A Euclidean proof for the fourth postulate (Q7010055)

After a survey of all the applications of Postulate 4 in Book I of Euclid's \textit{Elements}, a discussion of a possible alternative to it -- ``All pairs of adjacent angles whose noncommon sides are collinear are equal'' --, an analysis of Proclus's two proofs of Postulate 4, a discussion of Euclid's uses of superposition in the proofs of Propositions I.4 and I.8, a model for the independence of those two propositions from Euclid's first principles, to emphasize the need for the superposition technique, to which Euclid appeals for their proof, a comparison of the use of superposition in Proclus and Euclid, an argued rejection of \textit{R. J. Wagner}'s constructive interpretation of superposition in [Hist. Math. 10, 63--70 (1983; Zbl 0509.01004)], comes the central claim of the paper: That Euclid did not need Postulate 4. This is shown by first providing a new proof of Proposition I.15, which makes no use of Postulate 4, and then proving Propositions I.16, I.18, I.19, I.20, I.22, and I.23 just the way Euclid does. Proposition I.23 is then used to provide a proof of Postulate 4. The proofs only depend on Euclid's accepted propositions, none of which depends in turn on Postulate 4, and, once Propositions I.4 and I.8 have been established, require no further appeal to superposition.