How often a redrawn lettering is consistent with itself
letters-loop is one function. Everything below came out of it during this
build, at arguments taken from the essays rather than invented for this page — so a figure
here is the same figure a reader meets in an essay, and when the generator changes, this
page changes with it.
At its defaults
view: "lengths", draws: 120
view: "arcs"
view: "size", draws: 200
What it checked while it drew
Collected by running this generator with a listener on the assertions, not written here. The count is how many separate times this build put that claim to the test.
- 35 of 49 panels lie on some loop, and 52 of 84 arcs run inside the tangle ×4
- every node of the straight skeleton is equidistant from each edge that defined it, so one fold serves them all — 1 checked ×3
- 726 circles measured across every population here, of which 0 have an odd number of panels ×2
- at about thirty-four chains the three families sit at 64%, 93%, 13% ×2
- the alternation puts 2 mountains against 2, and Maekawa requires a difference of two ×2
- the sampled share and the exhaustive one differ by at most 0.6% where both can be computed ×2
- 15 crumples measured, and the redrawn share falls from 100% to 28% ×1
- 150 admissible letterings across degrees 4, 6, 8, and not one of them puts its panels in a loop ×1
- 29 patterns from four families, and every one with six independent chains or fewer is more consistent than every one with thirty-six or more ×1
- 3 of 8 printed patterns are small enough to enumerate every lettering of ×1
- 38 admissible letterings across degrees 4, 6, and not one of them puts its panels in a loop ×1
- 4 of 6 patterns have no ordering of their panels, and the letters of every one of them are consistent ×1
- 474 single cuts tried across 4 patches; 16 leave a sheet whose panels still place, and none of those clears the contradiction ×1
- 6 of 7 patterns have letterings whose letters contradict themselves ×1
- 8 panels form a loop each of which must lie below the next ×1
- a rhombille patch carries a loop in the lettering its own construction produced ×1
- a square twist patch, a rhombille patch carries a loop in the lettering its own construction produced ×1
- each draw is a separate solution of the same constraint problem, found by randomising the branch order rather than by writing random letters ×1
- each ladder is one construction grown along its own size parameter, so nothing changes along a curve but how much paper the letters have to agree across ×1
- every circle measured is over a lettering that passes every condition at every interior vertex, so an odd one would be a fact about the panels and not about a bad pattern ×1
- every crease of every patch is cut in turn, so the counts are a sweep rather than a sample ×1
- every crumple here is a sheet that folded itself, so the letters it arrives with are the ones a folding produced and cannot contradict themselves ×1
- every lettering of the vertex is enumerated rather than sampled, so the zero is a count and not a failure to find one ×1
- every rung is the same construction at a different size, so the only thing that changes along the ladder is how much paper the letters have to agree across ×1
- Kawasaki and the big-little-big lemma are evaluated on the same lettering and both hold, so the refusal is one theorem's ×1
- no cut of a crease with an interior vertex at each end leaves a sheet that places at all, and those are the creases the contradiction runs through ×1
- the arcs are read one per crease and nothing about the panels' overlaps is consulted ×1
- the chain count is edges less nodes plus pieces on the panel graph, computed from the drawing and never from the letters ×1
- the consistent share falls from 13.0% at 49 panels to 0.0% at 157 ×1
- the tangle is found by decomposing the arcs into strongly connected components, which shares no line with the walk that finds a cycle ×1
- the two tests are run on the same folded state, so the difference between them is not a difference of input ×1
Where it is called
Changing this generator changes every figure on this list, which is what makes the list worth publishing rather than keeping in a check script.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Every move leaves the verdict
The only change a folder can make to a lettering without breaking it is to push one vertex through, flipping two creases at once. Try every such move on five tessellation patches, from two different letterings each: nineteen of two thousand nine hundred and sixty-four survive the conditions, and not one of the nineteen turns a lettering that agrees with itself into one that does not, or the other way about.
Four easy patches and one that is not
Run the same search a hundred and twenty times on each of five tessellation patches, changing nothing but the order the letters are tried in. Four of them answer in between twenty-five and fifty-three steps every single time. The fifth answers in eighty-four steps at best, a hundred and sixty-six in the middle, and does not answer at all in forty-eight runs of the hundred and twenty.
Four populations with nothing to separate
This collection keeps four standing populations of crease patterns to test its machinery against. Twenty-eight patterns, sampled forty times each for a lettering that agrees with itself and then searched for one — and on every single member the two methods return the same verdict in the same breath. The patterns that separate them are in none of the four, and the reason they are not is what the populations are for.
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.
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.
One solution of a search nobody ran
A crease pattern arrives with its letters already on it, and they look like part of the drawing. They are not. Every construction here ends in a propagation, a propagation ends wherever its first guess took it, and the lettering that comes out differs from the one a search finds on between a half and three-fifths of the creases — on patterns whose own letters are perfectly good.
One witness or forty
Taking the randomness out of a search made it three orders of magnitude cheaper in the worst case and cost it thirty-nine of its forty answers. The compromise everybody reaches for — randomise only the choices that cannot matter — recovers four of the forty on two patches and none on the other three, because the diversity was never where it looked.
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 lettering nobody could draw
Two hundred letterings drawn at random from the rhombille tessellation patch, and not one of them agrees with itself. Two thousand, and still not one. The patch was left as an open question — and it has an answer, found in five hundred and sixty-one steps by a search that tests the arcs while it is choosing the letters instead of after it has chosen them all.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Twelve creases a micrometre long
A patch this collection has drawn for a long time carries a hundred and forty-two creases and a hundred and thirty arcs, and nobody had asked what the other twelve were. They are fragments left where the clip caught a pleat almost exactly at a corner — between one and nine micrometres long on a printed sheet, at one turn angle out of four, and it is the turn the collection prints.
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.
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.
Every generator · The flat-folding field · The patterns a reader can fold