A difference between inner Pasch and outer Pasch and outer Pasch is not independent in Tarskian Geometry

Tarski originally took outer Pasch as an axiom. Later, Szmielew chose to take inner Pasch as an axiom instead of outer Pasch. Outer Pasch can be written as the form ∀[∃A→∃B]. In this paper, we can show that outer Pasch itself is equivalent to ∀[∃B→∃A], where ∃B→∃A is the converse of ∃A→∃B, without using the symmetry of the betweenness (SB) or other Tarskian axioms. And then, we show that ∀[∃A↔∃B] is a theorem. Inner Pasch can also be written as the form ∀[∃C→∃D]. But, ∀[∃D→∃C], where ∃D→∃C is the converse of ∃C→∃D, is not true. Of course, ∀[∃C↔∃D] is not a theorem. Thus, we find a property which outer Pasch axiom possesses while inner Pasch axiom does not. The property suggests a reason to prefer to take outer Pasch as an axiom to inner Pasch. In [ 4], Tarski and Givant indicated that the independence of outer Pasch axiom in FG⁽²⁾ is still an open question while by modifying FG⁽²⁾ by replacing Ax.10₁ with Ax. 10₂, then outer Pasch is independent. However, we show that outer Pasch is not independent, specially in FG⁽²⁾ or the modified FG⁽²⁾. For the independence of outer Pasch, we suggest a new version of outer Pasch.