Twos and threes, and nothing else
number-tower 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: "degrees", show: "polycost"
view: "degrees", show: "polygons"
view: "degrees", show: "counts"
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.
- 7 of them have a degree that is a product of twos and threes and 2 do not, which is the line between what a fold reaches and what it does not ×4
- every number named here satisfies the rational polynomial stated for it, and none of them satisfies one of lower degree with coefficients up to 6 — checked by exhaustion rather than by algebra ×3
- 4 of the 13 degrees are certified by Eisenstein at two and the rest by exhaustion over integer coefficients to 6 ×2
- the share lost runs from 47% to 72% across 4 proportions, so what the edge costs is a fact about the shape of the sheet ×2
- 1 pair of these numbers put a larger degree on a shorter tower — 2^(1/9) is of higher degree than 2^(1/8) and reaches it in 2 steps against 3 ×1
- 11 of the 13 numbers have a degree made of twos and threes and the rest do not, so the boundary is still on the page ×1
- and the conic axiom loses more at one round — 76% — than the four linear ones lose at two, which is 72% ×1
- and the eleven-sided polygon is out of reach altogether, its degree being five ×1
- and the factor by which a fold beats a compass rises at every decade rather than settling, because one count grows as a logarithm squared and the other as the logarithm ×1
- and the set that loses most cannot be run a second round at all: the folds it specifies outgrow the cap the closure is computed under ×1
- every one of the six operations, applied to numbers a fold reaches, produces a number a fold reaches — which is why a construction may be built out of constructions ×1
- on a square, 2 rounds put 1,440 crossings off the paper against 565 on it — the sheet's edge discards 72% of what the plane produces ×1
- the crossings are counted rather than estimated: every pair of fold lines is intersected and the ones that miss the paper are tallied instead of dropped ×1
- the heptagon costs one extension step and no compass reaches it; the seventeen-sided polygon costs three and a compass does — so the polygon a compass cannot draw is the cheaper of the two for a folder ×1
- the loss is counted rather than estimated: every crossing of every pair of fold lines is formed, and the ones that miss the paper are tallied instead of dropped ×1
- the reachable degrees to 200 are exactly the 25 lattice points under the line, counted two ways ×1
- the share of crossings that miss the paper rises with every axiom added — 0%, 0%, 57%, 76% at one round ×1
- the share of degrees a fold reaches falls from 70% to 0.014% across the range drawn ×1
- the tallest tower drawn is 4 steps, for 2^(1/16) at degree 16 ×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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
Every generator · The axioms and construction field · The patterns a reader can fold