Good to see origami on the front page.<p>For those who are interested in the field - whether as art, for the fun of folding or the various potential practical applications - the best book on the subject by far is Robert Lang’s <i>Origami Design Secrets</i>[1], which is a fantastic read and covers all of these and more. Lang is a mathematician at heart but also a consummate artist. I certainly can’t recommend origami enough as a hobby.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.langorigami.com/publication/origami-design-secrets-2nd-edition" rel="nofollow">https://www.langorigami.com/publication/origami-design-secre...</a>
This reminds me of the problem with naming knots. The Ashley Book of Knots (ABoK) has been the standard for quite some time, but it is still a difficult problem to index and search. As with this article, many knots, like many folds, have been "discovered" multiple times over the centuries, and naming & giving credit is clearly a challenge. I'm glad to see this article, but I don't see a solution any time soon. As the author explains, different countries claim credit, how would one go about proving provenance? I find it a fascinating problem.
This is a wonderfully detailed page.<p>It makes me wonder if a formal naming process is also possible, given that origami is a largely linear, and well defined process.<p>You'd start with a prefix which denotes the shape of the paper (square or aspect ratio). Then lists the required transforms in order. There would be some ambiguity as order of certain transformations might not be critical. Perhaps you could develop standard notation there.<p>I see that there appears to be some academic software for modeling origami structures. So I assume this problem must have been addressed to some extent:<p><a href="https://origami.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~tachi/software/" rel="nofollow">https://origami.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~tachi/software/</a>