View source for Talk:Fano postulate

==Fact or assumption==
The article states that the Fano postulate is a "proposition" and a "fact".  However, the rest of the text makes it clear that there are projective geometries in which the Fano postulate does not hold, and indeed, the example illustrated in [[Projective plane]] is precisely the case of a projective plane over a field of order 2, one of the cases in which the Fano postulate does not hold.  Both references make it clear that Fano's postulate is a postulate, that is, an exiom assumed to hold for a class of projective geometries.  Probably the article should also define the term "Fano configuration", a quadrangle with collinear diagonal points, and the terminology "Fano plane" for a projective plane in which Fano's postulate does ''not'' hold (as Gleason points out, the term "anti-Fano" would have been more sensible).  [[User:Richard Pinch|Richard Pinch]] ([[User talk:Richard Pinch|talk]]) 14:37, 13 April 2017 (CEST)