84:
74:
53:
315:. Any set that satisfies them is a "group." Everything that can be proved about groups (in general -- that is, statements of the form "If G is a group, then G...") follows from the group axioms. Similarly, anything that can be proved about sets that satisfy Huzita's Axioms can be proved from Huzita's Axioms. Unfortunately, it doesn't follow from the axioms that every set satisfying the axioms is convex.
362:"Humiaki Huzita and Benedetto Scimemi presented a paper in which they identified six distinctly different ways one could create a single crease by aligning one or more combinations of points and lines on a sheet of paper. Those six operations became known as the Huzita axioms. The Huzita axioms provided the first formal description of what types of geometric constructions were possible with origami."
22:
206:
is a really good resource for math-related stuff. Also, the last axiom (Axiom 6) currently does not have a parametric equation because I was unable to find a source that provided one. It's likely to be even more complex than the one for Axiom 5, since it finds a line that is tangent to two parabolas.
321:
Intuitively, if you take a star-shaped sheet of paper, you'll see that you can (1) fold it so that any two points coincide, (2) fold it so that there is a single line going between them, (3) fold it so that any line coincides with any other, and (4) so on. But you can't use the algorithms presented
282:
This page is seriously broken. The Axioms don't specify a model, so one should not assume that one is working with an inner product space or a space where parametric equations make sense. For example, if a piece of paper is not convex, one cannot apply the algorithm in the exposition of Axiom 2 to
443:
I would like to see it mentioned that a 360-gon can be created through paper folding while it cannot be created by compass and straight edge. Since the 360 gon is used for the division of 1 degree it might be nice to show that paper folding provides a potential for constructing it. Also, if anyone
223:
Interesting! I've seen some other stuff about curved folds in origami; very impressive stuff. Though, as far as I know it has nothing to do with Huzita's axioms, which only pertain to straight folds. I wonder if there are similar axioms or equations that could describe such curved folds; they'd
297:
I've added to the article two of the references I remember using. My math isn't too great (in fact, I didn't understand most of what you just said) so I hope someone else can tidy it up. I thought it was pretty straightforward, since the axioms only deal with a 2D cartesian plane; is it more
157:
I'm doing a project on the relationship between math and origami and this page is very useful, except that it doesn't ever say what "s" is in the equations (the very first one is F(s) = p1 + s(p2 - p1) and they never tell you what the F or the s stand for. The s is bothering me more.) I'm so
407:; without it you might have a hyperbolic or spherical space instead of a Euclidean one. Of course, this wouldn't change the class of constructable angles, just the metric of the points. (I don't know if anyone has ever considered constructable points in the sphere/hyperbolic plane.
365:
So I think the axioms describe the ways in which folds may be made, but do not necessarily imply that they can be made in all situations. I agree with you that the way the axioms are presented, as unequivocal statements, is confusing.
385:
And in what sense is the seventh axiom independent? As far as I know, the first 6 axioms can construct all points that you get by (iteratively) taking square roots and cube roots. Does axiom 7 add anything to that?
326:
I thought the intended model was supposed to be the whole plane. If a piece of paper is not convex, that only means it's not a model of these axioms, not that the axioms are "seriously broken".
256:
I'm not in a position to judge the validity of this page, and haven't found any other online references. I hope someone in a better position to judge will update the article as appropriate.
140:
166:
is the independent variable in the parametric equation. I found it pretty confusing at first, too, until I learned some more about parametric equations, and then it made more sense. The
286:
I don't know enough about this field to fix the article myself, but it is either missing hypotheses used in the field or is taking mathematical liberties without justification. It is
290:
obvious that every model for these axioms is convex. Indeed, that is false. I also take issue with the assumption that every model of the axioms is an inner product space. --
311:
The problem is that I can think of a lot of structures that satisfy the axioms but for which you can't use inner products. As a simple example of what I mean, consider the
224:
certainly be far more complex! The equation of a line is fairly simple, but the equation for an arbitrary curve... definitely above my head, mathematically speaking. --
501:
130:
423:
These aren't a minimal set of axioms, in fact one could get away with just axiom 6. They are the complete set of single folds one can do in origami.
106:
496:
460:
389:
355:
Kuciwalker, I had a similar feeling of 'how can they be axioms if they're not always true?' However, on Robert Lang's origami page (
97:
58:
233:
Edit: I see now that you posted this by way of explanation for adding the phrase "straight-fold" to the article. Good call. --
253:, including a 7th axiomatic fold discovered by Koshiro Hatori in 2002 that is independent of Huzita's 6 established axioms.
472:
Things need to be in a reliable source first, Knowledge is most definitely a follower not a place to put one's own ideas.
33:
322:
in the article to find these folds because there is no guarantee that the parametric function F(s) exists everywhere.
456:
412:
393:
452:
39:
83:
291:
448:
21:
345:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
408:
404:
327:
283:
find folds mapping any two points to each other. Other algorithms can be broken easily as well.
89:
73:
52:
170:
is just an arbitrary name for the function, sort of like in normal algebraic functions like
481:
464:
432:
416:
397:
342:
330:
302:
272:
260:
216:
477:
444:
has a link to someone constructing 1 degree with paper folding... I'd love to see it.
428:
299:
234:
225:
208:
490:
378:
Robert J. Lang has proven that this list of axioms completes the axioms of origami.
312:
356:
246:
265:
102:
79:
473:
424:
202:). Read up on parametric equations if this still doesn't make sense :-) The
158:
frustrated. Could anyone answer this as soon as possible please? Thanks!!
269:
257:
203:
15:
341:
If Axiom 5 and 6 can have 0 solutions, how are they true?--
186:
varies continuously from minus infinity to infinity; when
182:. Anyhow, the idea in those parametric equations is that
190:=5, the first equation says that a point on the line is
217:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/science/22orig.html
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
403:It looks to me like the origami-version of the
357:http://www.langorigami.com/science/hha/hha.php4
8:
382:In what sense are the 7 axioms complete?
47:
268:'s the link to Hatori's own discussion.
219:about non straight-fold origami -- Anon
278:Parametric Equations and Inner Products
49:
19:
7:
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
439:360 degree protractor construction
14:
502:Low-priority mathematics articles
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
135:This article has been rated as
303:23:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
1:
482:10:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
465:19:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
273:03:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
261:03:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
497:C-Class mathematics articles
346:16:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
331:23:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
518:
433:14:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
417:04:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
398:23:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
351:Not axioms, but operations
298:complicated than that? --
134:
67:
46:
237:19:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
228:19:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
211:01:33, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
141:project's priority scale
98:WikiProject Mathematics
336:
28:This article is rated
374:What does this mean?
251:Huzita-Hatori axioms
121:mathematics articles
405:parallel postulate
242:The seventh axiom?
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
468:
451:comment added by
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
509:
467:
445:
249:talks about the
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
517:
516:
512:
511:
510:
508:
507:
506:
487:
486:
446:
441:
372:
353:
339:
280:
244:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
515:
513:
505:
504:
499:
489:
488:
485:
484:
440:
437:
436:
435:
420:
419:
380:
379:
371:
368:
352:
349:
338:
337:I don't get it
335:
334:
333:
319:
318:
317:
316:
306:
305:
279:
276:
243:
240:
239:
238:
230:
229:
213:
212:
204:MathWorld site
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
514:
503:
500:
498:
495:
494:
492:
483:
479:
475:
471:
470:
469:
466:
462:
458:
454:
453:Peawormsworth
450:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
421:
418:
414:
410:
409:Ben Standeven
406:
402:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
377:
376:
375:
369:
367:
363:
360:
359:) it reads,
358:
350:
348:
347:
344:
332:
329:
328:Michael Hardy
325:
324:
323:
314:
310:
309:
308:
307:
304:
301:
296:
295:
294:
293:
289:
284:
277:
275:
274:
271:
267:
263:
262:
259:
254:
252:
248:
241:
236:
232:
231:
227:
222:
221:
220:
218:
210:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
160:
159:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
447:— Preceding
442:
390:194.24.138.3
388:
384:
381:
373:
364:
361:
354:
340:
320:
313:group axioms
287:
285:
281:
264:
255:
250:
245:
214:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
156:
137:Low-priority
136:
96:
62:Low‑priority
40:WikiProjects
292:poopdeville
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
491:Categories
343:Kuciwalker
370:7th axiom
300:Wapcaplet
247:This page
235:Wapcaplet
226:Wapcaplet
209:Wapcaplet
461:contribs
449:unsigned
139:on the
30:C-class
36:scale.
478:talk
474:Dmcq
457:talk
429:talk
425:Dmcq
413:talk
394:talk
266:Here
215:See
178:) =
162:The
288:not
207:--
194:+5(
131:Low
493::
480:)
463:)
459:•
431:)
415:)
396:)
270:Hv
258:Hv
200:p1
196:p2
192:p1
476:(
455:(
427:(
411:(
392:(
198:-
188:s
184:s
180:x
176:x
174:(
172:f
168:F
164:s
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
