Necessary condition — where it appears
Named by 48 essays across 7 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The smallest sector decides
Two assignments can satisfy both flat-folding theorems and only one of them folds. What separates them is a condition about the smallest angle, and it is the first rule in the subject that is not about counting.
How many assignments fold
The local conditions throw away most of the ways a pattern could be creased. They throw away a smaller and smaller fraction as the pattern grows, and what survives grows faster than what is discarded — which is why a strong filter is not a decision procedure.
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.
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.
A sheet that routes itself
DNA origami folds one long strand into a shape by holding it against itself with a few hundred short ones. There is no sheet and no crease — what has to be designed is a route — and the first thing that can go wrong is a counting argument crease patterns already know under another name.
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.
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.
Almost every pattern fails
Kawasaki's condition is one equation for each interior vertex, and a drawing satisfies an equation with probability zero. Every pattern on this site folds because it was constructed to, and the fraction that would fold by accident can be measured.
Where the paper stops
Every flat-folding theorem is a statement about a full turn of paper, so a vertex at the edge of the sheet is subject to none of them. Cutting a patch out of a pattern removes conditions rather than preserving them, and a small enough patch has almost none left.
A unit that folds is not a tessellation
Of the 512 repeating rules for the waterbomb tessellation, 56 pass every condition on a two-by-two patch and 32 pass on every larger one. The twenty-four that die were never foldable — the small patch simply contained one of the four kinds of vertex the pattern makes, and the failures were at the other three.
Paper through paper
Every test the subject has for rigid folding is a statement about a neighbourhood, and a neighbourhood cannot see the far side of the sheet. So a pattern can satisfy all of them while driving one panel straight through another, and the sharpest witness has no interior vertex in it at all.
Fenced at both ends
The twist angle of a tessellation looks like a free dial, and it is fenced twice. Turn too far and the pleats have no paper left. Turn too little and something stranger happens: every angle condition in the subject goes on holding and the pattern loses its mountain-valley assignment entirely.
A no costs more than a yes
When a folding question comes back yes, it comes back with an object: a labelling, a stacking, a folded state that anybody can check in one pass. When it comes back no, it comes back with nothing but the assurance that a search looked everywhere — and that assurance is the first thing to break.
A near miss is nearly as rare
Flat-foldability is a coincidence of measure zero, which is usually where the argument stops. Measure how far a random vertex is from folding rather than whether it does, and the answer is thirty-one degrees a sector — so the tolerance real paper has does not buy back anything at all, and a pattern that nearly folds had to start near one that did.
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.
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.
How little the conditions decide
Local is not global is a statement about sufficiency: every vertex can pass and the sheet still fail. There is a sharper complaint available, and it is about strength. Fix one crease of a tessellation and propagate every condition the subject has to a fixed point: three creases out of a hundred and fifty-eight follow, and sixty-six vertices are still holding more than one answer.
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 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.
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.
Two creases that cross
A crossing is four creases at a point, so the four conditions of the subject apply to it — and three of them can be satisfied. It is developable at every angle, it satisfies the big-little-big lemma whenever its two lines carry different letters, and it satisfies Kawasaki's condition when the lines meet squarely. Maekawa's refuses it always, at every angle and under every lettering, because a crossing's four spokes belong to two creases and can only be four and none, two and two, or none and four.
The order the refusals come in
This collection can say no to a crease pattern in five ways, and they cost wildly different amounts: a sweep over pairs of creases, a pass over the vertices, a walk over the panels, a pass over the crease list, and an enumeration of every ordering of the panels. Run all five over the thirty-three patterns in the four test populations and the cheapest refuses five, the most expensive refuses six, and the three in between refuse nothing at all.
Drawn by the same hand
Two straight segments dropped on a square cross about 23% of the time; four of them cross 74% of the time; twelve cross with certainty, about fifteen times over. Every crease pattern in this collection's four test populations has none — not because the checkers were catching them, but because the same rules that drew the patterns were incapable of producing one, and nothing looked until a construction finally did.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which condition does the refusing
A search for a lettering carries five conditions: developability, Kawasaki, Maekawa, the big-little-big lemma, and the demand that the arcs the letters force have no circle in them. Run it on five tessellation patches and count what makes it take a letter back. The four everybody checks refuse nothing at all. Every single backtrack is the fifth.
The loop is in the rule
Of the forty-eight repeating rules that do not fold a grid corrugation, thirty-eight send four panels round in a circle and ten merely fail the count. Which is which can be read off three of the rule's six bits, without building the pattern, folding it or walking a single arrow — and the closed form agrees with the arrows on all sixty-four rules of both grid families.
The test that never fires on a map
The cheapest refusal this collection has reads a crease list once and reports that no arrangement of the layers exists. Enumerate every labelling of every map from two panels to nine and it fires on four of the four hundred and fifty-four — all four on the largest map, none at all below it. On the oldest open problem in the subject, the cheap test has essentially nothing to say.
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.
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.
An alternating sum of angles
Kawasaki's condition says the sectors round a vertex alternate to a straight angle. A glued band has no vertices and obeys a condition of exactly the same shape: the crease angles have to alternate to a multiple of a straight angle. Two different quantities, two different sheets, one arithmetic — and in both cases what is being said is that a product of reflections came back the right way.
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.
A row the route cannot leave
Every rectangular block of helices up to ten by eight routes on the square lattice. On the honeycomb, the lattice a double helix's pitch prefers, twenty of the eighty do not — and every block odd in both directions fails for a reason visible along one row: every second helix on the top row has no neighbour off it, the two corners have one neighbour each, and a route forced through them runs the length of the row and ends. The colour count passes all of them, and a degree count along a single row refuses them.
The border is where the cranes come apart
Counted one join at a time rather than one subset at a time, the slit grid of connected cranes runs to twelve by twelve, where there are 2¹²¹ ways to keep some of the joins. Among the cuttings that hold every crane by something, the share that also hold together keeps falling — 54.3 per cent at six by six, 35.1 at twelve — and from eight by eight on it falls by the same factor at every size. A constant factor is the signature of the border: at six by six, 99.5 per cent of the sound cuttings that come apart do so through a stray piece touching the outermost ring of joins.
Every cheap test misses a shape
A strand routed through a bundle of helices has to visit each once, and whether a shape allows that is hard to decide — so the cheap tests that refuse shapes are necessary and never sufficient, and for every set of them there is a smallest shape they pass and no route reaches. Listing every connected shape and searching the ones the tests let through finds it: nine helices on the square lattice for the colour count, the ends and the cuts, eleven once the steps a route's ends force are added, and still eleven once the ends' colours are checked. On the honeycomb the same three stages give twelve, fifteen and sixteen. Each test pushes the smallest unroutable shape out or leaves it where it is; none removes it.
A test that only knows one lattice
The cheapest argument that refuses the smallest shape no cheap test could refuse was read off that shape: cut at one helix, find the piece with no end in it, and count the colours of the stretch the route is then forced to cross. Added to the census it refuses every one of the square lattice's thirty-two eleven-helix survivors and pushes the smallest survivor to twelve, where twelve placements of two shapes survive out of half a million. On the honeycomb it refuses none of the six at sixteen. A test inherits the lattice of the witness it was read off, and the staircase is two staircases.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Layer orderingAssignmentFlat-foldabilityMaekawa's theoremFolded stateThe big-little-big lemmaKawasaki's theoremDecision procedureEnumerationParityCrease patternLocality