Is a 3-D object with three faces possible?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter EnumaElish
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
23 replies · 36K views
Mathematics news on Phys.org
My mind can't comprehend the existence of such a shape :redface:
 
Thats like asking for a 2 sided 2D object.
 
three lines can only intersect in one point, coincide or be parallel so yes, no such object exists.
 
There is an infinite number of 3 dimensional objects with 3 faces, just as there are an infinite number 2 dimensional objects with 2 sides.
 
A tetrahedron with its base removed?
 
Gib Z said:
There is an infinite number of 3 dimensional objects with 3 faces, just as there are an infinite number 2 dimensional objects with 2 sides.

Playing Captain Obvious these days? :-p
 
Jarle said:
A cylinder? Or must the faces be flat..?
Good answer; but I was asking about flat surfaces. I understand that no such object exists. Is there a theorem about the min. number of flat surfaces that a 3-D object must have?
 
I think it's best we first clarify what a closed 3 dimensional object is for our purposes. I would say that a simple closed 3 dimensional object is a collection of planar surfaces with properties among which is that a surface in that collection connects to at least as many surfaces as it has vertices. The simplest planar figure is the triangle; since it has 3 sides, it is not possible to meet the said property with only 3 planar faces, hence there is no such 3 dimensional object.
 
Last edited:
uman said:
A tetrahedron with its base removed?

Getting the right idea =] No one had stated the shape has to be closed.
 
EnumaElish said:
Good answer; but I was asking about flat surfaces. I understand that no such object exists. Is there a theorem about the min. number of flat surfaces that a 3-D object must have?

Hello,

What you are thinking of is a 3 dimensional (convex) polytope. I assume you mean codimension 1 faces (i.e. 2 dimensional faces). Technically, edges and vertices are also called faces. In this case, the minimum number of faces is 4 (a tetrahedron). In general, an n dimensional polytope needs to have at least n+1 facets.
 
masnevets said:
Hello,

What you are thinking of is a 3 dimensional (convex) polytope. I assume you mean codimension 1 faces (i.e. 2 dimensional faces). Technically, edges and vertices are also called faces. In this case, the minimum number of faces is 4 (a tetrahedron). In general, an n dimensional polytope needs to have at least n+1 facets.

Darn, I was going to say that. Furthermore, when you consider the convex hull of this polytope, the convex hull can extend in two dimensions; but there needs to be at least one point above the plane of the other points in order to achieve what you desire. Otherwise it's simply a 2-dimensional face.
 
mgb_phys said:
Wouldn't a Mobius strip have 3 faces? ie. 1 'face' and 2 edges.

Good thinking. Why wouldn't it? Make the edges thicker = 3 faces.

But obviously no flat surfaced object could have 3 faces. (politicians aside)
 
Are there geometries where such an object could be constructed or is that a silly question to ask?
 
mgb_phys said:
Wouldn't a Mobius strip have 3 faces? ie. 1 'face' and 2 edges.

It only has 1 'face' and 1 edge though. And a Möbius strip is 2-dimensional (as a manifold).
 
mgb_phys said:
Of course - the edges are connected - dumb of me.
So it's possible to have a 2 sided 3D object but not a 3 sided one ?
A cylinder has 3 sides if you include it's curved surface. Both 'sides' of a mobius strip are curved into each other so you only have 2 sides. With only flat surfaces I think n+1 is the minimum number.
 
actually i am not sure what you mean by three dimensional object as i have described a 2 dimensional manifold. a three dimensional object should have some 3 dimensional faces.

i guess i thought you meant a closed surface that does not embed in 2 space, which is the lay persons notion of a three dimensional object.

so to answer the question we need a definition of a three dimensional object.

i guess i could modify ,my example by taking the cone over it with vertex at the center of the sphere, i.e. make it into a ball example.
 
Last edited: