Desargues — where it appears
Named by 7 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A shadow can be un-cast
A shadow looks like a lossy record — a flattened smear with the shape half thrown away. It is nothing of the kind. The map from the occluder's plane to the floor is a plane projectivity, so it has an inverse, and the outline comes back out of its own shadow exactly. What breaks it is not the light and not the shape: it is the floor not being flat.
Two triangles and the line nobody drew
Desargues' theorem is the reason a hand-drawn shadow construction closes. An object and its shadow are two figures in perspective from the lamp; the theorem says their corresponding sides meet, pairwise, on one line — which is the ground line. So the closure a draughtsman treats as confirmation that the work is accurate is a theorem they cannot violate.
Four lines have a cross-ratio
The cross-ratio is introduced as a property of four points on a line. Its dual — four lines through a point carry the same number, and any transversal reads it back — is not a second theorem. It is why the first one is true: four rays from an eye are a pencil, every picture of them is a section of that pencil, and a quantity belonging to the pencil cannot depend on which section was taken.
Three constructions, one map
A shadow cast on a floor, an anamorph painted on one, and a reflection in a mirror are usually treated as three different subjects, each with its own derivation and its own figure. Decomposed into their fixed points and lines, three of them are the same kind of map — a central collineation with a line of fixed points — and the fourth, a rectification, is not. That difference separates changing where a picture is seen from, from changing one picture into another.
A point and a line are one object
Every projective statement has a partner got by swapping the words point and line, and the partner is true whenever the original is. Run on this collection's own Desargues configuration, all thirty of its incidences survive the exchange to 5 × 10⁻¹⁶ — and three of the dual's ten points land at infinity, which is a fact about where the drawing sits on the page rather than about the theorem.
Desargues read the other way
The theorem's converse is not a second theorem. Exchange points and lines in the ten-point configuration and every one of its thirty incidences holds to 5 × 10⁻¹⁶, the axis becomes a point, the three axis points become lines through it — and what has been written down is the converse, read off the drawing rather than proved.
The theorem that is obvious one dimension up
Desargues in the plane needs a proof and in space needs none — two triangles in different planes have their corresponding sides meeting on the line where the planes cross, and the meets land 1.0e-14 metres off it. The plane figure is a shadow of the spatial one, and five different solids cast the same photograph to 2.0e-12 pixels.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Projective dualityProjective mapcentre of projectionDemonstrationDualityHomographyIncidenceline at infinityPencilProjective invariantCollineationCross-ratio