Yes.

I highly recommend Introduction to constructions, which is a good basic guide.

Basically you need to be able to compute with constructible numbers - numbers that are either rational, or of the form a + b sqrt(c) where a,b,c were previously created (see page 6 on that PDF). This could be done with algebraic data type (e.g. data C = Rational Integer Integer | Root C C C in Haskell, where Root a b c = a + b sqrt(c)). However, I don t know how to perform tests with that representation.

Two possible approaches are:

• Constructible numbers are a subset of algebraic numbers, so you can use algebraic numbers. All algebraic numbers can be represented using polynomials of whose they are roots. The operations are computable, so if you represent a number a with polynomial p and b with polynomial q (p(a) = q(b) = 0), then it is possible to find a polynomial r such that r(a+b) = 0. This is done in some CASes like Mathematica, example. See also: Computional algebraic number theory - chapter 4

• Use Tarski s test and represent numbers. It is slow (doubly exponential or so), but works :) Example: to represent sqrt(2), use the formula x^2 - 2 && x > 0. You can write equations for lines there, check if points are colinear etc. See A suite of logic programs, including Tarski s test

If you turn to computable numbers, then equality, colinearity etc. get undecidable.

I think the only way this would be possible is if you used a symbolic representation, as opposed to trying to represent coordinate values directly -- so you would have to avoid trying to coerce values like sqrt(2) into some numerical format. You will be dealing with irrational numbers that are not finitely representable in binary, decimal, or any other positional notation.

To expand on Jim Lewis s answer slightly, if you want to operate on points that are constructible from the integers with exact arithmetic, you will need to be able to operate on representations of the form:

a + b sqrt(c)

where a, b, and c are either rational numbers, or representations in the form given above. Wikipedia has a pretty decent article on the subject of what points are constructible.

Answering the question of exact equality (as necessary to establish colinearity) with such representations is a rather tricky problem.

If you try to compare co-ordinates for your points, then you have a problem. Leaving aside co-linearity for a moment, how about just working out whether two points are the same or not?

Supposing that one has given co-ordinates, and the other is a compass-straightedge construction starting from certain other co-ordinates, you want to determine with certainty whether they re the same point or not. Either way is a theorem of Euclidean geometry, it s not something you can just measure. You can prove they aren t the same by spotting some difference in their co-ordinates (for example by computing decimal places of each until you encounter a difference). But in general to prove they are the same cannot be done by approximate methods. Compute as many decimal places as you like of some expansions of 1/sqrt(2) and sqrt(2)/2, and you can prove they re very close together but you won t ever prove they re equal. That takes algebra (or geometry).

Similarly, to show that three points are co-linear you will need theorem-proving software. Represent the points A, B, C by their constructions, and attempt to prove the theorem "A, B and C are colinear". This is very hard - your program will prove some theorems but not others. Much easier is to ask the user for a proof that they are co-linear, and then verify (or refute) that proof, but that s probably not what you want.

In general, constructable points may have an arbitrarily complex symbolic form, so you must use a symbolic representation to work them exactly. As Stephen Canon noted above, you often need numbers of the form a+b*sqrt(c), where a and b are rational and c is an integer. All numbers of this form form a closed set under arithmetic operations. I have written some C++ classes (see rational_radical1.h) to work with these numbers if that is all you need.

It is also possible to construct numbers which are sums of any number of terms of rational multiples of radicals. When dealing with more than a single radicand, the numbers are no longer closed under multiplication and division, so you will need to store them as variable length rational coefficient arrays. The time complexity of operations will then be quadratic in the number of terms.

To go even further, you can construct the square root of any given number, so you could potentially have nested square roots. Here, the representations must be tree-like structures to deal with root hierarchy. While difficult to implement, there is nothing in principle preventing you from working with these representations. I m not sure just what additional numbers can be constructed, but beyond a certain point, your symbolic representation will be expressive enough to handle very large classes of numbers.

Addendum

Found this Google Books link.

If the grid axes are integer valued then the answer is fairly straight forward, the points are either exactly colinear or they are not.

Typically however, one works with real numbers (well, floating points) and then draws the rounded values on the screen which does exist in integer space. In this case you have no choice but to pick a tolerance and use it to determine colinearity. Keep it small and the users will never know the difference.

You seem to be asking, in effect, "Can the normal mathematics (integer or floating point) used by computers be made to represent real numbers perfectly, with no rounding errors?" And, of course, the answer to that is "No." If you want theoretical correctness, then you will be stuck with the much harder problem of symbolic manipulation and coding up the equivalent of the inferences that are done in geometry. (In short, I m agreeing with Steve Jessop, above.)

Some thoughts in the hope that they might help.

The sort of constructions you re talking about will require multiplication and division, which means that to preserve exactness you ll have to use rational numbers, which are generally easy to implement on top of a suitable sort of big integer (i.e., of unbounded magnitude). (Common Lisp has these built-in, and there have to be other languages.)

Now, you need to represent square roots of arbitrary numbers, and these have to be mixed in.

Therefore, a number is one of: a rational number, a rational number multiplied by a square root of a rational number (or, alternately, just the square root of a rational), or a sum of numbers. In order to prove anything, you re going to have to get these numbers into some sort of canonical form, which for all I can figure offhand may be annoying and computationally expensive.

This of course means that the users will be restricted to rational points and cannot use arbitrary rotations, but that s probably not important.

I would recommend no to try to make it perfectly exact.

The first reason for this is what you are asking here, the rounding error and all that stuff that comes with floating point calculations.

The second one is that you have to round your input as the mouse and screen work with integers. So, initially all user input would be integers, and your output would be integers.

Beside, from a usability point of view, its easier to click in the neighborhood of another point (in a line for example) and that the interface consider you are clicking in the point itself.