Or they just look fancy and that's why it was put there ?

  • $\begingroup$ Because it looks so ..cute? $\endgroup$ – imranfat Apr 14 '14 at 20:30
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ For an excellent mathematical logo, see here. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Apr 14 '14 at 20:33
  • $\begingroup$ Can you understand its perspective? Or you got dizzy? $\endgroup$ – Sigur Apr 14 '14 at 20:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No longer red :P $\endgroup$ – user2345215 Apr 14 '14 at 20:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It looks good, I am not denying that. I can see where it's coming from. Just thought, there might be something more to it, like the symbol for AIM. $\endgroup$ – The very fluffy Panda Apr 14 '14 at 20:41
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ See the thread the design of the MSE theme. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Apr 14 '14 at 21:03
  • $\begingroup$ Oh I see. So that's what Sigur meant by perspective. Clever! $\endgroup$ – The very fluffy Panda Apr 14 '14 at 21:07
  • $\begingroup$ A very similar older question: meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/10128/… (But perhaps not a duplicate, since the older question also asked for suggestions of a new logo.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Apr 15 '14 at 6:48
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ There's a star in the negative space of the logo. $\endgroup$ – Oscar Cunningham Apr 15 '14 at 9:08
  • $\begingroup$ What a disgrace to have a mathematical inconsistency as our logo! $\endgroup$ – TROLLHUNTER Oct 1 '16 at 16:00

As Jin describes it in the original Design Ideas for Mathematics Site post, it's a Penrose triangle made of cubes, with the corner cubes removed:


The absence of the corner cubes makes the "impossible object" illusion somewhat less striking (in fact, I'm not even 100% sure that it's still impossible to construct out of actual cubes), but if you look closely, you can still tell that each cube overlaps the next one counterclockwise from it, such that the cubes cannot be strictly ordered by depth.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ And like the original Penrose triangle, if we interpret the depth cues as intended, then the diagram "depicts a nontrivial element of the first cohomology of an annulus with values in the group of distances from the observer", to steal a phrase from Wikipedia. $\endgroup$ – Chris Culter Apr 17 '14 at 0:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ChrisCulter Well that just went right over my head. $\endgroup$ – The very fluffy Panda Apr 17 '14 at 1:40
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @PandaBear Penrose's article "On the Cohomology of Impossible Figures" explains it nicely! Try jstor.org/stable/1575844 or iri.upc.edu/people/ros/StructuralTopology/ST17/st17.html $\endgroup$ – Chris Culter Apr 17 '14 at 1:51
  • $\begingroup$ It is actually possible to construct it. (Except the overlaps) Look at it caarefully. I will post a photograph if I get time to make it. $\endgroup$ – Kartik Apr 17 '14 at 14:36
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ @Kartik: Well, yes, the overlaps are the hard part; if you ignore them, it's trivial. $\endgroup$ – Ilmari Karonen Apr 17 '14 at 14:42

It is a type of optical illusion.If viewed from 2-d sense,it is a hexagon bounded by the cubes.But the real fun lies when the figure is viewed from 3-d perspective.If viewed attentively,one can see the cubes are buldging out but becomes confused how they are arranged;either left or right.Sometimes they can be seen arranged in a plane vertical to the base & sometimes they are seeing lying in the base.Just watch it!


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .