Melchior’s ordinary-points problem

For every integer n≥3n\ge 3 and every set of nn distinct lines in the real projective plane RP2\mathbb{RP}^{2} that are not all concurrent, there exist at least three points of RP2\mathbb{RP}^{2} incident with exactly two of the lines.

Equivalent formulations 1Other wordings

Other statements of this same problem, merged from separate entries. Each is equivalent to the statement above — proving any one settles them all.

  1. Sylvester's ordinary-line theorem

    For every finite set of at least three points in the real affine plane that are not all collinear, there exist at least three lines determined by pairs of the points and containing exactly two points of the set.

    source: In Search of Melchior's Ordinary Points

References

Primary source

arXiv

Additional references

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed progress

A new paper offers a visual proof of the known three-ordinary-points theorem, advancing the requested proof method without newly solving the theorem itself.

The problem seeks a simpler geometric proof of Melchior’s conclusion that every nontrivial finite arrangement of real projective lines has at least three ordinary points. Melchior proved the underlying result in 1940, though one source dates it 1941; it predates Erdős’s 1943 restatement.

Known results

  • Melchior, 1940 or 1941: Euler’s polyhedral formula yields at least three ordinary points.
  • Erdős, 1943: restated the ordinary-line problem.
  • Grünwald, 1944: published a solution of the ordinary-line problem.

August 25, 2026 visual proof

The paper In Search of Melchior’s Ordinary Points reports a visual proof of the three-ordinary-points conclusion and presents it as a simpler geometric route to the stronger Sylvester–Gallai phenomenon. The underlying theorem was already known, so this is progress on the requested proof method rather than a new resolution; the proof has not been independently verified here.

Current status (as of August 2026): Melchior’s three-ordinary-points theorem is settled, while the newly reported visual proof is claimed but unverified.

Sources

Solutions 0

No solutions have been posted yet.