Flat-foldability — the series
-
Two conditions at a point
Whether a single vertex folds flat is decided completely by two tests — one on the angles, one on the assignment. They are independent, they are easy to check, and together they settle the case entirely.
-
Why the difference is two
Maekawa's theorem says mountains and valleys differ by exactly two at every flat-foldable vertex. The constant is not empirical — it is a full turn, and the theorem is about winding rather than about paper.
-
The smallest sector decides
Two assignments can satisfy both flat-folding theorems and only one of them folds. What separates them is a condition about the smallest angle, and it is the first rule in the subject that is not about counting.
-
Local is not global
Every vertex can satisfy every condition and the sheet still not fold. Deciding whether a whole crease pattern folds flat is NP-hard, which means no figure will settle it and no algorithm will scale.
-
Which layer goes on top
The mountain-valley assignment says which way each crease turns. It says nothing at all about which sheet ends up above which, and that second question is a different object with its own rules — and all of the difficulty.
-
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.
-
One straight cut
Any drawing made of straight lines can be folded so that the whole drawing lands on a single line, and one cut releases it. The construction is a shrinking process, and it explains itself the moment the shrinking is drawn.
-
How many assignments fold
The local conditions throw away most of the ways a pattern could be creased. They throw away a smaller and smaller fraction as the pattern grows, and what survives grows faster than what is discarded — which is why a strong filter is not a decision procedure.
-
The gadgets that make it hard
Flat-foldability is NP-hard, and the proof is a construction rather than an obstruction: a machine for turning any satisfiability problem into a sheet of paper that folds exactly when the problem has an answer.
-
What a checker cannot check
Every crease pattern on this site is run past four theorems before it is allowed onto a page, and passing all four proves nothing. The gap is not a bug to be closed: it is the NP-hardness result, arriving as a property of a hundred lines of code.
-
What universality costs
The fold-and-cut theorem says any straight-line drawing can be flattened onto a single line. It says nothing about how much crease pattern that takes, and the amount is a measurable quantity — computed here by running the construction rather than by estimating it.
-
How little the conditions decide
Local is not global is a statement about sufficiency: every vertex can pass and the sheet still fail. There is a sharper complaint available, and it is about strength. Fix one crease of a tessellation and propagate every condition the subject has to a fixed point: three creases out of a hundred and fifty-eight follow, and sixty-six vertices are still holding more than one answer.
-
The lettering that folds nowhere
The conditions at a vertex admit 256 letterings of the square twist. Eight of them have a folded state. The other 248 satisfy developability, Kawasaki, Maekawa and the big-little-big lemma at every vertex of the pattern and cannot be folded by anyone — and this site printed one of them for years, at true scale, with instructions to fold it first.
-
One cut for a star
The fold-and-cut construction here could reach a triangle, a pentagon and a house, and refused everything that turned back on itself, because shrinking an outline with a reflex corner needs an event the shrink did not implement. With split events it reaches a five-pointed star — ten creases through one point, four hundred and twenty letterings that fold, and every edge of the outline landing on one line to a part in 10^16.
-
The lettering that was proved impossible
A search closed its whole tree on a glued square tessellation and reported that no mountain-and-valley assignment of it is consistent. Written onto ordinary patches of one, four and nine periods and handed to the four vertex theorems and a folded sheet rebuilt from scratch, the assignment it says cannot exist passes every check, on four tilings, up to fifteen hundred creases.
-
Closure is not the identity
Walk a folded state from panel to panel, composing a reflection at every crease, and come back to where the walk started: the composition has to be the identity. That is the rule everybody states, and it is a special case. On a sheet whose edges are glued the walk does not come back to where it started, and what the composition has to equal is the gluing map.
-
Parity is not enough
A Möbius band needs an odd number of creases round it. Give it three, square across the strip, and it does not fold — nor does five, nor seven, nor any odd number at all. The counting argument is necessary and it is not close to sufficient, and the thing it cannot see is which way the creases point.
-
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.