Talk:Impossible cube

Comments

TODO: I once saw a Linux/X-Windows screen saver that shows a rotating(!) impossible cube. Maybe some one could turn that into an animated GIF and add it to this page? I do not have the technical skills to do so (nor access to Linux at the moment). 195.35.160.133 11:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Martin.

Okay, we seem to have a revert war going on here, and I for one can't understand why. The two images keep getting put into reverse order, then fixed, then reversed again. This is silly.

Remember, both of the images float to the right, so the first image in the wikicode ends up the furthest to the right: following the other if you read left-to-right (as most English speakers do). So we end up with "Viewed from another angle, however, the non-impossibility of the shape is apparent -- its cubic nature itself is an illusion. Viewed from a certain angle, this cube appears to defy the laws of physics." which reverses the logical order of the sentences. It makes no sense to have the image revealing the illusion from another angle before the image of the illusion we're describing itself. — Gwalla | Talk 05:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my browser, the two images appear one on top of the other, no matter how wide I make the page; and the present state (with "impossible_cube_illusion_angle" first) is the one which puts the pictures in the correct order. (I absolutely agree that the image of the illusion must appear first - whatever that means - in the rendered page.) Zack 07:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two kinds of impossible cube?

The current picture, with two intersections "wrong"

Modified picture, with only one intersection "wrong"

I think the impossible cube in the Image:Impossible cube illusion angle.png is not the same type as the one used by Escher in and which I have seen most often (and which I personally prefer). The current image has two "wrong" intersections, whereas Escher's version has only one. Here's a modified version of the figure with only one intersection wrong. Itub 19:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've redrawn the lead image with a version that only has one strut overlapping, and that has some shading to highlight the overlap. Escher's version in Belvedere also changes the bottom of the cube so that the viewer can see both the top and base at the same time, which I haven't attempted to draw. Belbury (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

It is still the case that none of the images in the article (except maybe the photo of the Verhoeff sculpture) resemble the one in Belvedere, for which a nice detail can be seen in https://escherinhetpaleis.nl/en/about-escher/escher-today/belvedere . A quick check for whether it's right or not: hold up your hand to block the lower half and then, separately, the upper half. Each should look like a possible cube, but a different possible cube. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The Belvedere cube

I've drawn a further version of the illustration that follows Escher's design. It's certainly a more striking effect, so I've replaced the lead image with it. Belbury (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)