Documentary record — where it appears
Named by 16 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Nothing here is as old as it sounds
Paper folding is described everywhere as an ancient art. The oldest surviving book of it was printed in 1797, the oldest reference to folding for amusement is from 1680, and the median claim in this subject is dated two centuries before anything that attests it.
A record is not a proof
Every other claim here can be re-derived from the figure that makes it, and a wrong one shows. A date cannot: it is checked once, by hand, against a record that is itself a survivor. This field is the one most likely to be wrong and least likely to be caught, and saying so is the only defence it has.
Two traditions and a merge
Ceremonial wrapping, recreational folding and the kindergarten syllabus are three separate lineages with three separate purposes, and they were independent until the late nineteenth century. Told as one continuous tradition, the oldest date in any of them becomes the age of all three.
The patterns nobody owns
This site prints crease patterns at true scale and prints no designer's work, and that has always been stated as a rule applied at the end. Read the printed shelf as a documentary record instead and the rule turns out to be a property of the record: every pattern that carries a date was published as mathematics, every undated one belongs to nobody, and the two silences are one silence.
Two kinds of claim
This site has published a median overrun of two centuries and a mean of twenty-two years in the opposite direction, and both are right. Split the record by what each claim is about and the reason appears: every claim about a practice is dated earlier than its evidence, most claims about a result are dated later, and the two scatter by 979 years and 131.
Taught with a wrong reason
Four mountains and four valleys is what the preliminary base's symmetry suggests and Maekawa forbids it; a twist looks like a twist when its central ring reads as one letter, and no such lettering folds; a tessellation is verified because its unit is, and a forty-nine-panel patch of one had no folded state at all. In each case the conclusion taught is right and the reason offered for it is not, and the site that repeats them is this one.
A file has no paper
The field's interchange format is three arrays — where the vertices are, which pairs of them an edge joins, and a letter for each edge — and that is exactly the object every computation on a crease pattern starts from. A list of edges cannot say that two of them must not cross, because crossing is a property of the drawing and the list has no drawing in it. So a pattern that no paper could carry is a perfectly well-formed file, and four of this collection's own were.
The reader decides the junction
Five of the eight patterns printed here have places where one crease ends on another — four on the preliminary base, eight on the square twist, twelve on the hexagon twist, nineteen on the Yoshimura, three on the fold-and-cut triangle. At each of them a reader has to decide whether two lines meet or pass through one another, and no notation, caption or teaching text in the subject mentions that the decision is being made.
The cure was named first
A heavy-tailed search runtime, the arithmetic for cutting it off and restarting, and the reason restarts work at all were established in the study of search between 1993 and 1998. This collection imported all three, and inherited with them the phenomenon they answer — which is that randomising a search's choices is what makes the tail.
Found by people not folding paper
The shortest strip that makes a Möbius band has a literature, and it is in differential geometry rather than in origami. The two subjects have the same number, they reached it by completely different routes, and neither of them cites the other — which is the fourth time this collection has found that shape.
No format has a gluing
A crease pattern file records vertices, edges, assignments, faces and layer orders. Every one of those is a feature of the paper's interior, and the boundary appears only as a kind of edge — so there is nowhere in the scheme to say that two boundary edges are the same edge, and the sheet a pattern is on cannot be written down.
When two of them are first attested together
Every single date in this field is argued about by centuries, and a pairwise one is not. The earliest year at which two claims are both attested is simply the later of their two surviving sources, so it inherits the better-attested half of each pair rather than the worse — and the year at which all five lineages of practice are jointly on the record is 1838, one year from where the same claims are popularly dated together.
One lost source and the story changes
Five of the record's fifteen claims rest on exactly one surviving document. Take those away and the field's most-quoted statistic — how far ahead of its evidence a popular date runs — falls from three hundred and fifty-seven years to a hundred and ninety-three, while the median hardly moves at all. The effect is not a tendency spread through the record; it is two documents, and both of them are single-witness.
The interval is wider than the number
The field's most-quoted statistic — how far ahead of its evidence a popular date runs — is the mean of eight positive gaps, and it is quoted as three hundred and fifty-seven years. Resampling the fifteen entries puts ninety per cent of its weight between a hundred and fifty and five hundred and ninety-one. The interval is wider than the number, the middle gap's interval is a fifth as wide, and the difference is the same two documents the leave-one-out found.
A question the record is too small to answer
Five of the fifteen claims rest on one surviving source and five on two, and those two counts are exactly what an estimate of the claims that left no source at all is made of. Applied, it says two and a half are missing. Its ninety-five per cent interval runs from fifteen to thirty-one, re-reading a single entry's source count moves it by a fifth, and its independence assumption is false in the one way documents actually fail — which is what makes computing it worth more than declining to.
Some discoveries would make it worse
The field's headline statistic averages the claims dated ahead of their evidence. So a document found for a claim that was nearly right removes a small number from a mean of large ones and the average overrun goes up: finding a source two centuries earlier for the kindergarten entry would take the figure from 357 to 408. The four claims where a discovery helps can take twenty-five years off each, and no single document at any date can bring the number to 250.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
AttestationPrimary sourceAttributionCrease patternIndependent discoveryExpected-valueIdentifiabilityRediscoveryCrossingFroebelGluingHiden senbazuru orikata