  Euclidean geometry consists of straightedge-and-compass constructions and
reasoning about the results of those constructions. We show that Euclidean
geometry can be developed using only intuitionistic logic. We consider three
versions of Euclid's parallel postulate: Euclid's own formulation in his
Postulate 5; Playfair's 1795 version, and a new version we call the strong
parallel postulate. These differ in that Euclid's version and the new version
both assert the existence of a point where two lines meet, while Playfair's
version makes no existence assertion. Classically, the models of Euclidean
(straightedge-and-compass) geometry are planes over Euclidean fields. We prove
a similar theorem for constructive Euclidean geometry, by showing how to define
addition and multiplication without a case distinction about the sign of the
arguments. With intuitionistic logic, there are two possible definitions of
Euclidean fields, which turn out to correspond to the different versions of the
parallel axiom. In this paper, we completely settle the questions about
implications between the three versions of the parallel postulate: the strong
parallel postulate easily implies Euclid 5, and in fact Euclid 5 also implies
the strong parallel postulate, although the proof is lengthy, depending on the
verification that Euclid 5 suffices to define multiplication geometrically. We
show that Playfair does not imply Euclid 5, and we also give some other
independence results. Our independence proofs are given without discussing the
exact choice of the other axioms of geometry; all we need is that one can
interpret the geometric axioms in Euclidean field theory. The proofs use Kripke
models of Euclidean field theories based on carefully constructed rings of
real-valued functions.
