Talk:Penrose stairs

Archives

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Impossible?

It's not impossible. I know why, but it's kind of hard to explain why. 24.1.201.172 (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple contradiction. Positive vector movement in one direction cannot logically result in a return to the origin. Or more simply, if one counts up from zero, one cannot return to zero without adding negative numbers. It might be worth noting that Christopher Nolan's demonstration of the paradox in Inception is nonsensical: the stairs simply cannot be manifested other than as an optical illusion - it's a conceptual impossibility. 91.109.194.197 (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not impossible, it's mind-bogglingly easy to envisage why. Each step has an incline that on average equals the step height. You can get something of the sort by taking the four tabs of a cardboard box's lid and arranging them so that each one fits over the tab to its left. Of course, some people will draw a Penrose staircase design and make it literally impossible - but a completely possible one would still qualify as a Penrose staircase. 78.109.186.13 (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not impossible with non-euclidean geometry. The steps would just slant downwards and the actual shape might not be in a triangle, but will look like one in a certain perspective. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distorting Logic

"Distorting perspective"? The perspective is accurate, so far as it can be for an impossible object. The illusion depends on the ambiguity in mapping 3-space to the plane. If you've ever played Landstalker, you'll know what I mean! Physical models of the Penrose staircase have been constructed [1]. They look right only when you view them from a certain position. Sicherman (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When? and Why?

When did Penrose come up with the illusion? (Publication reference?) If it wasn't before 1961, why is it named after him instead of Escher? JKeck (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

It was used two times in Inception! 67.161.18.204 (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reutersvärd

According to the last paragraph, he was both Swedish and Dutch?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sculliam (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Escher image

This image obviously should have had an NFUR for this particular usage from inception. However the image is in fact well-justified in this case, whatever the original editor may or may not have thought they were doing. Since removing a non-free image always carries the risk of speedy deletion, it is best in such cases to start with a talk page discussion and to take action after that. Now for the rationale - of course we can now add one. In this case, the dialogue between Penrose and Escher is so remarkable and so well-attested that notability is easily proven. I'll write one now. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the rationale. – Editør (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple chronologies

The article contains inconsistent accounts of who discovered what when, one in the lead and one in the body. We need to move all the possibly-contentious material with its citations from the lead to the body, and then rewrite the lead neutrally to summarize the article, describing the situation (i.e. possibly consisting of competing chronologies) neutrally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of "Escherian Stairwell"

I propose to merge Escherian Stairwell into this article. It is a just-about-notable internet hoax thing based on the stair concept. It seems very slight for a standalone article, and could be profitable merged as a subsection here. I mean, generally these "In popular culture" sections are as welcome as a parcel of boils, but this is actually an instance where a separate pop culture item might make sense as a mention (albeit not as an article). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I support the change. The article isn't that big and will probably always be a stub if it's a standalone article. Of course if it does happen, we will have a redirect. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I support. The article Escherian Stairwell consists of only five sentences.—Anita5192 (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I support. AdrianWikiEditor, I appreciate the intent, but I do think the content of Escherian Stairwell can be a section in Penrose stairs and both expand and enhance the quality of the article. = paul2520 (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianWikiEditor and Elmidae: FYI, I went ahead and did the merger. = paul2520 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible figures in math?

I'v heared that this can be constructed in some geometries like for example nil-manifolds. It this true? Maybe we can add info to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychuanka (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]