Talk:Impossible object

Underlying principles

This article does not do a good job explaining the principles behind impossible objects. It fails to mention the math behind it. In particular, all impossible objects are derived from the fact that information is lost when translating 3d points into a 2d plane. Since different 3d points can translate to the same 2d point, points that are detached in 3d space can be apparently consistent in the projection. For example, if you take 2 points A and B, where A is directly over B, there are many different 3d paths that will project in a way that joins A and B. One path is to go directly about the Z axis. Another path is to go about the Y axis, and then the X axis (that is, pretend A and B are both in the XY plane). When both possibilities are entertained in the same image you get an impossible object (in this case, a Penrose triangle).

There is a lot more I could write on the topic, but I fear I am approaching the boundaries of "original research." (IIAOPSW (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC))

Examples

It'd be interesting to see in this article some efforts to construct actual "impossible" objects. This paper notes that many impossible objects rely upon a particular viewing angle to seem impossible, and gives examples of many such objects that can be constructed three-dimensionally. The impossible cube, in particular, would be quite easy to construct: The front top beam that appears to pass behind the rear beam could in fact have a hole cut in it to make it appear that way when viewed from a certain angle. I may work on some of these in Blender. -- Wapcaplet 02:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow, the impossible cube was even easier to construct than I might have imagined. I suspect there are other ways to do it, too - curvy pieces that really do pass behind the other bits, but appear to be straight beams when viewed orthographically. -- Wapcaplet 03:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the impossible bottle from the list since its something that can actually be built, it just looks strange. user:vroman

Somebody must have put it back so I have removed it again. --DanielRigal 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Beyond Escher for Real has several examples of "impossible objects" that have been modelled in 3D, some have even been made with Rapid prototyping. --Zarboki 16:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

"In fiction

• In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "I, Borg", a plan was made to destroy the entire race of Borg – malevolent cybernetic aliens whose minds were interconnected – by showing one of the borg a picture of a highly-complex impossible object. This image would be transmitted back to the Borg hive, overloading its consciousness in larger and larger attempts to understand the image. This plan was dismissed as being genocide, so its potential results were never seen."

Does this really belong here? --K_R 01:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Is a Klein bottle a valid example? It certainly can't be constructed in a three-dimensional universe.user:Olaf Davis 17:26, 23 Sep 2006

I don't think so. I think the definition must be an object that can be drawn in 2D using individually valid but conflicting perspective elements so that the mind inteprets it as a 2D picture of a 3D object before realising that this is not actually possible. In other words it is an optical illusion, which the Klein Bottle is not. I am currently reading Bruno Ernst's book on the subject and that is sort of the way he defines it. If nobody objects, I would like to reword the description along these lines as I think that will help people understand why things like the Impossible Bottle don't belong here.--DanielRigal 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A Klein Bottle certainly can be constructed. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(JBW says):

No, this is not a Klein bottle. It is a three-dimensional picture of a Kelin bottle but not a real one, just as other "impossible objects" have two dimensional pictures which are not the real objects.

Whilst I agree that Cuddlyable3's contribution is mistaken, it shouldn't be deleted from the talk page. I have restored it above and appended JBW's edit summary refutation. Captainllama (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

In fiction

In the In fiction section, the item

• In the video game Diablo II, the "Arcane Sanctuary" region was based on impossible drawings.

had the following comment added 09:04, 13 June 2007 by user:71.194.202.81:

(on purpose? i think this results from being unable to show a 3-d area on Diablo's graphics, and is a coincidence-)

While possibly relevant, it needs some editing and fact checking before going into the article proper. Or, the whole item should be removed as unsourced / original research.--Niels Ø (noe) 09:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a picture of it. SpectrumDT (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Impossible only as some dimwits interpret it!!

All the impossible objects can be made in 3d. The only problem is when we rotate them the trick is revealed. But hey, whoever said about rotation in the 2d representation presented to our eyes... So, in a way I tend to disagree that the showed 2d image is that of an impossible object. If nothing else, what we see, can easily be constructed as thin wires arranged in a way and welded together and photographed to look similar to the image shown. Whatever you want to call such objects(read drawings), it is certainly wrong to call it an optical illusion. This is no illusion, just an example of bad engineering-drawing. Could someone paraphrase/copy-as-it-is the logic I have given here and then use it in the article. Saurabh Mangal (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The mental function of stereoscopic vision is always to try to interpret what is seen as a real 3D object, even when parallax is not evident e.g. when the scene is at great distance, one eye is shut or when looking at a drawing or photograph. Please don't disparage this mental function as "some dimwits" because it is vital to understanding the world around us. Images of impossible objects lead the mind to start modelling an object that cannot be properly modelled. The brain's optical function labours under the illusion that there is an object that can be realized, hence optical illusion. Replacing a line drawing with a view of wires merely changes the physical medium of the image that is causing the optical illusion. (There is no such thing as a "good" engineering drawing of an impossible object.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes,the title of this article is mislead and therefore the article should be renamed. The simple fact, that these objects can be drawn or imagined, in whatever how many dimensions, is proof of the possibility and existence of these obejcts. A definition whether such object exit or not is very relative to the ability of a mind. In respect to the neutrality, therefore this article should be renamed. - Lix (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point completely. given any "3d" image (that is, an image that is supposed to represent a 3d figure projected to the 2d plane) there are an infinite set of 3d objects that resolve to that image. This is a result of the inherit loss of information when going from 3d to 2d. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that there exists a real 3d object that resolves to a given impossible object. For example, here is a shape that involves several types of ambiguities. http://andreasaronsson.com/2011/08/17/impossible-figure-2011-06-28/.

Hello, all. There is such a thing as an "impossible object," and it should remain the name of the article. As for whether it is an optical illusion or engineering-drawing, I would ask what the difference is. Isn't engineering-drawing how you create an optical illusion? Finally, I think that y'all are reading too much into this. --John (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Impossibility in Higher Dimensions

What happens to the feasability of manufacturing these objects when one considers all eleven dimensions? -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 04:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. The use of extra dimensions does not allow these shapes to be constructed at all.

Rune of Xel'lotath

There is discussion on whether the rune of Xel’lotath from Eternal Darkness: Sanity’s Requiem is really an impossible object or not and thus whether it should be removed from this article. I think it is not and therefore should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synetech (talk • contribs) 08:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because something can be imagined does not necessarily mean that it can actually exist in reality! Take for example a massive object that is not influenced by gravity at all! It definitely can be imagined but can such a thing really exist? In my opinion it is logically impossible for such a thing to exist! The phrase itself is simply a meaningless string of words, like someone saying that John is a married bachelor. In all physical theories the very definition of a massive object is something that has a gravitational field! Stating that there exists such a thing as that is the same as saying that there exists a square circle! Yonathan Arief Kurniawan (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Yonathan Arief Kurniawan

Impossible object versus optical illusion

There seems to be a soft distinction between things that are impossible objects and things that are optical illusions. Some items in Category:Impossible objects suffer from this confusion, as well as some content in this article and the see also section. Some care should be taken in the application of the definition of impossible object. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Optical illusion is a superset of impossible objects. I think most of the stuff in there is tagged correctly. --CyberXRef^☎ 08:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Fez video game example

Previous version : this included a video clip of the game Fez, but this does not appear to represent "Impossible objects" in the sense of this article. There are views of a "block" universe from one direction, and the 3D graphics rotate (too quickly to see what is happening) to a different view. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You have to pay close attention to the gameplay. As the player moves, he may for instance climb a ladder that in reality is partially connected to one cliff, and continue by climbing a different ladder that is connected to a different cliff. But this is in one fluid motion that "breaks" the rules of perspective in both a visual and spatial sense. It's very subtle. SharkD  Talk  14:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Fez definitively has impossible objects in the sense that player's movement on 3D geometry is based on that geometry's 2D projection. In other words, there is no "depth" to objects unless the view is rotating and the game totally breaks perspective by allowing player to traverse the projections. For example, objects far apart in 3D space appear to be next to each other when looked from a certain angle and the player can move between them as if there was no depth distance. In video, a good example is at 1:30 -- the player jumps between the purple floating platforms that in 3D view are on 4 opposite corners of the main structure. It takes getting used to. It's the most famous game with this mechanic, so I think it's a very good example to include. There's not many works with complex impossible geometry, yet alone playable/interactive. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

While we don't have free imagery, Antichamber is perhaps a stronger example of impossible objects in video games. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point, in full 3D it's the best example and perhaps best example overall. I would still say Fez is more known/popular, but I guess that's somewhat subjective. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I still feel that the Fez clip is not a good illustration, because it requires too much work to find the "impossible" bit. I think it might be better to add some description, and a link to the Fez article. Have I grasped this: basically, in the game, jumping is always within the 2D projection, as though it were flat. But the player knows that "really" in 3D the planes are different...? I'm not entirely convinced that this is the same sort of thing as the rest of the "impossible objects", which are always tricks of perspective in a 2D drawing. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hellknowz,@Masem Yes, that's how it works. It is 3D (or 4D if you include time) instead of 2D, but it still is an visual artistic representation of an object that can't function in reality. SharkD  Talk  19:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not entirely convinced that this is the same sort of thing as the rest of the "impossible objects", which are always tricks of perspective in a 2D drawing." Television screens are 2D, so it's not different in that sense. SharkD  Talk  21:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"Mysteriously"

Calling the trident mysterious seems like an attempt to play it up.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Echochrome

Here's another video game that features impossible objects. Could maybe link to the video if it weren't so grainy. SharkD  Talk  23:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

And the sequel, though it's more about shadows. SharkD  Talk  23:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Waterfall.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove Bixten Seme/Impossible cards?

I'm just a casual reader, however I notice this example lacks a source and lacks supporting details via a Google search. Should it be removed?

"Impossible linked cards - invented by Bixten Seme and created in real time by an expert practitioner, of which there are only three worldwide. The centers are torn out of two cards and then they are permanently linked."

(I realize there is a magician's tool called the "impossible cards" but they are obviously not *truly* impossible, nor limited to three worldwide. And still no mention of a Bixten Seme.)

(Apologies for the initial accidental post of this comment under the wrong topic not sure if that can be edited or deleted.) Quillseek (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that this is not notable. Googling "Bixten Seme" returns almost nothing. It also sounds promotional in tone. I have removed it. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation! :) Quillseek (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)