I see the point about the platform returning to the same location after going around the hole, it is indeed a bit similar to would happen in the universal cover. However, IIRC if you move the platform A, go around the hole to find a yet unmoved platform, and then go back, the platform A also becomes unmoved, so it is still not really the same thing...
I would say that the parallel axiom is not violated (the spirit of this axiom is that parallel lines behave weirdly, they converge/diverge, or in 3D they could also twist -- since the gravity is preserved in most of the game, the gravity lines act like normal parallel lines, same with the lines orthogonal to them.). The only place I have found so far where gravity lines cross (in some sense) is the "sphere" level.
> Furthermore, from Euclid’s axioms, it follows that a line segment is the shortest path between two points, which is absolutely untrue in all “R^n with portals” worlds due to a trivial counterexample.
I would not agree with this, because by this logic, any L-shaped level is non-Euclidean because the shortest path is not straight.
It is still piecewise straight, so we should allow for piecewise straight lines here, and in portal spaces shortest paths are again piecewise straight lines (well, unless the obstacles are curved).
Also this is not really a property of non-Euclidean geometry -- shortest lines are straight lines in all classic non-Euclidean geometries.
(again, in both cases the weirdness happens due to topological rather than geometrical effects)
I do not think "non-Euclidean geometry" is that common, mostly they say just "non-Euclidean" without geometry (one thing contributing to the confusion is CodeParade's "non-Euclidean worlds" viral video, he thinks that "non-Euclidean geometry" should not be used for any weird space but just "non-Euclidean" is fine -- this makes some sense but it still confuses people so I do not agree with him). "Impossible space" is what most people who care say. Thanks for considering this!