In this paper we give probably an exhaustive analysis of the geometry of solids which was sketched by Tarski in his short paper [20, 21]. We show that in order to prove theorems stated in [20, 21] one must enrich Tarski's theory with a new postulate asserting that the universe of discourse of the geometry of solids coincides with arbitrary mereological sums of balls, i.e., with solids. We show that once having adopted such a solution Tarski's Postulate 4 can be (...) omitted, together with its versions 4' and 4". We also prove that the equivalence of postulates 4, 4' and 4" is not provable in any theory whose domain contains objects other than solids. Moreover, we show that the concentricity relation as defined by Tarski must be transitive in the largest class of structures satisfying Tarski's axioms. We build a model (in three-dimensional Euclidean space) of the theory of so called T*-structures and present the proof of the fact that this is the only (up to isomorphism) model of this theory. Moreover, we propose different categorical axiomatizations of the geometry of solids. In the final part of the paper we answer the question concerning the logical status (within the theory of T*-structures) of the definition of the concentricity relation given by Tarski. (shrink)

In recent years, there has been renewed interest in the development of formal languages for describing mereological (part-whole) and topological relationships between objects in space. Typically, the non-logical primitives of these languages are properties and relations such as `x is connected' or `x is a part of y', and the entities over which their variables range are, accordingly, not points, but regions: spatial entities other than regions are admitted, if at all, only as logical constructs of regions. This paper considers (...) two first-order mereotopological languages, and investigates their expressive power. It turns out that these languages, notwithstanding the simplicity of their primitives, are surprisingly expressive. In particular, it is shown that infinitary versions of these languages are adequate to express (in a sense made precise below) all topological relations over the domain of polygons in the closed plane. (shrink)

This paper presents a calculus for mereotopological reasoning in which two-dimensional spatial regions are treated as primitive entities. A first order predicate language ℒ with a distinguished unary predicate c(x), function-symbols +, · and - and constants 0 and 1 is defined. An interpretation ℜ for ℒ is provided in which polygonal open subsets of the real plane serve as elements of the domain. Under this interpretation the predicate c(x) is read as 'region x is connected' and the function-symbols and (...) constants are given their meaning in terms of a Boolean algebra of polygons. We give an alternative interpretation ������ base on the real closed plane which turns out to be isomorphic to ℜ. A set of axioms and a rule of inference are introduced. We prove the soundness and completeness of the calculus with respect to the given interpretation. (shrink)

Inspired by locale theory, we propose “pointfree convex geometry”. We introduce the notion of convexity algebra as a pointfree convexity space. There are two notions of a point for convexity algebra: one is a chain-prime meet-complete filter and the other is a maximal meet-complete filter. In this paper we show the following: the former notion of a point induces a dual equivalence between the category of “spatial” convexity algebras and the category of “sober” convexity spaces as well as a dual (...) adjunction between the category of convexity algebras and the category of convexity spaces; the latter notion of point induces a dual equivalence between the category of “m-spatial” convexity algebras and the category of “m-sober” convexity spaces. We finally argue that the former notion of a point is more useful than the latter one from a category theoretic point of view and that the former notion of a point actually represents a polytope and the latter notion of a point properly represents a point. We also remark on the close relationships between pointfree convex geometry and domain theory. (shrink)