[marcosdumay]

> I'd argue this is not in the spirit of the question

What question? I don't see any question.

I only see the drawing of a solid and a statement that it's impossible for such solid to exist.

And the only thing that is supposed to make the solid impossible is that it's named a "pyramid". What only means that the author uses a definition of that word that is more lenient than the strict usage I see in use, and more strict than the lenient usage.

It's an interesting math problem, that exists on the contexts of its definitions (like any other). But given that the definitions aren't stated, it's not reasonable to expected people to come aware of them.

[thaumasiotes]

> I only see the drawing of a solid and a statement that it's impossible for such solid to exist.

> It's an interesting math problem, that exists on the contexts of its definitions (like any other). But given that the definitions aren't stated, it's not reasonable to expected people to come aware of them.

You know, we aren't supposed to accuse people of not reading the article.

But this is what the article says:

> The drawing appears to represent a polyhedron with two triangular faces and three quadrilateral faces. The triangular faces are ABC and DEF. The quadrilateral faces are ABED, BCFE, and CADF. It also appears that AD and BE intersect at I, AD and CF intersect at G, and BE and CF intersect at H. If we accept this interpretation of the drawing, then the shape that it represents is impossible.

It would be difficult to be more explicit about the definitions.

[Jtsummers]

> It's an interesting math problem, that exists on the contexts of its definitions (like any other). But given that the definitions aren't stated, it's not reasonable to expected people to come aware of them.

That's why I linked to the the definitions in my own comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29875085

https://aitopics.org/download/classics:E29CE08E

This entire thread is mostly suffering from excessive pedantry because the linked blog failed to properly frame the problem.

[WhitneyLand]

>entire thread is mostly suffering from excessive pedantry

It is? The comments here don’t seem pretentious and dogmatic to me, I prefer to use pentantry for cases where basically people can tell they’re being a little bit of a dick.

It seems here in the comments people are simply saying, it’s hard to see the contradiction, that they can’t see any contradiction, and I think their implication is not to be a dick, it’s to hope someone will reply and say well here’s how it works or to correct a mistake.

In other words to simply get to the bottom of understanding.