Also, the solution I responded to adheres to "each side entirely within a plane"[1] and "is a polyhedron". To make this impossible, you have to add information -- the assumption that this must be a triangular pyramid -- that is not present in the image itself.
Furthermore, the solution here, does not require that you be looking at it at a very precise angle that gets everything to line up perfectly, as you'd need for e.g. the Penrose triangle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_triangle
Bottom line, it is a different kind of thing than usual impossible figures.
[1] Assuming I'm interpreting "side" correctly? But any definition where the solution violates it, also feels arbitrary.
However, almost all the solutions to make this a possible polyhedron make it not a pyramid and operate under the assumption that there is hidden information (that is, that the image is misleading, deliberate or not). It still remains an impossible pyramid in Huffman's context.
Okay but if you're going to ground your position in "hey, this is just what you get when you're super rigorous about terms and assumptions and all", it's incumbent on you to be a little more careful about that.
>However, almost all the solutions to make this a possible polyhedron make it not a pyramid and operate under the assumption that there is hidden information (that is, that the image is misleading, deliberate or not). It still remains an impossible pyramid in Huffman's context.
And again, that's adding information that is not present in the image itself, the exact problem you claimed would invalidate the offered solution (in this subthread), and it's still a different definition of "impossible figure" than the conventional one.