Concept

Optimality — where it appears

The property of being the best possible rather than the best found. It is available for very few packing problems here, which is why comparisons are usually between searches given equal effort.

Named by 14 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

2345678910-0.15-0.1-0.0500.050.10.15discsshortfall of the symmetric search14.6%1.7%0.0%-0.0%5.6%0.5%10.8%10.4%4.7%symmetry: mirror · both searches at 90 restartsneither number is a proved optimum — this compares two searches

When symmetry costs

Design software and designers both reach for symmetry, and for a good reason: it makes the search enormously easier. It is a heuristic and not a theorem, and how much it gives away can be measured — including the case where the optimum is symmetric about an axis nobody imposed.

design · Symmetry
123456760%65%70%75%80%sheet, longer side to shorterfraction of the sheet claimedbest at 7.0 to 17 flaps · every sheet the same areathe sheet's shape is a design variable that origami paper hides by being sold square

The square is a choice

Every packing on this site has been into a square, because origami paper is sold square. Hold the area fixed and vary the shape instead and the efficiency turns out to be spiky rather than smooth — with the same peak value at every proportion that is a ratio of two factors of the flap count, and nowhere else.

design · Sheet shape
tilted 15.00°side 1.0352846.41% of the sheetand the same answer twicea corner construction givesside 1.03528from a quadratic, sharing no codethe width maximisation and the closed form agree to nine figures

The largest triangle in a square

The biggest equilateral triangle a square sheet holds is tilted by exactly fifteen degrees and uses 46.4% of the paper. Both numbers come out of a quadratic — which means a compass reaches this optimum too, and folding's advantage is not needed here at all.

construction · Optimal constructions
sidesshare of the sheet the largest one usestilt346.4%15.00°4100.0%45.00°567.4%9.00°669.6%15.00°772.9%6.43°882.8%22.50°975.1%5.00°1075.3%9.00°1176.3%4.09°1280.4%15.00°1376.9%17.31°1476.9%6.43°1577.3%3.00°1679.6%11.25°the 8-sided polygon is the peak, and every one of the 8 polygons after it does worse

The biggest one that can also be folded

Which regular polygon uses a square sheet best, and which of them a fold can actually construct, are two questions with completely different pedigrees. Answered side by side over sixteen polygons, they turn out to agree — and the reason is that both are questions about the arithmetic of the same number.

construction · Optimal constructions
7 flaps, packed as tight as they will goradius0.174457630loose flaps1room to move0.1127the inner ring is where that flap's centre may sit; the algorithm reports one point of it and stops

The flap nobody holds

An optimal packing is presented as an answer: here are the circles, here is where they go. For some numbers of flaps that is not what it is. The best arrangement of seven discs in a square leaves one of them free to wander over an eleventh of the sheet without changing the answer at all — and the algorithm reports one point of that region and stops.

design · Circle packing
23456789101105101520flapshow much the requirement costs, per cent14.61.70.0-0.05.60.510.810.44.72.8

The shapes the optimum has

Requiring a circle packing to be its own mirror image halves the number of coordinates a search has to find, so the same effort covers a much smaller space. Whether that helps depends on something the search cannot know in advance — whether the best packing was symmetric — and measured flap count by flap count the answer alternates without a pattern anybody could use.

design · Symmetry
3 creases on a Möbius bandthe panels take two coloursseamthe same seam123the right edge onto the left, turned over3 creases, 3 panelsinterior vertices: 0two-coloursthe reflections closeand turn the paper the right waymountainvalleyraw edge

The triangle a strip becomes

A Möbius band of paper folds flat into an equilateral triangle, and the shortest strip that will do it is √3 times its own width. The number is not put in: the crease angles come out of a condition on their alternating sum, the positions come out of two linear equations, and the length is where the drawing stops fitting.

flat-folding · Flat-foldability
1 : √3 = 1.7321cut into 3, each part is 1.7321 — the same rectanglethe family1 : √2 = 1.4142 → 2 parts, 1 folds to build1 : √3 = 1.7321 → 3 parts, 2 folds to build1 : √4 = 2.0000 → 4 parts, 3 folds to build1 : √5 = 2.2361 → 5 parts, 4 folds to buildA0 is printed at 1.413793and halves into 1.414634, which is a different rectangleevery ratio here is checked against a square root the construction never takes

The proportion a band asks for

√2 is a shape: a rectangle either has it or does not, and what it buys is that halving returns the same shape. √3 is what a Möbius band needs, and it is a different kind of number — a minimum rather than a shape, with every longer strip working and no shorter one.

construction · Paper proportion
the same census, on four sheetsshare of the sheet used, at each polygon's own best rotationsidessquareA series3 : 26 : 5346.4%40.8%38.5%48.1%4100.0%70.7%66.7%83.3%567.4%51.4%48.4%60.5%669.6%61.2%57.7%72.2%772.9%53.5%50.5%63.1%882.8%58.6%55.2%69.0%975.1%54.4%51.3%64.1%1075.3%57.4%54.2%67.7%1176.3%54.8%51.6%64.5%1280.4%56.8%53.6%67.0%best after the square: square 8 · A series 6 · 3 : 2 6 · 6 : 5 6each polygon at its own best rotation on each sheet · the square uses all of a square and 70.7% of the next sheet along

The square is in the answer

The largest regular polygon a square sheet holds is not increasing in the number of sides, and the octagon's win is the striking part: it uses 82.8% of the paper against the twelve-gon's 80.4% and the hexagon's 69.6%. Run the same census over rectangles and the octagon's advantage is gone — on every proportion tried the hexagon leads, and the order among the even-sided polygons reverses outright.

construction · Optimal constructions
which tool the best polygon on each sheet needseach polygon at its own best rotation; the rank counts every polygon from three sides to twenty-foursheetbest polygonbest a compass buildsbest only a fold buildsbest no fold buildssquare8-gon · 82.8%8-gon21-gon · 7th · 77.9%23-gon · 6th11 : 108-gon · 75.3%8-gon14-gon · 4th · 72.6%22-gon · 9th6 : 56-gon · 72.2%6-gon14-gon · 5th · 66.6%22-gon · 9thA series6-gon · 61.2%6-gon14-gon · 5th · 56.5%22-gon · 9th3 : 26-gon · 57.7%6-gon14-gon · 5th · 53.3%22-gon · 9th2 : 16-gon · 43.3%6-gon14-gon · 5th · 39.9%22-gon · 9th3 : 16-gon · 28.9%6-gon14-gon · 5th · 26.6%22-gon · 9ththe square itself is left out; a fold builds an n-gon when the totient of n has no prime factor above three

Every even polygon beats every odd one

Crossed with what each tool can build, the census of the largest regular polygon a sheet holds gives the same verdict on every proportion from a square to three to one: the best polygon is one a compass already builds, and the best polygon only a fold can build places fourth at best. The ranking itself stops moving at a proportion of 1.1284, where the hexagon overtakes the octagon. On every longer sheet only the short side holds a polygon, each polygon's share is a fixed constant divided by the length, and the constant — its area over the square of its least width — comes down to the circle's π⁄4 for even polygons and climbs up to it for odd ones. So every even polygon beats every odd one.

construction · Optimal constructions
the best rank a tool's polygons reach, on a few sheets and on all of thema proportion between the named sheets is where each tool's best polygon does bestthe polygonon seven sheetson every sheetits own sheetonly one fold builds it14 sides · 4th14 sides · 3rd1.0257only two folds at once build it22 sides · 9th22 sides · 5th1.0103no two folds build it47 sides · 12th46 sides · 11th1.0023ranks among every polygon from three sides to 48; the seven sheets run from a square to three to one

The sheet a polygon fits exactly

A regular polygon with 4k + 2 sides has flat edges along one axis and corners along the other, so there is one sheet, 1⁄cos(π⁄n) long, that it touches on all four edges at once. On that sheet it is beaten only by the multiples of four with fewer sides, and so it ranks exactly (n − 2)⁄4. That puts the fourteen-gon, which only a fold builds, third rather than fourth; the twenty-two-gon, which needs two folds at once, fifth rather than ninth; and the forty-six-gon, beyond two folds, eleventh. Seven sheets from a square to three to one had missed all three.

construction · Optimal constructions
spending the bird's length where the arrangement prices it lowesta price is the scale lost per unit of length added to every edge of a group, re-solved at every stepstepscaledearestpricecheapestpricetight pairs00.2651head0.092tail-0.000510.2753head0.102wings0.034520.2748legs0.081wings0.012530.2781body0.072wings0.037640.2817head0.081wings0.054350.2778tail0.074head0.000560.2780head0.076tail0.0026a price holds for as long as the dearest and the cheapest group stay the same groups

A price holds until the arrangement moves

Every edge of a subject's tree has a price — the scale lost per unit of extra length — and the obvious use of a price list is to spend a fixed total of limb where it is cheapest. Done a tenth of a unit at a time, re-pricing at every step, it works and then stops: the bird's scale rises 6.3 per cent in four steps and no further. But the prices do not hold while it happens. The bird's free tail stops being free after the first tenth, and its legs nearly treble in price without being touched. The lizard's prices hold for four steps, because its arrangement keeps the same three pairs at their limit for four steps. A price is a statement about which pairs are at or near their limit, and it lasts as long as they stay there.

design · Uniaxial bases
the bird rounded to a grid two waysunits in the order body, wings, head, legs, tail; the drawn tree unrounded has size 0.2651gridnearesterrorsizecheap wayerrorsize4 units1 4 2 2 316%0.26751 4 2 2 423%0.28076 units2 6 3 3 511%0.27241 6 3 3 545%0.27848 units3 8 5 4 715%0.26312 8 4 4 720%0.2782size is the scale times the sheet length one unit of the subject's own length receives; error is the worst limb's

Rounding in the cheap direction

A tree spelled on a grid has every limb rounded to a whole number of units, and the rounding is chosen to keep the subject's proportions. Each rounding is also a small move of length between edges, and the edges have prices. Rounding the bird's dearer edges down and its cheaper ones up gives the largest model of every rounding tried, on grids of four, six and eight units — 2 to 6 per cent larger than rounding to the nearest unit, and larger than the unrounded bird itself on all three. The proportions pay for it, by five points of error on eight units and by thirty-four on six, which is the trade the grid had been making silently in whichever direction the arithmetic happened to fall.

design · Uniaxial bases
11.051.11.151.20.850.90.9511.05the sheet's length, with its width oneshare, over the share on a square6 sides · +7.7%10 sides · +2.6%14 sides · +1.3%22 sides · +0.5%each curve is one polygon's share over its share on the square; the dot is its own sheet

Turning is uphill all the way

A regular polygon of 4k + 2 sides on a sheet a little longer than a square cannot lie flat: it turns, pressed against all four edges, until the sheet is exactly its own. Its share on the way has a closed form, and the closed form's slope is proportional to h² − 1 for every such polygon — flat on the square, rising all the way to the own sheet, and falling after it. So the own sheet is exactly the peak, the gain from the square to it is the average of one and the sheet's length, and the rank the census measured for polygons of this kind, (n − 2)⁄4, is now a theorem.

construction · Optimal constructions

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

ConstructibilityInscribed polygonSheet shapeCircle packingSymmetryTotientPaper proportionTree methodClosureDesignDesign techniqueEfficiency

All concepts