Talk:Mathematics of paper folding

message: I know that this talk page is not very Wiki-fied; I'm not terribly knowledgeable about how it all is supposed to look.
The biggest need on this page is for expansion.  There's a lot more material about the mathematics of origami out there.  Someone definitely needs to write an article about flat foldability and Kawasaki's proof.
A little detail is that names should not be preceded by title ("Dr.").  That just isn't the convention; I have never seen a Wikipedia article that did that. 
Some of the articles at the bottom of the page (esp. the ones about Britney Gallivan) need to have cross-references in the body of the article (e.g. superscript 1, superscript 2, etc.).
It looks like this article covers several topics (e.g. rigid origami) which could be split off into separate articles.  Flat-foldability needs a separate article (Origami treats it as if it needs a separate article).  I linked these.
Perhaps this article should be organized around branches of mathematics that touch on origami.  Moreover, more attention should be given to the effects of mathematical investigation on the art of origami. --Whiteknox 01:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do list for mathematical origami 

message: Let the point Q' be the point between Q and C from the picture.
The leget QQ' has a factor of third order in x.
Isn't that interesting? There are others different rational values that it's shown here.
EulerIntegral  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.59.190.172 (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Haga's theorems

message: I checked out the reference for the four conditions of flat-foldability. In the video it seems Robert Lang gives these conditions as universal for ALL origami crease patterns; he says nothing about flat-foldability. I found a slightly different set of conditions given here www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/05/jschnei3/origami.pdf It is possible that I do not understand exactly what flat-foldable means, so if someone could clear this up that would be great.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.140.129.59 (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Flat foldability is exactly what it says - the model can be folded flat. Those conditions can easily be broken if the model doesn't have to be flat. For instance one could have one valley and any number of mountain folds if the folds dont have to bend flat. Dmcq (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

text: You're quite right - and it isn't flat foldable. Somebody made a silly mistake doing that diagram. I think I know what they were trying for so I'll correct it. In fact all three diagrams should be fixed. That's a nuisance, I won't be able to get round to fixing it till probably Friday. In fact I see the creator has now been blocked for harassing people and that I reverted a load of their stuff to Origami last year because they copied a big chunk from a book verbatim.  And I believe I looked at these pictures and thought to myself at least they did something useful. My mistake. Ah well I guess at least it will be fixed and have a picture eventually - I hope not too many people have copied them. Dmcq (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flat-Foldability 

message: I think what is basically missing now in this article is not the maths bits but things like some history and references to current organisations and interest in the area. Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing sections 

message: I think the section on Haga's theorems assumes a unit square.  Would it be appropriate to make this explicit?  --Doradus (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It starts off with 'The side of a square can be divided at an arbitrary rational fraction in a variety of ways.' Dmcq (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that intended as an answer to my question?  I'm not sure whether that's a "yes" or "no"...  --Doradus (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to say unit square, the fraction refers to the side. Dmcq (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I see what you mean.  I think you're right.  --Doradus (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haga's theorems use a unit square? 

message: I can't really se the point of the diagram in the lead. It starts off with figures that already have measurements and it does simple division.It doesn't even say how to divide by three. Unless there's some objection soon I'll just remove it. It seems to have practically nothing to do with the mathematics of origami. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --JBL (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading diagram 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mathematics of paper folding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051102085038/http://pomonahistorical.org/12times.htm to http://pomonahistorical.org/12times.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Little is known about this author of Geometric exercises in paper folding.  His surname is probably a different Anglicization of Rao, a common surname in South India. He is certainly of Indian origin, and the first edition of the book published by Addison-Wesley in Madras gives his affiliation as "Deputy Collector", which seems to imply that he was a civil servant.  The dedication of the book to Henry Stokes also suggest this.  But there is no evidence to suggest that he was a professional mathematician.  Thus, I have removed the phrase "mathematician" in the sentence that introduces him. — Stringy Acidtalk 16:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  T. Sundara Row 

message: https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07474 seems to claim that the theory of the Huzita-Hatori-Justin axioms is undecidable.  I haven't read the paper yet, so parking the link here for now.  24.130.116.119 (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  decideability