ON THE NATURE OF AXIOMS.--Most mathematicians regard Lobachevski's geometry only as a mere logical curiosity; some of them, however, have gone farther. Since several geometries are possible, is it certain ours is the true one? Experience no doubt teaches us that the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles; but this is because the triangles we deal with are too little; the difference, according to Lobachevski, is proportional to the surface of the triangle; will it not perhaps become sensible when we shall operate on larger triangles or when our measurements shall become more precise? The Euclidean geometry would thus be only a provisional geometry. To discuss this opinion, we should first ask ourselves what is the nature of the geometric axioms. Are they synthetic _a priori_ judgments, as Kant said? They would then impose themselves upon us with such force that we could not conceive the contrary proposition, nor build upon it a theoretic edifice. There would be no non-Euclidean geometry. To be convinced of it take a veritable synthetic _a priori_ judgment, the following, for instance, of which we have seen the preponderant rôle in the first chapter: _If a theorem is true for the number 1, and if it has been proved that it is true of n + 1 provided it is true of n, it will be true of all the positive whole numbers._ Then try to escape from that and, denying this proposition, try to found a false arithmetic analogous to non-Euclidean geometry--it can not be done; one would even be tempted at first blush to regard these judgments as analytic. Moreover, resuming our fiction of animals without thickness, we can hardly admit that these beings, if their minds are like ours, would adopt the Euclidean geometry which would be contradicted by all their experience. Should we therefore conclude that the axioms of geometry are experimental verities? But we do not experiment on ideal straights or circles; it can only be done on material objects. On what then could be based experiments which should serve as foundation for geometry? The answer is easy. We have seen above that we constantly reason as if the geometric figures behaved like solids. What geometry would borrow from experience would therefore be the properties of these bodies. The properties of light and its rectilinear propagation have also given rise to some of the propositions of geometry, and in particular those of projective geometry, so that from this point of view one would be tempted to say that metric geometry is the study of solids, and projective, that of light. But a difficulty remains, and it is insurmountable. If geometry were an experimental science, it would not be an exact science, it would be subject to a continual revision. Nay, it would from this very day be convicted of error, since we know that there is no rigorously rigid solid. The _axioms of geometry therefore are neither synthetic_ a priori _judgments nor experimental facts_.