Axioms and construction

One fold at a time, and there are exactly seven of them

A fold is specified by bringing points and lines into coincidence. There are seven ways to do that, the list is provably complete, and one of the seven does something no compass can.

Folding beats the compass, by exactly one degree

Straightedge and compass solve quadratics. A single fold solves cubics. That one-step difference settles two problems Greek geometry could not, and leaves a third exactly as impossible as it was.

Why the list stops at seven

The seven axioms are not seven useful folds somebody collected. They are every fold there is, and the proof is an exercise in counting degrees of freedom that takes about a minute.

Dividing without measuring

A square can be divided into any whole number of equal parts by folding alone — exactly, with no ruler, and with no error to accumulate. The construction is one fold and a theorem nobody expected.

The heptagon a compass cannot reach

Which regular polygons a tool can build is a condition on a single number. The compass needs it to be a power of two; a fold needs only that it has no factor above three — and seven is the first place the two answers differ.

Folding a strip into thirds

A third cannot be constructed by the axioms, so it is not constructed. It is guessed, and then halved into place — an algorithm rather than a construction, with an error that falls by exactly half at every fold.

Where the cubic comes from

Folding solves cubics, and the usual explanation stops at the sixth axiom. The reason is older and better: a right-angled bounce along a path of coefficients is a root-finder, and one fold is exactly such a bounce.

The eleven-sided one nobody can fold

Folding reaches the heptagon, which a compass cannot. It does not reach the hendecagon, and the obstruction is a single prime factor: ten has a five in it, a fold solves cubics, and no arrangement of cubics produces a five.

Two creases at once

The seven axioms describe what one fold can do, and the restriction to one fold is a rule somebody imposed rather than a property of paper. Allow two creases to be made simultaneously and the reachable degree rises — and the hendecagon nobody could fold becomes foldable.

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.

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.

A fold needs something to align

Every axiom names things that must already be on the paper — a point to fold onto a point, a line to bring to a line. So what a folder can build is bounded by what they can refer to, and that set is finite at every depth: nine references after one fold, several hundred after two, and every one of them computable in advance.

The rectangle that keeps its shape

Halving a rectangle across its long side turns a proportion of r into one of 2/r, so almost every sheet comes out of the fold a different shape from the one that went in. Exactly one does not, and it is not a shape anybody chose.

One crossing, and then another

Folding a strip into thirds by Fujimoto's method halves the error at every fold and never reaches a third. There is a construction that arrives instead: cross the square's diagonal with a line through the mark you already have, and the crossing lands on the next fraction exactly — one fold per step, all the way down.

One member of a family

A4 halves into A5 and keeps its shape, which is the one thing everybody knows about paper sizes. The property is not about halving and not about two: a rectangle in the ratio √n divides into n copies of itself, for every n, and every one of those rectangles can be folded out of a square one diagonal at a time.

Cheap where it reaches

Two folds from a bare square put marks at a half, a third, a quarter, a fifth, a sixth, an eighth and a twelfth — and at no seventh, ninth or eleventh at all. A rule that reaches every fraction takes n folds to reach one nth. The systematic route and the short one disagree everywhere, and neither of them knows about the other.

What each axiom is worth

The list of seven folds is complete, and the proof of that says nothing at all about whether its members are independent or equal. Measured on a bare square, one of the four elementary axioms supplies every fold the others cannot and the other three supply nothing. Two rounds later the ranking has inverted, and the one that carried the first round is the least productive of the four.

The numbers a fold reaches

Folding solves cubics, which is one fact about one fold. The reason the subject has a theory rather than a bag of tricks is a second fact about all of them: the lengths a folder can mark are closed under addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, square roots and cube roots. Constructions can therefore be built out of constructions — and no tower of them ever arrives at a fifth root.

Closer than a crease is wide

One fold from a bare square leaves nine marks, seventy-five millimetres apart. Two folds leave five hundred and sixty-five, the closest pair half a millimetre apart. Three folds — using one axiom of the seven — leave half a million, and ninety-four per cent of them have another mark within a fifth of a millimetre. What bounds a folder is not what the axioms reach; it is what the paper can tell apart.

Seven, and then twenty-two

The seven axioms are not seven useful folds somebody collected; they are the number of ways to spend a fold line's two degrees of freedom, and the count can be derived. Run the same derivation for two folds made at once and it gives twenty-two, for three fifty, for five a hundred and sixty-one — while the number of coincidences a pair of hands has to achieve in the same instant goes two, four, six, ten.

Exact is not accurate

This site has two ways of dividing a strip into equal parts: a ladder that lands on the fraction as a rational number, and Fujimoto's method, which never arrives. Read as mathematics that settles it. Read as instructions for somebody with a sheet of paper it settles nothing, and past four parts the method that never arrives is the one whose crease lands nearer the mark.

The sheet decides which points exist

Every measurement of what folding can locate has been made on a square, because origami paper is sold square. Hold the area fixed and change the proportion: one fold reaches nine marks on a square and twenty-nine on the A-series rectangle, and two folds reach 565 against 45,705. The square is the worst of five proportions at both depths, and the reason is its own symmetry.

A hole is an edge

A folder's first fold has to be specified by aligning things that are already there, and what is already there is the sheet's outline. Cut a square hole in the middle and the outline doubles: one round of alignments reaches nine references on a plain square and two hundred and twelve on a holed one — more than the plain square reaches in two rounds.

The grid a division makes

Dividing a square into thirds in both directions is a construction: four creases, each exact, each landing on a rational the ladder can name. The object it leaves behind is a three-by-three map of stamps, and how many ways that folds is the oldest open problem in the subject — 1,368 at three, 300,608 at four, and unknown at five.

An axiom may name no fold

The seven operations are stated about points and lines in a plane, and a plane has no edges. On a square, three of them always name exactly one fold and always land it on the paper; placing a line on a line names two, and 13.3% of the folds it specifies are creases the sheet never reaches; and placing a point on a line through a second point names two folds, one, or — 23.8% of the time — none at all.

The edge was there first

A folder's first fold has nothing to align to but the sheet's own outline, and it shows in where the marks land: four of the five references the first fold adds are on the paper's edge. By the second fold the edge holds forty-eight of five hundred and fifty-six new ones. The rim is where references are cheap and it fills up, because an edge is a line a fold can cross twice while two folds inside the paper cross once each.

The axiom that names two folds

Bring one line onto another and the operation is satisfied by either of two folds, always exactly perpendicular to one another, creasing the paper in completely different places. Over four thousand random line pairs on a square, both folds land on the sheet two thousand nine hundred and sixty-five times, and the statement of the axiom does not say which one is meant. The fifth axiom is worse: its two answers are at any angle at all, from half a degree apart to square.

How far from the nearest reference

One fold puts nine reference points on a square sheet and two folds put five hundred and sixty-five. That is sixty-three times as many points, and it brings the worst-covered spot on the paper from a third of a sheet away to a twelfth — four times closer. A count of references is not a measure of what a fold buys, because a set of points can be arbitrarily crowded and still leave most of the sheet out of reach.

The third fold cannot be listed

Two folds from a bare square reach five hundred and sixty-five reference points. The third round specifies three hundred and seventy-eight thousand folds, of which two hundred and seventy-four thousand are distinct — and the crossings of those with each other run to the tens of billions. The closure stops being computable at exactly the depth a folder starts working at, and what can be said instead is a bound rather than a list.

Which of the seven survive

The seven axioms are the complete list of ways one fold can be specified by aligning marked things. Every one of them names points and lines on a sheet, three of them quietly assume that a line has two sides, and on a closed sheet a line need not — so the list is complete for a disc and shorter for anything else.

A reference on a sheet with no corner

Every construction in this subject begins from the sheet's own boundary: two edges meet at a corner, a corner is a point, and a point is what an axiom takes as input. A cylinder has two circles of edge and no corners at all, so a construction on one has nothing to start from and the seam is not a mark.

Dividing a loop into n

Fujimoto's method divides a strip into any number of equal parts by folding badly and then folding the error in half, over and over. It converges because each step halves what is left over. On a closed loop there is no edge for the leftover to sit against, and what replaces the edge is the loop's own closure.

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.

Reachable is not cheap

The closure is what makes folding a theory rather than a bag of tricks: constructions can be built out of constructions. What that also means is that constructions have lengths and the lengths compose, so every reachable number has a height as well as a degree — the number of extension steps the shortest tower to it must take. The two orderings disagree, and a ninth root is a shorter tower than an eighth.

The field has no edge

Origami numbers are a field on the unbounded plane and a folder has a piece of paper. A fold line runs forever; a crossing of two of them is a number in the field wherever it lands, and it is a reference somebody can put a finger on only where there is paper under it. Counted rather than assumed, two rounds of the four linear axioms on a square put seventy-two per cent of their crossings off the sheet.

How many polygons a fold reaches

The heptagon is what the extra axiom buys and it is one polygon. What it actually buys is a density: to a thousand sides a compass reaches fifty-two regular polygons and a fold reaches two hundred and seventy-five, and the ratio between them is still widening. The compass has five usable primes in the whole of arithmetic and may use each once; a fold keeps acquiring new ones and may repeat the factor of three as often as it likes.

What buys the reach costs the accuracy

A reference is a crossing of two creases, and a crossing transmits a folding error multiplied by one over the sine of the angle the creases make. Measured across the whole closure on a square, the four linear axioms never produce a crossing shallower than thirty-seven degrees — and the conic axiom, the one that sends a point onto a line and reaches the heptagon, produces crossings under seven.

Twenty-two is a floor

The enumeration that gives seven single-fold axioms spends each fold line's two degrees of freedom on alignments to points and lines already on the paper, and its own account says what it leaves out — an alignment may refer to a crease being made in the same instant. Adding those back leaves the single-fold count at seven and takes the two-fold count from twenty-two to eighty-six, of which sixty-four cannot be stated in terms of the paper at all.

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.

A construction assumes its sheet

Haga's fold gives exactly two thirds on a square. Run the same alignment on an A-series sheet held tall and it gives exactly two sevenths, with the crease meeting the vertical edges at seven sixteenths and eleven sixteenths — every one of them a clean fraction, none of them what the recipe promised. Turn the same rectangle through a right angle and the crease leaves the paper instead, which is the loud failure rather than the quiet one.

A stretch keeps crossings

A rectangle is a square stretched along its edges, and a stretch along the edges keeps straight lines straight, crossings as crossings, midpoints as midpoints and the fraction a point divides a segment into. So a construction made only of those — halve an edge, cross two lines — lands at the same fraction of every rectangle, and four standard constructions do. A fold across a slanted line is a reflection the stretch does not keep, and every construction that uses one — Haga's, a corner halved, a corner brought to its opposite — returns a different point on some rectangle, or none.

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.

Each fold needs its own two

The enumeration that gives seven axioms spends a fold line's two degrees of freedom on alignments; run for m folds it spends 2m from one pool, and a pool can be spent three on one line and one on the other, which determines neither. Attaching every alignment to the fold it constrains repairs that, and two other things — and the two-fold count goes from twenty-two to a hundred and five, of which only twenty-eight have to be made at one instant.

Counting operations is not counting power

The catalogue of simultaneous-fold operations runs from seven to nearly ten million between one fold and five. What a construction can reach does not: each fold admits at most three lines, because two parabolas have three proper common tangents and not four, so m folds admit at most three to the m — and the largest polynomial degree they actually settle is smaller again, at twice m plus one. Three counts of the same subject, growing at three speeds.

A crease that does not exist yet

Simultaneous folding is usually described as a problem of dexterity — several coincidences to be achieved in the same instant. The reference graph says otherwise: of the hundred and five two-fold operations, twenty-eight need no simultaneity and forty-nine can be done in an order, leaving twenty-eight whose folds each name the other. Those are not hard to hold. They are hard to know, and a loop that guesses and re-solves finds them at eight per cent of the error a pass.

Twos and threes run out

A fold reaches a number exactly when the degree of its equation is a product of twos and threes, which sounds like a large set because it is infinite and because it is so much larger than the compass's. Counted, the reachable degrees are the lattice points under a straight line, so there are about half a log-squared of them: twenty of the first hundred, a hundred and forty-two of the first million. The share falls from a fifth to one part in seven thousand, and the factor by which folding beats the compass rises at every decade without ever settling.

Gauss's polygon is the expensive one

Which regular polygons a fold reaches is a condition on the factorisation of Euler's totient, and every polygon that passes it also has a height — the number of extension steps the shortest tower to it takes. Read that column instead of the verdict and the field inverts: the heptagon, which no compass reaches, costs one step; the seventeen-sided polygon that made Gauss famous costs three, the most on the list; and the polygons a compass finds easy are the ones a folder pays most for.

The axiom that reaches furthest wastes most

The field of origami numbers is defined on an unbounded plane and a folder has a square. Counted axiom set by axiom set on the same sheet, the share of crossings that land off the paper rises with every axiom added: nothing at all from the first two, fifty-seven per cent from the four linear ones at a single round, and seventy-six per cent from the conic axiom at a single round — more, in one round, than the linear four lose in two. The instrument that reaches furthest into the field delivers the smallest share of what it specifies.

The crossing is as hard as the polygon

Lengthen a square sheet and the largest hexagon it holds turns, pressed against all four edges, until it overtakes the polygons held by the short side alone. Every one of those overtakings happens at a proportion with a closed form, √3⁄2 + ½√(8K⁄3√3 − 1), and the number that comes out is exactly as hard to mark as the polygon being overtaken is to build. The octagon's 1.1284 is a compass number of degree eight. The heptagon's 1.0696 has degree twenty-four and needs a fold. The hendecagon's 1.0853 has degree forty and needs two folds at once.

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.

What the square saves

A construction made only of crossings, midpoints and folds along the edges lands at the same fraction of every rectangle, so its cost is one number for all of them. Counted crease by crease against every fold the first four axioms allow, that portability costs about a crease and three quarters a fraction up to twelfths — and the square is not the cheapest sheet to give it up for. An A-series sheet, where Haga's fold goes silently wrong, marks two sevenths in two creases; the square needs three, and any sheet at all needs five.

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.