Face graph — where it appears
Named by 8 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The sheet has two sides
Read a crease pattern as a set of panels rather than a set of lines and a condition appears that no vertex theorem states: the panels take two colours, no crease has the same colour on both sides, and the colour is which face of the paper each panel ends up showing.
Even is not enough
Every vertex theorem in the subject is a statement about one point, and the two-colouring of the panels looks like the exception. It is not — on a square of paper it is a parity at each vertex and nothing more. Cut a hole and the two come apart: a loop of paper with three creases has no interior vertices at all, satisfies every theorem there is, and cannot be folded flat.
The vertex the list does not have
Every condition this collection checks is asked at a vertex of a crease pattern, and a crease pattern is handed to the checker as a list of points and segments. A reader is handed ink. Read the same patterns the second way and eight printed sheets gain nothing at all — while four tessellation patches gain 12, 18, 12 and 5 vertices that nobody wrote down, every one of them a place where two creases were drawn across each other.
A cut that reaches the edge
A ring of paper with three creases running from its hole to its rim satisfies every condition the subject has — vacuously, because it has no interior vertex at all — and cannot be folded: its panels take no two colours and the two routes to one of them end up 1.75 sheet widths apart. One cut from the hole to the edge, crossing no crease and changing no letter, and it folds exactly. The cut removes an adjacency, which is the one thing neither a fold nor an edge can do.
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.
A contradiction is even
A crease pattern's letters can demand a circle of panels each of which lies below the next, which is a proof that the sheet has no folded state. Every such circle found here — one thousand one hundred and forty-nine of them, across every family of patterns this collection draws — has an even number of panels in it, and none has four. Both facts are theorems rather than observations, and they come from opposite ends of the subject.
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.
The arc that arrived twice
Which of two panels a crease calls its near one is decided by the order a face walk happened to number them, and the mirrored record is the same relation. Except on one sheet, where it is not — and that sheet turned out to be the one whose folded state comes back the other way up, which is how a duplicate in a graph became a diagnosis.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Necessary conditionFolded stateMaekawa's theoremPanelTwo-colourabilityBoundaryBoundary vertexCrease assignmentCrease patternCrossingFlat-foldabilityGluing