Layer ordering — where it appears
Named by 59 essays across 8 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Local is not global
Every vertex can satisfy every condition and the sheet still not fold. Deciding whether a whole crease pattern folds flat is NP-hard, which means no figure will settle it and no algorithm will scale.
Which layer goes on top
The mountain-valley assignment says which way each crease turns. It says nothing at all about which sheet ends up above which, and that second question is a different object with its own rules — and all of the difficulty.
The gadgets that make it hard
Flat-foldability is NP-hard, and the proof is a construction rather than an obstruction: a machine for turning any satisfiability problem into a sheet of paper that folds exactly when the problem has an answer.
The oldest open problem
In how many ways can a map be folded? The question needs no notation to state, the answer is a small integer for small maps, and after sixty years there is still no formula — only a list of numbers, each one found by searching every possibility.
The fold a machine can make
A theorem that says a folded state exists says nothing about getting there. A machine that folds every layer at once is stopped by a strip with two creases in it — one that folds flat perfectly well, and that a pair of hands folds in about four seconds.
The patient machine is the weak one
A machine that folds one layer at a time sounds like a machine with more freedom, not less. It has less, and the reason is the most ordinary fact about paper there is: it is joined, so whatever a machine declines to hold it also cannot move.
What a checker cannot check
Every crease pattern on this site is run past four theorems before it is allowed onto a page, and passing all four proves nothing. The gap is not a bug to be closed: it is the NP-hardness result, arriving as a property of a hundred lines of code.
The paper had to arrive first
A model with sixty-four layers at its thickest point, folded in ordinary copier paper, is six and a half millimetres of stack. The layer count a design can reach is fixed by the substrate, not by the folder — so the elaborate tradition is downstream of a manufacturing achievement with its own dates.
Bringing the other side to the front
Paper has two sides and most models show one. A colour change shows the other, and it is not a crease problem — which panels can show the reverse is settled by the pattern's two-colouring, and what it costs is twice what it shows.
More than one way to lie flat
A crease pattern with its mountains and valleys marked is spoken of as though it named a folded object. It does not. The legal stackings can be counted exactly in one dimension, the count is routinely more than one, and its size is a property of the pattern that nobody quotes.
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.
The outline is mostly crease
The edge of a folded model is what a reader looks at, and almost none of it is the edge of the paper. Measured across five patterns, the sheet's own boundary accounts for between nothing and a third of the exposed edge; the rest is fold, and on a waterbomb tessellation the raw edge does not reach the outside at all.
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.
The map that is not a rectangle
Take one square out of a three-by-three map and the number of ways it folds does not go down by an eighth. It goes up — to 848 if the square came from a corner, and to 8,016 if it came from the middle. Two maps of eight squares in the same box, differing by nearly a factor of ten, and no function of the box tells them apart.
Crimp it away and ask again
Four conditions decide whether a vertex folds flat, and they decide it exactly at a vertex whose sectors are all different sizes. Everywhere else they over-count: two markings of every tied four-crease vertex, twelve of the degree-six vertex this site prints nine of on one sheet. What decides the case is not a fifth condition but a procedure — fold the smallest sector away and ask the smaller vertex.
One marking, many objects
A crease pattern with every mountain and valley written on it is spoken of as though it named a folded model. At four creases it does. At six it need not, and at the eight-crease vertex in the middle of the first base anybody folds, a single marking can be folded into four genuinely different objects — same creases, same letters, four answers.
The order does not name it either
A photograph of a folded model carries an outline and a layer count, and that is not enough to recover the pattern. Hand the observer the layer order as well — everything the object physically is — and most of the ambiguity goes. Most. What is left are pairs of genuinely different crease patterns that fold to the same object, which no better photograph reaches.
The vertices nobody checks
Every figure on this site is gated on four conditions evaluated at every interior vertex, and the word interior has been carrying the whole sentence. On the printed patterns there are 105 vertices on the edge of the paper against 92 inside it, not one of them has ever been examined, and the condition that decides them has been available since the second phase of the collection.
The creases that cannot move
One vertex's foldings are always joined up. A pattern's are not, and the number of pieces they fall into is exactly two to the power of the number of creases with an interior vertex at each end — four on a square twist, six on a hexagon twist, none at all on a preliminary base. The creases a local change cannot reach are the creases that never reach the edge of the paper.
The pile, not the panel
Every technique for building a fold out of panels with depth is drawn, described and priced at one crease between two panels. A folded model has two layers nowhere except at its last fold: the printed patterns here reach eight, sixteen, thirty-two and sixty, and the length a thick panel has to find at those creases is not the published allowance but fifty-nine times it.
Thirty-two rules, one object
Five hundred and twelve repeating rules for the waterbomb tessellation, fifty-six that pass on a small patch, thirty-two that pass on one containing every kind of vertex. Fold all thirty-two and compare their panels: the same panels, in the same places, with the same areas, every time. The rules are thirty-two labels on one object, and a count of them has counted the labels.
The half no notation records
Every notation this subject has invented writes down the crease pattern or the sequence of folds, and the crease pattern is the half that does not decide the folded object. The field's interchange format has a place for the other half and nothing fills it in — including the files published here, which carry every vertex, edge and letter of a Yoshimura and none of the three hundred bits that would say which of its layer orders the folded object is.
Four finders, one option
Four unrelated lineages arriving at the same corrugation is read as evidence that the corrugation is good. It is at least as much evidence that there was nothing else to arrive at: how far a folded sheet shrinks is exactly its average layer count, so a lineage choosing a packing ratio is choosing a number of layers and nothing else — and the quantity that is genuinely free turns out to be almost uncorrelated with it.
Nothing slides past anything
A marked strip has several legal stackings and this site has counted them at length. Nobody asked whether a folder holding one can reach another by lifting a flap over its neighbour: five hundred and sixty of six hundred and seventy-two stackings have no such move at all, and whether any exists depends on the parity of the segment count.
No height to swap
A folded strip is a permutation of segments, and the smallest change a hand can make to it is a swap of two heights: 672 stackings, 560 of them isolated. A folded sheet has no height. Its layers are ordered by statements about which panels share ground, and on every printed pattern the search can finish, the answer is one stacking and no way out of it.
The lettering that folds nowhere
The conditions at a vertex admit 256 letterings of the square twist. Eight of them have a folded state. The other 248 satisfy developability, Kawasaki, Maekawa and the big-little-big lemma at every vertex of the pattern and cannot be folded by anyone — and this site printed one of them for years, at true scale, with instructions to fold it first.
The tiling the unit could not promise
Every twist on this site carries the same caveat: the unit is verified and the plane is not, because deciding a whole pattern is intractable. There is one thing about a whole pattern that costs a single pass over its crease list, and it says no. The square twist tiling was drawn with a lettering that contains a loop of twenty-eight panels, so the patch on this site had no flat folded state at all — and only seven of forty independent redraws avoid one.
The map counted from the layers
The classical map-folding counts are computed from a rule that never places a panel: work out which edge of the folded square each fold wraps around, and refuse the orderings that interleave two folds at one edge. Place the panels instead and order them by the general non-crossing rules, and the same numbers come out — 2, 6, 16, 50, 144, 8, 60, 320, 1368 — on nine sizes, by machinery that shares no line of code with the first.
The patterns a checker is tested on
This site keeps four populations of crease patterns and runs its checkers over them, which is what makes a claim about typical instances measurable rather than rhetorical. Asked whether the members actually fold, the populations answer: thirteen of thirty-three do, six place and cannot be ordered, five cannot be placed at all, and nine are past what the search will finish.
A collision is an order
Paper passing through paper is treated here as a thing that happens during a motion and is caught by watching for it. At the flat state it is not an event at all: it is the absence of an ordering, and it can be proved rather than observed. Four of the six quadrilateral meshes this site solves for rigid folding place perfectly and admit no ordering of their nine panels — so every one of them must pass through itself, and none of them was ever driven to find out.
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 proof in one pass
Deciding whether a crease pattern has a flat folded state is hard, and the search that decides it gives up at twenty-four panels. One line of the same machinery does not search at all: each crease says which of the two panels it joins lies above the other, and a circle in what those statements demand is a proof that no folded state exists. It costs one pass over the crease list, and on a tessellation patch of a hundred and fifty-seven panels it answers in milliseconds.
The loop a vertex cannot close
A crease pattern's letters can contradict themselves, and the contradiction is never local. Enumerate every mountain-valley labelling of a single interior vertex at degree four, six and eight — a hundred and fifty pass every condition the subject has — and not one of them sends its panels round in a circle. The one labelling that would is refused by Maekawa, alone: Kawasaki holds on it and so does the big-little-big lemma.
The loop is not the tangle
A search that finds a contradiction in a pattern's letters reports the first circle it meets, and on a tessellation patch that is eight to twelve panels of forty-nine. It reads as a local fault. Decompose the same arrows a second way and the set of panels that lie on some circle is thirty-five of forty-nine on the square patch and ninety-nine of a hundred and fifty-seven on the rhombille — which is why the smallest available repair does not reach it, and cannot be tried on most of the creases at all.
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.
Consistent is not foldable
The square twist has 4,096 mountain-valley labellings. Two hundred and fifty-six satisfy every condition at every vertex; two hundred and fifty-two of those have letters that do not contradict themselves; and eight have a folded state. So the cheap proof that reads the letters in one pass accounts for four of the two hundred and forty-eight failures, and the other two hundred and forty-four are refused by a search over orderings that nothing shorter replaces.
Letters that agree get rarer
Two hundred letterings drawn independently from a square twist tessellation patch, and twenty-six of them have letters that do not contradict themselves. On the next patch up it is five, then two, then none, then none. What the share falls with is not the size of the patch and not the angle of its twist: it is the number of independent closed chains its panels form, which is Euler's relation on the drawing and is fixed before a single letter is chosen.
The ring is the loop
The square twist's central polygon is four creases enclosing one panel, and a lettering that gives all four the same letter has no folded state. That was established by enumerating the orderings of nine panels. It can now be read off the crease list in one pass, because the eight panels the letters send round in a circle are exactly the ring — the twist's own defining feature, contradicting itself.
A corrugation agrees with itself
A Miura fold of forty-eight panels and a twist tessellation patch of forty-nine have almost exactly the same number of independent closed chains for their letters to contradict themselves round — thirty-five against thirty-six. Sixty-four per cent of the Miura's drawn letterings are consistent and thirteen per cent of the patch's. A Yoshimura at thirty-three chains manages ninety-three. The room to fail sets the scale; the construction decides where in it a pattern lands.
The rule that breaks the count
The waterbomb tessellation has five hundred and twelve repeating rules for its letters and thirty-two of them fold. A hundred and twenty of the other four hundred and eighty send four panels round in a circle — the shortest circle a crease pattern can have — and every single one of those hundred and twenty has broken Maekawa's count at the very vertex the circle goes round. The theorem that closes the shortest circle, caught doing it, a hundred and twenty times.
The refusal that reads the list once
There are five ways of saying no to a crease pattern here, and their costs are two hundred and eighty-two, a hundred and twenty-six, a hundred and fifty-seven, thirty-nine thousand six hundred and twenty-one — and a search that is refused outright. On the largest patch the four cheap tests together do less work than one of them looks like it should, and the fifth cannot be started. A refusal that reads the crease list once is the only kind that scales.
A population that cannot fail
Thirty-three crease patterns are kept here to run the checkers over, and every one of them has letters that agree with themselves. That is not a property of the patterns. It is a property of how they were made: each came from a construction that returns a lettering, so a test looking for letters that contradict themselves has nothing to fire on. Reletter the same thirty-three and the failure is available at once — on one member, four of sixty redraws.
The letters a crumple was given
A sheet creased by folding it and folding it again arrives with a mountain-valley labelling that cannot be wrong, because a folding produced it. Nothing about the pattern protects it: reletter the same creases and the share of labellings whose letters agree falls from every one of forty at eight panels to eleven of forty at forty-one. The foldability of a crumple is a fact about its history, not about its drawing.
One cut removes one arc
A crease pattern whose letters contradict themselves has, in principle, an obvious smallest repair: cut one crease and the statement it was making goes away. Cut every crease of four tessellation patches in turn — four hundred and seventy-four cuts — and sixteen of them leave a sheet whose panels still land anywhere at all. A cut gives the paper a freedom, and a sheet with a freedom in it has no folded state to order.
Two refusals that refuse differently
Four of the six developable quadrilateral meshes this collection solves have no ordering of their nine panels — they must pass through themselves, and a search over every ordering proves it. On all four, the letters agree with themselves perfectly. The linear proof and the exponential search are not a fast test and a slow one: they answer different questions, and neither contains the other.
A tree cannot argue
A molecule fills a polygon with creases taken from its straight skeleton, and a straight skeleton is a tree. So a molecule's panels have almost no closed chains for its letters to contradict themselves round — one to three, against thirty-six on the smallest tessellation patch. Two hundred and eighty independent letterings across seven outlines, including an L and a five-pointed star, and not one of them disagrees with itself.
The file records no verdict
A crease pattern file records vertices, edges and letters. Every one of the square twist's two hundred and fifty-six admissible letterings makes a perfectly valid file, and two hundred and forty-eight of them describe an object that does not exist. The format has a field for the layer order — the one thing that would settle it — and nothing fills it in, so a file is a drawing rather than a claim, and the field exchanges them as though they were claims.
The first thing about layers
A folder is taught four conditions at a vertex, or is taught nothing at all, and neither one says anything about the layers — which is where most of what goes wrong actually goes wrong. There has never been a rule about layer order simple enough to teach, because the question is global and every answer to it was a search. A chain of panels whose arrows all point the same way is the first one that fits on a finger.
The taper decides nothing
A leaf's corrugation narrows toward its margin, and the taper is what the pattern is for. It has no effect whatever on how often the pattern's letters agree with themselves: four width profiles from perfectly even to strongly tapered give a hundred and seventy-four consistent letterings of two hundred, identically. What moves the number is the count of rows, and on that measure a leaf tracks a Miura rather than the corrugation it most resembles.
A search with nothing to reorder
One search on a crease pattern costs eighty steps or fifteen thousand depending on the order it takes its decisions in. The other search on the same crease pattern costs 1,188,571 steps whatever order it is given — twelve permutations of the panels, twelve identical counts. The difference between them is one line of code that neither has and one has.
Ninety-nine in a hundred pass
A designer checks a box-pleated pattern the way every text teaches: vertex by vertex, counting mountains and valleys, watching the smallest sector. At sixteen divisions that check passes a hundred letterings in a hundred, and one of them folds. The check that separates them costs a single sweep over the crease list and is in no recipe anywhere.
A loop that goes somewhere
Every crease says which of its two panels lies above the other, and a loop in those statements is a proof that the pattern has no flat folded state. On a sheet with no edge that sentence is false. The loops of a periodic pattern carry a lattice step each, and a loop that ends one cell to the right is not a contradiction — it is a stack of paper with no bottom layer.
The bottom layer is at the rim
A hundred and sixty-nine panels of folded tessellation, and three of them have nothing underneath. All three touch the paper's edge, and the same is true on every tiling at every size measured. Which panel is at the bottom of a stack turns out to be a fact about where the sheet was cut rather than about the pattern, and the pattern itself has no bottom at all.
An order with no least element
Enumerating every way a folded pattern can be stacked works by building upward from a panel with nothing below it. The smallest square twist patch has exactly one such stacking and takes eleven thousand steps to find it. The pattern that patch was cut from has no panel with nothing below it at all, so the enumeration has nothing to start from — and the sheet is perfectly well stacked anyway.
A test imported without its hypothesis
The rule that a loop in a folded sheet's layer relations proves the pattern cannot fold arrives from the layer-ordering literature, where the sheet is a disc and the panels are finitely many. This collection took the rule and not the sentence that says which sheets it is about, then applied it for years to patterns whose whole interest is that they repeat.
The easiest strip needs the deepest reach
The patient machine and the machine that may choose are the two ends of one number: how many layers of the pile a machine is allowed to hold. At one it reaches four states whatever the strip; at the pile's full depth it reaches everything. In between it is a machine nobody has defined, and measuring where completeness arrives inverts these essays' own ordering — the evenly creased strip, which the machine that takes everything folds perfectly, needs the deepest reach of all, and one uneven strip is complete at two.
A shallow machine pays in states, not folds
A machine allowed to take only a few layers of the pile at a time reaches fewer folded states, and the natural fear is that it also reaches the ones it does by much longer sequences. Walked breadth first, so that every state's shortest sequence is found, it does not. On unevenly creased strips every state takes exactly one fold per crease at every depth, because no two creases ever lie on one line. On strips of equal stamps a shallower machine needs one fold more for a minority of states and two more for eight of the 924 states at seven stamps — and never more than the crease count, which no machine can exceed.
The field is empty where it would say nothing
The interchange format for crease patterns has a field for the layer order and nothing ever fills it in. Filling it in where the folded states can be listed — four of the eight printed patterns, and Miura patches to twelve panels — finds that the preliminary base and both twists have exactly one folded state, so every one of the field's signs follows from the crease pattern and the field would record nothing a reader could not compute. The fold-and-cut triangle has two states. The Miura is different: every patch with three or more columns has several — three, six and eleven on the three-by-two, three-by-three and four-by-three — so on the pattern that gets built the field carries information from six panels up, and the field's size had been measured as log₂ of the panels' orderings, which on the preliminary base is fifteen bits for an object that has zero.
One choice with eleven answers
A folded state was proposed as a short list of free choices — which way a flap lies, where a rim panel sits — with the layer-order field's signs following from them. Listed exhaustively on every Miura patch small enough, the choices are never independent: every sign that varies is tied to every other through a shared panel, so the states are one choice with many answers. And there are more answers than the record said. The overlap test had a blind spot a third of a panel wide, and with it corrected the three-by-three Miura has six folded states, not one, and the four-by-three eleven, not five.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
AssignmentFolded stateNecessary conditionFlat-foldabilityTessellationMaekawa's theoremCrease patternEnumerationCrease assignmentDecision procedureNon-crossing conditionStacking