Counting — where it appears
Named by 14 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Two things called folding
A protein folds and a sheet folds, and the word is the same word by accident. Both have exponentially many states and that is not the difference. The difference is that one of them can be filtered by four conditions checked at a single point, and the other cannot be filtered by anything local at all.
Every facet is a layer
Fold a sheet at random as many times as patience allows, then count three things: the creases it carries, the facets they cut it into, and the layers in the stack. The last two are the same number, always, and it is one more than the first — so how deep a crumpled sheet folds can be read off the flattened pattern without folding anything.
Two directions that will not separate
A map has rows and columns, and a strip of stamps is a map with one row. The obvious hope is that the two-dimensional count is built from the one-dimensional one — fold the rows, then fold the columns. It is not: a two-by-three map folds 60 ways against a product of 12, and the discrepancy grows from a factor of two to a factor of thirty-eight over the counts anybody has.
Where the lemma says nothing
The big-little-big lemma asks for a sector strictly smaller than both its neighbours, and the word doing the work is strictly. At a vertex whose two smallest sectors are equal the lemma has no opinion at all — and those are the vertices origami actually uses. The count of markings the conditions admit doubles, discontinuously, at exactly the angles everybody folds.
The shadow does not name the pattern
A photograph of a folded model carries an outline and a thickness at every point of it, and that is the whole of what it carries. It is not enough. Crease patterns in genuinely different places fold to identical outlines with identical layer counts, and nearly a third of the folded objects a short strip can reach are reached by more than one pattern.
Parity is not enough
A Möbius band needs an odd number of creases round it. Give it three, square across the strip, and it does not fold — nor does five, nor seven, nor any odd number at all. The counting argument is necessary and it is not close to sufficient, and the thing it cannot see is which way the creases point.
How rare a band that folds is
Almost every crease pattern fails to fold flat, and the usual way of saying so is a count over discrete choices. A glued band fails for a reason that no count can reach: its crease angles have to satisfy an equation, and a set defined by an equation has no volume in the space it sits in.
The rim adds up
What one glued pair of a cell's edges saves in free letters is what the other pair saves, and gluing both saves the sum. That is a rate rather than an observation, it is the form of the claim two objects could never support, and it is what makes 'the rim costs four letters a cell' a statement about tessellations rather than about one drawing.
Euler counts the gluing
Vertices minus creases plus panels comes to one on a rectangle of paper and nought on any gluing of it. That is the cheapest check that an identification did what it says, it costs three counts already being made, and it is what found a crease running exactly through the corner of a cell — a case the corner search could not see and no other check would have noticed.
A cut is surgery
Two cuts that look identical on the paper do completely different things to the sheet. A slit run inward from the rim changes nothing at all; a closed cut in the middle removes a disc and leaves a sheet carrying a condition it did not have before. What separates them is not the length of the cut or how much paper it removes.
Two holes are two conditions
One hole in a sheet of paper gives one loop that cannot be shrunk and one parity to satisfy. Two holes give two, and they are independent: an arrangement of creases can satisfy the condition round one hole and fail the condition round the other, and the sheet refuses on the strength of the one it failed.
A proof in no nodes at all
A parity refuses a sheet before any search begins. It costs one addition, it is certain, and it says nothing about why — while a search that exhausts on the same sheet costs thousands of nodes and produces a proof of the same fact. Two proofs of one thing, and the cheap one is available only where somebody has noticed the invariant.
The cut that changes nothing
A slit goes right through the material and leaves the sheet exactly the object it was. A closed cut removes almost no paper and produces a different sheet with a condition it did not have. Kirigami is made almost entirely of the first kind, which is why every result about it survives the distinction untouched.
Twos and threes run out
A fold reaches a number exactly when the degree of its equation is a product of twos and threes, which sounds like a large set because it is infinite and because it is so much larger than the compass's. Counted, the reachable degrees are the lattice points under a straight line, so there are about half a log-squared of them: twenty of the first hundred, a hundred and forty-two of the first million. The share falls from a fifth to one part in seven thousand, and the factor by which folding beats the compass rises at every decade without ever settling.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
BoundaryParityPatchFlat-foldabilityGluingNecessary conditionPanelKirigamiSector anglesTwo-colouringClosureThe decision problem