Stamp folding — where it appears
Named by 15 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A strip is decidable
Take the same problem down one dimension and it stops being hard. The reason is not that strips are small — it is that overlaps on a line form a chain, and chains cannot contain the cycles that make the two-dimensional question intractable.
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 answer is bigger than the question
A twelve-square strip of stamps is twelve numbers of input and 146,376 objects of output. No algorithm writes that faster than it can be written, so 'efficient' has to be measured against the answer rather than against the question — and in folding that is the normal case.
Where the exponent comes from
The number of ways a strip of stamps folds grows exponentially, and the base of the exponential is a number nobody has proved exists. The ratio of one term to the last climbs past three and is still climbing where the computation stops — which is the only structural handle anybody has on the sequence.
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.
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.
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.
The count counts labels
One, two, six, sixteen, fifty, a hundred and forty-four: the oldest sequence in the subject counts foldings of a strip of numbered stamps. A folded strip of blank paper has no first stamp and no top side, and neither of those operations ever leaves a folding alone — so the count of objects is 1, 2, 5, 14, 38, 120, and it is not the count over four.
Where the machine catches up
The weakest machine in the subject folds every layer at once and is stopped by a strip with two creases in it. On a strip of equal stamps it is stopped by almost nothing: every one of the 288 folded states a six-stamp strip has is reachable by a sequence of all-layers folds, and on every unevenly creased strip tried it reaches none of them. At seven stamps the completeness ends, and finding out where it ended is what checking it past six was for.
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 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.
A map with no edges
Counting the ways a rectangular map folds is the oldest open problem in the subject, and every version of it assumes the map has an edge. Join the map's opposite edges and the question changes shape: half the sizes have no folded state at all, and the ones that do have no bottom layer to count from.
The tube a map makes
Join one pair of a map's edges and the result is a tube — a real object, foldable in the hand, and neither the strip's problem nor the torus's. It has one loop that cannot be shrunk instead of two, it keeps its bottom layer because it keeps half its rim, and half its sizes are refused by a parity the flat map does not have.
Deciding is not making
Four earlier essays here ask which machines can flatten a strip at all, and the answer sorts them into a lattice with one column full and three with holes in it. Asked instead what each machine can produce, the three sort completely differently: the machine that may choose its block reaches every folded state of every strip tried, the machine that takes one layer reaches exactly four whatever the strip is and however long, and the machine that takes the whole pile is the only one whose answer depends on the spacing at all.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Map foldingEnumerationLayer orderingCombinatorial explosionThe counting problemLunnon's countsLayer orderOne-dimensional foldingOpen problemStackingThe all-layers simple foldFolded state