Talk:Paper folding
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
09:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Prof Gall
Big fold
[edit]Scrub that last one - factor of 1,000 out. My bad and my apologies..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.79.113 (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
One of the reasons why high-fold-count paper folding is so difficult is that the height, and thus width of the paper required and height of the successive folds, grow exponentially. Folding a piece of paper in half 100 times, if it were possible, would produce a stack of paper approximately 8×1022 miles in height,[4]...perhaps a tenth the size of the universe.
I think this belongs in the mathematics of paper folding article more than here. It is a thought experiment about the mathematics of paper folding.sinneed (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This math in article was written by a person who has limited understanding of the current mathematics of paper folding. It represents a very old approach to the problem that now has now been solved exactly. Such statements as the paper has to be 2 times as long to get another fold is wrong. The true limit is not exactly exponential. The formula by Britney Gallivan disproves this and had been confirmed independently by mathematicians and documented on the Caltech http://www.its.caltech.edu/~ari/paper-folding.html website. All the math that follows is basically incorrect. Since Wikipedia has the correct formula, as reviewed by mathematicians for years on the site, I believe alternatives not used until the original is proved wrong. The problem's math shown on this site and its results should be removed. Any one who understands the math of the Caltech web site would realize this. I believe the site requires a major revision to prevent misunderstanding of the problem. Prof Gall 09:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Given this is hypothetical and basically a trivia item, is it really relevent here to have "Folding a piece of paper in half 100 times, if it were possible, would produce a stack of paper approximately 8×1022 miles in height." in this article Rimmer1993 (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Turn into a disambiguation page
[edit]I think the page should be turned into a disambiguation page which just refers to the various crafts of paper folding. There doesn't seem to be an overall topic of paper folding.
The seven fold limit which is only content here is something that is already covered in Mathematics of paper folding. I'll set up a separate article Seven fold limit and merge the stuff from the mathematics article and this into it. That way it'll be easier to refer to from either and I think it is a separate topic. It is pretty trivial but it's notable and that's what mainly matters for Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually there's already an article Britney Gallivan which deals with the seven fold limit properly Dmcq (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Primary topic
[edit]The more I look into the history and modern uses of paper folding, the more I find that it is referenced as origami - even technological uses which have nothing to do with the Japanese art are referred to in some literature as forms of origami. Perhaps paper folding should redirect there, with a hatnote to other forms. bd2412 T 03:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's what I said to you. Paper folding could be a reasonable topic except origami deals with most of it. The thing that is missing is an article on paper craft or art which would be one step up and would also make a good topic. With something like that any vestige of a reason for this being an article as opposed to a disambiguation page would disappear. Dmcq (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Then why not redirect to origami, which will contain the answers that probably 99% of users/linkers are seeking, with a hatnote to Paper folding (disambiguation)? bd2412 T 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- 99% is probably a bit of an exaggeration but I guess it would be the target for the large majority, so yes that would work out well I think. Origami already has a small disambiguation page but pointing to a paper folding disambiguation page as well would probably be some help even to people who came direct from origami. How about the idea of a paper craft/paper art article?, it would be a biggie project but I think it could prove very popular and could tie in a lot of stuff. Dmcq (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree completely, and will gladly help out with it. Paper craft currently redirects to Paper model, which is too narrow to be the proper redirect target of so broad a term. I will move the current content of this page to Paper craft, restore the disambig page at Paper folding (disambiguation), redirect this title to Origami and put the appropriate hatnote there. bd2412 T 04:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- 99% is probably a bit of an exaggeration but I guess it would be the target for the large majority, so yes that would work out well I think. Origami already has a small disambiguation page but pointing to a paper folding disambiguation page as well would probably be some help even to people who came direct from origami. How about the idea of a paper craft/paper art article?, it would be a biggie project but I think it could prove very popular and could tie in a lot of stuff. Dmcq (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Then why not redirect to origami, which will contain the answers that probably 99% of users/linkers are seeking, with a hatnote to Paper folding (disambiguation)? bd2412 T 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)