1' ', i.e. they form a glide reflection. Do you understand now? JRSpriggs (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the objective is to prove that the three reflections are equivalent to either one reflection or a glide reflection, I will assume that they are not equivalent to a single reflection. Thus 1≠2, because otherwise 3∘2∘1=3. And 2≠3, because otherwise 3∘2∘1=1. There is a point q on 3 which is not on 2, because otherwise 3=2. q is not the common element of 1 and 2, because otherwise it would be on 2. 2' is not 3, because otherwise 3∘2∘1=3∘2'∘1'=1'. m is not q, because otherwise 1' and 2' would share both the common element of 1 and 2 and the distinct point m=q so that 1'=2' and thus 1=2. n is not m, because otherwise 2' '=3' so 2'=3. I hope that fills in the gaps in the proof by eliminating any special cases which might cause problems. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I copied the section Hyperbolic geometry#Isometries of the hyperbolic plane to Hyperbolic motion#Motions on the hyperbolic plane that page needed a more general (model independent) section and this section was just that. I guess in the long run the two copies will differ but thart is no worry to me. WillemienH (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hyperbolic geometry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711162245/http://www.helasculpt.com/gallery/hyperbolicquilt/ to http://www.helasculpt.com/gallery/hyperbolicquilt/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)