4 ms·
Yes! Thank you! I was wondering what's so impossible about this and I think that's what I was missing -- yes, if you go with the assumption that the back side i
by SilasX 5y ago
Yes! Thank you! I was wondering what's so impossible about this and I think that's what I was missing -- yes, if you go with the assumption that the back side is a plane, then it's not possible, but that was never my initial assumption. I interpreted it as like a ... 3D trapezoid (?), with a rear support for D and fourth point on its base (though maybe that has its own issue).
This is IMHO very different from usual "impossible figure" drawings where there is no interpretation that makes it work.
- aaroninsf 5y agoI am in agreement with y'all. In particular with you observation that this is a different class of "impossible figures." Though I can also understand the counter-argument, that one can also construct objects which from a privileged perspective also "technically" are possible solutions for such figures. I believe the (compelling) counter-counter-argument is that such solutions are AFAIK unique to privileged perspectives, but in this case, there is a whole set of such perspectives. You can rotate the thing through quite a range and still assert you're looking at an impossible pyramid. Adding a single edge to defeat the premise that it's a "pyramid" is I suspect a formalizable distinction which reduces the impossibility (as others have said) to whether you want to hinge all on the word "pyramid."