HomeThe World We DiscoverThe Noperthedron: A Shape That Blocks Itself

The Noperthedron: A Shape That Blocks Itself

After 350 years of searching, mathematicians found a polyhedron where no copy can pass through its own tunnel.

Share
The World We Discover · Explore this series
October 27, 2025
Key Takeaways
  • The Noperthedron is the first convex shape proven unable to pass through a copy of itself.
  • Mathematicians tested 18 million orientation blocks to rule out every possible Rupert tunnel.
  • Noperts appear vanishingly rare — Murphy's algorithm found passages in hundreds of millions of random shapes.

In the 1690s, Prince Rupert of the Rhine won a bar bet by proving something counterintuitive: you can drill a hole through one cube large enough for an identical cube to slide through.

The trick involves orienting the cube along its inner diagonal, creating a hexagonal shadow wider than a square one.

For centuries, mathematicians wondered which other shapes share this "Rupert property." As Erica Klarreich's wonderful story in Quanta Magazine reports, the answer seemed to be: nearly all of them.

What is the Rupert property?

A shape has the Rupert property if you can drill a tunnel through it big enough for an identical copy of itself to pass through. It seems impossible, but most common shapes – cubes, tetrahedrons, dodecahedrons – can do this by being cleverly tilted to cast a larger shadow from certain angles.

Researchers found these 'Rupert tunnels' through dodecahedrons, icosahedrons, even soccer-ball shapes.

"I think of this problem as being quite canonical," said Tom Murphy, a Google software engineer who explored the question extensively, in a quote to Quanta. "Aliens would have come to this one."

Key figure

18 million

orientation blocks tested to prove the Noperthedron has no Rupert tunnel

When Shadows Refuse to Cooperate

The search method relies on a clever insight. Shine light through a shape from different angles and examine its shadow. If one shadow fits inside another, you can bore a tunnel that allows a copy to pass through.

With computers, mathematicians tested millions of orientations across hundreds of shapes. Most revealed Rupert passages almost immediately. A few holdouts resisted for weeks of computation.

But resistance isn't proof. There are infinitely many ways to orient a shape, and computers can only check finitely many.

Drawing showing a rhombicosidodecahedron.
The rhombicosidodecahedron is an Archimedean solid. It has a total of 62 faces: 20 regular triangular faces, 30 square faces, 12 regular pentagonal faces, with 60 vertices, and 120 edges. Credit: illustration by Tilman Piesk ("Watchduck"). CC BY 4.0.

The Crystal Vase That Blocks Itself

Jakob Steininger of Statistics Austria and Sergey Yurkevich of A&R Tech took a different approach.

In research posted on Arxiv, they proved mathematically that a 90-vertex shape called the Noperthedron (named after Murphy's coinage combining "Rupert" and "nope") cannot pass through itself, no matter the orientation.

The pair developed theorems to rule out entire blocks of the parameter space representing possible orientations. Their "local theorem" showed that for certain vertex arrangements, any small reorientation pushes the shadow outward, preventing passage.

Their "global theorem" quantified how far to extend each ruled-out block.

I think of this problem as being quite canonical... Aliens would have come to this one.

Tom Murphy, Google software engineer

After dividing 18 million orientation blocks and testing each, they proved every block violated either the local or global theorem. No Rupert tunnel exists.

"The natural conjecture has been proved false," said Joseph O'Rourke, emeritus professor at Smith College, to Quanta.

The Noperthedron looks like a rotund crystal vase with 150 triangles and two 15-sided polygons. One enthusiast has already 3D-printed it as a pencil holder.

Noperthedron
The Noperthedron, a shape made of 150 triangles and two regular 15-sided polygons, is the first known shape which cannot pass through a whole in another similar shape.

A story of rare passages

This could transform the landscape. Mathematicians now know Noperts exist but remain incredibly rare–Murphy's algorithm found Rupert passages in hundreds of millions of random shapes.

The question shifts from whether impossible shapes exist to understanding what makes them so special.

Can the method identify other Noperts, or does the rhombicosidodecahedron, which resisted two weeks of computation, require different techniques entirely?

This story has many sides.


Sources

Fact Check: Claim-by-Claim Verification Verified

15 claims verified including Prince Rupert's 1690s cube wager, the Noperthedron's 90-vertex and 152-face geometry, Steininger (Statistics Austria) and Yurkevich's (A&R Tech) proof via 18 million orientation blocks, Tom Murphy's Google affiliation, O'Rourke's Smith College commentary, and the local/global theorem methodology. One citation date corrected: arxiv paper posted August 2025, not October 2025.

1 Mostly Supported
Prince Rupert won 1690s bet on cube passing through cube.
Prince Rupert wagered in the late 1600s; John Wallis recounted the story in 1693. Wallis didn't say whether Rupert wrote a proof or bored an actual hole. The article's phrasing "won a bar bet by proving" is a standard popular retelling.
3 Supported
Most common shapes (cubes, tetrahedrons, dodecahedrons) have the Rupert property.
All five Platonic solids have the Rupert property, including cube, tetrahedron, and dodecahedron as listed.
4 Supported
Rupert tunnels found in dodecahedrons, icosahedrons, soccer-ball shapes.
5 Supported
Tom Murphy is a Google software engineer.
6 Supported
Murphy quote: "quite canonical... Aliens would have come to this one."
Direct quote confirmed in Quanta Magazine.
7 Supported
18 million orientation blocks tested to prove no Rupert tunnel.
8 Supported
Shadow method: if one shadow fits inside another, tunnel exists.
Core geometric insight confirmed by both Wikipedia and Quanta.
9 Supported
Jakob Steininger of Statistics Austria authored the proof.
10 Supported
Sergey Yurkevich of A&R Tech co-authored the proof.
Confirmed in arXiv:2508.18475 author affiliations.
11 Supported
Noperthedron has 90 vertices, 150 triangles, two 15-sided polygons.
12 Supported
Name "Noperthedron" coined by Murphy, combining "Rupert" and "nope".
Confirmed in Quanta Magazine.
13 Supported
Local theorem: small reorientation pushes shadow outward.
Described in both Quanta and arXiv paper.
14 Supported
O'Rourke (Smith College emeritus): "natural conjecture proved false."
Direct quote confirmed in Quanta Magazine.
15 Supported
Murphy found Rupert passages in hundreds of millions of random shapes; Noperts rare.
Confirmed in Quanta: Murphy tested hundreds of millions of shapes; nearly all had quick passages.
16 Incorrect (fixed)
Arxiv paper date October 29, 2025.
The arXiv paper was posted August 24, 2025 (ID 2508 = August 2025). Quanta confirms "posted online in August."

Commentary

  • The arxiv preprint (August 2025) awaits formal peer review, though widely discussed and accepted by the mathematics community.
  • The rhombicosidodecahedron remains an unproven Nopert candidate; the method may not generalize to all holdout shapes.
  • Prince Rupert's "bar bet" is a popular retelling; historical details are approximate (Wallis 1693 account).

Sources used for verification

Academic/Peer-reviewed:

Other reliable sources:

Share
Related Articles
AI In Science Connects the Dots, But Only In Fields That Are Fragmented

An analysis of 80 million papers shows AI boosts originality where knowledge is scattered and connections are weak, but contributes little novelty in structured science.

"Keep Humanity Safe From AI," Urges Pope Leo XIV

Pope Leo XIV's first encyclical reaches the same verdict on AI as the labs building it, then parts ways over the meaning of human limits.

AI Solves Erdős Math Problem: What's Next for AI in Mathematics?

An AI solved an 80-year-old Erdős math problem by walking a path mathematicians had collectively avoided.

Is AI Making You Dumber? Not If You Challenge It

Cognitive debt is the cost of letting AI think for you. New research shows the difference between healthy and harmful AI use comes down to one habit.