This article was selected as the article for improvement on 8 July 2013 for a period of one week. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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))
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
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
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
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.
In the In fiction section, the item
had the following comment added 09:04, 13 June 2007 by user:71.194.202.81:
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)
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)
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)
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
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. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Calling the trident mysterious seems like an attempt to play it up.-- Simplificationalizer ( talk) 18:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 8 July 2013 for a period of one week. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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))
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
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
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
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.
In the In fiction section, the item
had the following comment added 09:04, 13 June 2007 by user:71.194.202.81:
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)
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)
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)
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
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. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Calling the trident mysterious seems like an attempt to play it up.-- Simplificationalizer ( talk) 18:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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)