Talk:Necker cube

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Necker Cube or Necker cube?

Which one is it? Downwards 04:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Robert Penrose (in 'the Fantastic World of M.C.Escher'), the Necker Cube is what is being identified in this article as the 'impossible cube' ? It hardly seems likely we should be giving credit (naming rights) to a 20th century personality for the ambiguous wire diagrammed cube-- as if people had not noticed the ambiguity since antiquity? NO, Necker's contribution was the impossible cube! 68.42.58.175 11:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Robert Watkins was a good person in the school some times.

Emmalouise99 13:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC): The wire diagram is the (2D) Necker cube. A necker cube is a (usually) 2d representation of a 3d object that, in the absence of context can be interpreted as being oriented in more than one way. There exist 3d Necker cubes that, when viewed in rotation or when held, in the absence of stereoscopic cues, are also multistable (that is, reversals of the direction of rotation, or the orientation of the cube, are seen, seemingly at random). See http://www.journalofvision.org/2/7/675/. The impossible cube is not multi-stable, it is "zero stable" as there is no 3d object, in any orientation, that it represents. These should be separate articles.

[edit] Dubious claim

I disagree with the claim that the "other state" is the view "up from the bottom". The shape and orientation of the top and bottom squares are both unambiguous, the only oddity is the crossing beams. —Ben FrantzDale 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing about the impossible cube (with solid edges), but the article makes the claim in relation to the ambiguous Necker cube (the line drawing), and the claim seems justified to me.--Niels Ø (noe) 06:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Lesson: RTFA. —Ben FrantzDale 07:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Four ways of viewing it!

I can now see four ways of viewing the Necker cube. Two top views, a front view and a bottom view. The article only mentions two ways of viewing the cube. Alan Liefting 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see it more than two ways. Of the two corners that are "inside" the figure (i.e. inside when viewed as a planar figure), one is in front, and the other is behind. There are two possibilities, and that's it. Could you possibly describe what you see? - Of course, once you see the cube in one of these ways, you can mentally image moving around the cube (or rotate the cube) to see it more from any particular side , but that's not what we should be talking about here.--Niels Ø (noe) 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)