Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media, as well as to allow video information to be shared for both marketing, analytics and editorial purposes.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

This New Shape Breaks an ‘Unbreakable’ 3D Geometry Rule

The noperthedron has a surprising property—which disproves a long-standing conjecture

Graphic shows the noperthedron, a convex polyhedron resembling an inflated cylinder with two large faces on the top and bottom and 150 smaller triangular faces making up the height.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Can you drill a hole in a cube that an identical cube could fall through? Prince Rupert of the Rhine first asked this question in the 17th century, and he soon found out the answer is yes. One can imagine propping a cube up on its corner and boring a large-enough square hole vertically through it to fit a cube of the same size as the original.

Graphic shows the diagonal path and the shape of the hole created when a cube passes through another cube of the same size.

Amanda Montañez

Later, mathematicians found more and more three-dimensional shapes that eventually came to be called “Rupert”: they are able to fall through a straight hole in an identical shape. In 2017 researchers formally conjectured that all 3D shapes with flat sides and no indents, known as convex polyhedrons, are Rupert. Nobody could prove them wrong—until now.

Enter the brand-new noperthedron. It has 90 vertices, 240 edges, 152 faces and one very special property: it’s “nopert,” a word coined this year by independent computer science researcher Tom Murphy VII to mean “not Rupert.” Mathematicians Sergey Yurkevich of Austrian technology company A&R Tech and Jakob Steininger of Statistics Austria, the country’s national statistical institute, introduced this new shape to the world recently in a paper posted on the preprint server arXiv.org. The noperthedron isn’t the first shape suspected of being nopert, but it is the first proven so—and it was designed with certain properties that simplify the proof. Using a bespoke computer program, the researchers managed to verify that no matter how each of two identical noperthedrons is shifted or rotated, one could not possibly fall through a hole in the other.

Graphic shows the noperthedron, a convex polyhedron resembling an inflated cylinder with two large faces on the top and bottom and 150 smaller triangular faces making up the height.

Yurkevich and Steininger have been studying Rupert’s property for years, and they’ve been working together even longer; the pair met as teens preparing for a math olympiad. “After so many years, we know each other’s strengths,” Steininger says. Yurkevich adds, “If one of us says something that doesn’t make sense, the other one has no problem saying, ‘I have no idea what you just meant.’”

They first stumbled on Prince Rupert’s cube on YouTube as university students, and they quickly found that such solids’ prevalence was an open problem. In a 2020 paper, Yurkevich and Steininger were the first to publicly conjecture that not every convex polyhedron has Rupert’s property. Now, five years later, they’ve seen their conjecture through to its proof.

The researchers described the set of all possible noperthedron holes as a five-dimensional cube, with each axis representing a different rotation of the polyhedron. With a clever mix of mathematical reasoning and computer programming, they discounted each area of that cube as a possibility. “Their approach is both creative and rigorous,” says Pongbunthit Tonpho, a mathematician at Chulalongkorn University in Thailand, who researches Rupert’s property. “I did not expect that someone would be able to disprove the conjecture so soon.”

Emma R. Hasson is Scientific American’s Games ace and a Ph.D. candidate in mathematics at the City University of New York Graduate Center with expertise in math education and communication. Hasson was also a 2025 AAAS Mass Media Fellow at Scientific American.

More by Emma R. Hasson
Scientific American Magazine Vol 333 Issue 5This article was published with the title “Shape Shift” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 333 No. 5 (), p. 13
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican122025-1ZkpJ4InfjzsytWB9oHWH

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe

Popular Stories