The Impossible Triangle: Why Some Shapes Can Exist Only in the Mind

We trust the geometry of the world far more than we realise. When we walk through a doorway or look down a street, we assume that space behaves in a stable, predictable way. Parallel lines stay parallel. Corners meet logically. Objects occupy volumes we can move around and understand. Reliable geometry is the framework that makes daily life navigable.

Some shapes seem perfectly reasonable at first glance; coherent, solid, even elegantly constructed, yet collapse under the slightest questioning. The impossible triangle, sometimes called the Penrose Triangle, is the clearest example. At a distance, it appears to be a simple triangular form built from three solid beams, each turning neatly at a right angle. But follow its edges with care, and it seems that something unsettling is happening. The turns do not feel right. The corners refuse to belong to the form. The beams seem to sit in ways that cannot be reconciled through looking.

It appears to be made from three perfect right angles: three 90-degree turns. But a triangle, by definition, contains 180 degrees. The impossible triangle seems to contain 270 degrees. This is a direct violation of the principles of Euclidean geometry. This inconsistency is the point of the illusion.

The impossible triangle cannot exist in three-dimensional space. No engineer could create it as it appears in a drawing. The form is held together only by how we read visual images using the conventions of a flat picture plane and the blind willingness of our eyes to trust whatever seems coherent at first sight.

And yet, although no real triangle could meet as the illusion suggests, the impossible triangle is remarkably easy to draw. On a two-dimensional sheet of paper, edges can be joined in ways that would be physically incompatible in real space. A line that seems to turn away can be made to turn toward us. A corner that appears nearby can join a corner that ought to be far away. The flat surface permits contradictions that the real world would instantly reject.

Versions of impossible shapes appear in the work of Swedish artist Oscar Reutersvärd, who in 1934 sketched a series of “impossible figures” by hand, forms that were convincing but contradictory. His drawings predate the famous Penrose version by nearly two decades. In the 1950s, mathematician Roger Penrose and his father, the geneticist Lionel Penrose, rediscovered the idea independently and published it as a “tri-bar,” describing it as “impossibility in its purest form.” Their article, and the simplicity of the form, caught the attention of M.C. Escher, who incorporated similar impossible structures into his now-famous prints.

Each of these developments added a layer of refinement, but the principle remained the same: assemble three fragments of believable geometry into a structure that no space could contain. Every segment of the impossible triangle is individually plausible. It is only when the mind tries to understand the structure as a whole that the contradiction emerges.

The illusion works because our perceptual system prefers a tidy interpretation over a truthful one. We assume that lines which look continuous must be continuous, and that any corner appearing to meet another must share the same depth. The impossible triangle exploits these expectations perfectly. It offers us three corners that each make local sense, but cannot be arranged into a single coherent object.

This is what makes the image so strangely compelling. It appears stable because the eye rushes to impose order. We want edges to meet. We want the world to make sense. So we complete the triangle in our minds, stitching together fragments that cannot coexist in three-dimensional space.

And yet those contradictions are the essence of the form. The impossible triangle becomes an elegant study in how perception works. It shows that the eye does not passively record the world; it interprets it. It looks for patterns, chooses logic, and fills in gaps. It reveals the shortcuts that make perception fast and efficient, but also vulnerable to deception.

This is why the impossible triangle endures. It reminds us that the solidity of the world is not something we directly see, but something we infer. It shows how easily the mind constructs coherence from fragments. And it demonstrates that what we call seeing is not a simple act of receiving information. It is an active assembly by our silent mind, quick, confident, and sometimes wrong.

The impossible triangle is an example of how the world we think we see may only be one interpretation among many that could have been, and in that contradiction lies its lasting fascination.

The Impossible Triangle: Why Some Shapes Can Exist Only in the Mind

How to Draw The Impossible Triangle

If you would like to draw the impossible triangle yourself, I’ve recorded a clear step-by-step guide here: YouTube: How to Draw the Impossible Triangle.

For more impossible-shape drawings and creative illusions, my book Drawing Amazing Optical Illusions explores these ideas further through practical projects and careful explanations.

The Habit of Drawing: New Book Available Now

If you would like to explore my new book on developing a creative drawing habit, The Habit of Drawing: Fast and Slow is available to order now as both a book and an ebook.

You can find full details in all good bookshops and purchase links at: www.circlelineartschool.com/the-habit-of-drawing.

Circle Line Art School Blog

A blog by Tom McPherson, founder of Circle Line Art School. You can subscribe to The Circle Line Art School Blog for new posts and news by email.

You can join my YouTube channel for free drawing tutorials here: Circle Line Art School YouTube Drawing Channel.