Talk:Flexagon

message: It is highly unlikely that Brit transplant Stone was using A4 paper in 1939.  Much more plausible is that he was using foolscap which was one of the standard paper sizes in use in the UK until well into the 70s. According to the paper size entry herein A4 was adopted by the UK in 1959 but I have no recollection of seeing or indeed being aware of A4 until the late 70s.  It's possible that despite its recognition it was regarded as another dirty European trick designed to drag the unwilling heirs of King Arthur into the 20th century.Cross Reference 23:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little pedantry to start 

message: The statement that the complete theory of flexagons developed by Tukey & Feynman was "not published" requires a citation.  There are lots of theoretical works on flexagons that have been published since they worked on them, and it seems incredible that none of their early work has since surfaced. DFH 08:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tukey & Feynman "not published"? 

message: I think a new page is needed for the Tuckerman traverse and related theory, so that this article doesn't become too unwieldy as an introduction to the subject. DFH 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuckerman traverse 

message: You can get images from The Colossal Book of Mathematics by Martin Gardner, which I possess. I unfortuantely doesn't have a scanner. If nyone would be kind enough to provide such images, it would be greatly appreciated.--24.149.204.116 14:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of irregular strips required to make flexagons 

message: Flexagons of every order may be created using the following procedure.
It is known that all flexagons are eventually folded into a hexagon.  In order to generate the development, all we do is reverse the process.
right
When folded, the hexagon has free edges indicated by thick lines in the figure (right). Unfolding at a triangle adjacent to either of these free edges generates a new triangle.  The next free edge is found from this partial development by counting three triangles from the fold. This is similarly unfolded and the final free edge is again three triangles away from the previous fold.  The three folds increases the number of triangles from six to nine.  A tenth is added on the end to provide an overlap to stick the flexagon together, but the resulting straight strip is recognisable as the development of the trihexaflexagon.
right
Taking this a stage further, the free edge is initially taken at an arbitrary point along the strip. The strip is unfolded.  Again, counting three triangles along the strip a 'free edge' of the higher order development is found, this is unfolded. Note: the direction of the unfolding is always the same; in this case the first unfolding moves the right hand section of the strip up, the second moves the left end down. Looking along the strip from the right hand end, the development is unwound in a clockwise direction.  Anti-clockwise is also correct, but the direction of 'unwinding' cannot change half way through the process.
right
The process is repeated three times yielding the complete development of the next highest order flexagon (in this case the tetrahexaflexagon).
By repeating this process, developments of all possible hexaflexagons can be produced.  Different variants arise from different choices of start position, and the ancestry of the development.
I have not included this in the article because I cannot find a reference for it. Gordon Vigurs 12:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedure for Creation of Hexaflexagon Strips 

message: In my online book thedreamingofvictoria.com I have used a trihexaflexagon in the narrative, and have added pages to demonstrate the making of a trihexaflexagon, and how a maze can be added to a trihexaflexagon's surface. There are photos and a video page. I would really appreciate any comments, especially if I can make things clearer, or have made a mistake. TIA. David Horsley 222.144.134.247 08:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some help and feedback 

message: Describing the new section about the "Elusive 3 Extra Combinations" as being "Added, for the first time publicly,", comes perilously close to breaching Wikipedia guidelines on "No original research" WP:NOR, which is barely saved only by the untraced reference to the 1995 unpublished knowledge of the "Impossible Paper Company Inc".  I am somewhat uneasy about letting this claim stand unsupported by a more precise reference. The added section is notable and fascinating, so I am not going to be so churlish as to delete it for the above reasons.  Please try to fix it, and do so quickly.  DFH 19:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I have no doubt to its veracity, it seems that that section is original research. So unless someone can find a reliable third-party source for it, it will have to be removed. Jkasd 06:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Added, for the first time publicly, ....." ? 

message: I added a short section "Trihexaflexagon", and changed the name of the section listing the various types to "Inventory of flexagons" (question: is the Duahexa REALLY a flexagon, given the definition that flexing must reveal different faces???).  My problem is that I would like to make my reference to this in "Trihexaflexagon" be a clickable link to the "inventory" but I don't know how to code it! -- Martha (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor editing help needed 

message: I noted that the text I had added in January (see above) about Trihexaflexagons was deleted yesterday by 69.37.122.92.  This disturbs me - not because it was my contribution, but because the way it stands now, the whole article seems very insular and lopsided.  It devotes a medium amount of attention to the Tritetraflexagon, most of the page including copious colorful pictures to the Hexahexaflexagon, and barely a few words to any of the other types.  As it stands, I believe the page is a very poor example of a Wikipedia article and even incorrectly titled.  While I could of course reinstate my contribution, I am not doing that at present because I believe the whole article needs re-working to make it "encyclopedia quality".  Is anyone interested in working on this? —Martha (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  questioning edits by 69.37.122.92 

message: It looks like the section Inventory of flexagons was just copied from Mathematical Games. I don't think that this is a good idea. Can someone verify my suspicion? CHL (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was. You're right that it is a bad idea as it probably was a copyright violation, so I removed it. I think I will also try to rewrite the whole article as it is not very encyclopedic as it stands. Jkasd 11:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied? 

message: Seeing as this article has some serious issues. I am currently trying to rewrite it at User:Jkasd/Misc_draft. Feel free to edit that page directly. My main goals are to remove the original research and how-to content, and to introduce formal definitions and such to the article. Jkasd 02:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: The very first version of the article, in 2002, was taken pretty much verbatim from this book.  Some of the text in the lead was recently replaced, but we might want to check and see if there's more still there.  Oops, no.  This 2004 book contains text from the original 2002 version of the wikipedia article, and claims copyright on it.  Who plagiarized whom here?   Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, probably best just to rewrite that part. I have previously removed an other section of this article that was taken almost word for word from Martin Gardner's book: Hexaflexagons and Other Mathematical Diversions. Jkasd 03:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: I did this in our AP calc clase to show everyone.  They minds were blown away, even the teach himself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.165.117.4 (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  They're easy to make 

message: After cleaning up a ton of how-to content, the core of the article is now pretty sparse. There's a need for expansion and cleanup in the tetraflexagon and hexaflexagon sections, especially. The article could probably benefit from some generalized discussion of the properties of fexagons.Tomajohnson (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for expansion 

message: The article presently says "This is the simplest of the hexaflexagons to make and to manage, and is made from a single strip of paper, divided into ten equilateral triangles." but flexagon.net suggests that 18 equilateral triangles in two rows of one strip of paper provides this. Any disagreement with "18"? Boud (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trihexaflexagon 

message: This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIVIegSt81k) by vihart has 7.8M views. Would it be appropriate for consideration in the `In popular culture` section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanguill (talk • contribs) 04:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vi Hart video for popular culture section? 

message: I think the bit about one particular flextangle (under "In Popular Culture") should be removed, since flextangles are not flexagons. (Plus there are many, many other flextangles out there besides this Wrinkle in Time one. There's no reason to start with this one. If it should be kept, then the flextangle "variety" should be added to the list of varieties.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjohnson.sc (talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I split a new article kaleidocycle/flextangles. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Flextangle? 

message: As someone unfamiliar with the Chrysler logo (not a common brand in my country) this description is confusing. The linked Chrysler Wikipedia page shows the Stellantis logo, which is a series of dots in a circle, and further down the page is the Chrysler logo which is the word “Chrysler” with wings attached. A pentagon logo that matches the description on this page can be found on the “History of Chrysler” page, in the Logos/pentestar section. Is there a way to directly link there? 118.149.78.44 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chrysler logo 

message: Pinging  are there any sources at all for the Vi Hart video? Otherwise, I will have to remove it. Dialmayo 16:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vi Hart video