I did read the links. Sorry, that’s not a fold, that’s a bend.
I concur. It seems the truth is being stretched.
I didn’t check out what MB did but Britney found a loophole. The tacit condition of the original challenge was that each fold was across the previous fold.
This is not a math problem, it’s an engineering problem. Everything depends on the thickness and other qualities of the paper or other material you’re using.
BTW once you get up to 12 folds you’ve created 4,096 layers. That sounds somehow familiar. Oh, yeah, here it is. Making 4,096 noodles by doubling and stretching. IMHO this is more amazing than folding paper.
In that case, it’s impossible to fold a piece of paper in half two times. On the second “fold”, the outer layer of paper is just bent around the inner layer, not folded. What (other than the radius of the bend) changes, between the two-folds case and the eight-folds case?
Well, if we wanted to be that picky, we could say that a single piece couldn’t be folded for exactly the same reason - the fibres on the outside are being bent around a greater radius than those on the inside.
For me though (and YMMV), a fold in paper is a crease - a tight bend that causes the paper to be permanently deformed.
I have the same problem with the Mythbusters method as I do the one that the girl used. They are twisting the myth to make it possible, not what was originally intended. The girl used toilet paper as I recall to break the record. While I give her props for figuring out the math required, she really didn’t disprove the myth. The majority of people that make that statement are talking about a regular sheet of paper. Not a roll of toilet paper, or a sheet of tissue paper several hundred feet square. So yes it’s possible to fold a paper-like product more than 7 times…however it’s not possible to fold a piece of what just about every person would consider paper more than 7 times.
No, that’s not true. She first did it with gold foil and then with paper. The thickness of the paper is accounted for in her formula, so theoretically you could use 20 lb. paper, and her formula will tell you how long (or wide) a piece you need to do it. That stuff in Colophon’s link is sure not toilet paper (although I don’t see how she’s going to get a 12th fold there. In fact, all the pictures I’ve seen are of the 11 fold stage. Does she reserve the 12th fold picture for her book or somethin’?)
cite (scroll down.)
Diegogarcity, referred to in this thread on Metafilter.
In all honesty this has happened to me pretty much the same way it has to you.
I imagine all of us at some time or other have thought about something, forgot it and then Wham! something will occur that make you think that an alien is tapping into your grey matter.
If that makes sense :dubious:
I dunno, most places I’ve encountered the myth (in person or online) explicitly say “it’s impossible to fold a sheet of paper in half 8 times, no matter how big or how thin the paper is”. cite, cite, cite (one of the comments thinks so, at least),cite (not explicitly “any size”, but it says “Not even something as thin as toilet paper, or as large as newspaper”). I haven’t found any statement of the myth that explicitly specifies a normal letter-sized sheet, and very few that don’t include the claim that size doesn’t matter.
Incidentally, the Google search I used to find those was “impossible fold paper -britney -straightedge -origami” (without the quotes). The -britney was to exclude all of the (now abundant) articles talking about Britney Gallivan’s achievement, -straightedge was to remove mathematical discussions about trisecting the angle, etc., by folding rather than the traditional compass and straightedge, and -origami eliminated things like “it’s so hard to make a paper crane, it seems almost impossible”.
Or the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon. Neat. Now you can guarantee I’ll be hearing about this all over the place :dubious:
That’s what I was thinking too.
I dont think it is. After like 5 folds you are not longer folding it but rolling it over. If their is no crease it shoudlnt count as a fold
That’s the point exaclty - if it doesn’t get a crease in it, it hasn’t been folded, it has been merely bent. Two sheets of paper (per Chronos’ objection) can be folded together, because they can be bent sufficiently flat that they will both show evidence - in the form of a crease - afterwards. 128 sheets of ordinary paper can’t, because not all of them will be folded at all.
I don’t understand why that should be a condition for a fold? A fold is a fold, to take one piece and fold it over the other, who cares how sharp the fold is? it’snot a fold it’s a bend? Wha’?
>I don’t understand why that should be a condition for a fold?
Ditto. A “crease” is a sharp fold. You might say, that’s why there’s a separate word for a fold that specifically is sharp, to distinguish it from folds in general, which might be either.
It’s not a separate word for something similar, but more or less extreme - it’s a different thing - folding is what the whole piece of paper undergoes, it acquires a crease only in part.
But taking your point as it stands, how then do you differentiate fold from bend?
So, it’s impossible to fold a blanket, then?
You could “fold” a piece of paper in half a hundred times if you wraped it around a needle. That is why i think that their should be a crease in order to be considered a fold.
Well, I like how the girl did it: “For a sheet to be considered folded n times it must be convincingly documented and independently verified that (2n) unique layers are in a straight line.” The sheets lying parallel are evidence of folding - you look in the middle, not at the ends. Merely “bent” would mean that 2n layers are not in a straight line. An L or a V are bent.
I’m not following the “in half” part. If it’s wrapped, it’s not “in half” any amount of times.