Talk:Flexagon

A little pedantry to start
It is highly unlikely that Brit transplant Stone was using A4 paper in 1939. Much more plausible is that he was using foolscap which was one of the standard paper sizes in use in the UK until well into the 70s. According to the paper size entry herein A4 was adopted by the UK in 1959 but I have no recollection of seeing or indeed being aware of A4 until the late 70s. It's possible that despite its recognition it was regarded as another dirty European trick designed to drag the unwilling heirs of King Arthur into the 20th century.Cross Reference 23:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Cross Reference 23:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This has apparently been updated in the page but the paragraph now disagrees with itself. It says he cut off foolscap (English size) to make letter (American) size but then that he cut off the American paper to fit his English binder. Ralimisoot (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. One of these must be incorrect. I'll try to track down a citation for this--looking for the Gardner column which might be the source. Tomajohnson (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Scientific American article reads: "Arthur H. Stone... found that he had to trim an inch off American notebook sheets to fit them into his English binder." Tomajohnson (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Early comments
this really needs a diagram. Kingturtle 08:12, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Provided a diagram of the tritetraflexagon. I'd like to do ones for the larger tetraflexagons too, but it'd just be duplication of the MathWorld page. --AlexChurchill 11:18, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the so-called Tuckerman Traverse was also independently worked out by me, myself, when I was 11 years old, without any help from anyone. Bloody poncy mathematicians with their "look at us, we're so clever" attitude. A child could work that stuff out, and did. So there. Bonalaw
 * In reply to the last comment:
 * No one says that one needs to study maths for some 10 years and get those cert. to be good in maths. Even the most difficult unsolved maths problem didn't relate to anything advanced, it's just persistance and the faith that matter.
 * I remember from somewhere a physican said something like 'I was thinking a physics problem hard and have no idea, so I go out to have a walk and relax and I saw some children on the street, I asked them about that question, and, to my surprise, they answered it correctly straight away.'


 * I think the point of mentioning Tuckerman is to say that he was the first recorded person to disover it. It's a very common thing in mathematics of all branches for someone to discover something for themself and then discover someone else has done it earlier. Now, if anyone has a claim they discovered the Tuckerman traverse earlier than 1940, and published information on it somewhere, that might be worth mentioning here. --AlexChurchill 11:18, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry, just my deadpan sense of humour. Doesn't come across very well in type, I'm afraid. (Though I really did work it out independently, that bit is true.) I was rather surprised to find the concept being named for its discoverer though, given its obviousness. Has anyone discovered that water is wet yet? I'll have that one. Bonalaw 12:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess a lot of enthusiastic young readers of Martin Gardner's column also worked out the theory for hexaflexagons, part of which became known as the Tuckerman traverse. I can recall doing likewise in my teenage years. DFH 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Tukey & Feynman "not published"?
The statement that the complete theory of flexagons developed by Tukey & Feynman was "not published" requires a citation. There are lots of theoretical works on flexagons that have been published since they worked on them, and it seems incredible that none of their early work has since surfaced. DFH 08:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Tuckerman traverse
I think a new page is needed for the Tuckerman traverse and related theory, so that this article doesn't become too unwieldy as an introduction to the subject. DFH 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Flexagons Inside Out
I found this description of the book by Les Pook, (DFH 14:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Description: (182 pages) Photocopy and make flexagon nets plus explanation of maths at recreational level.Flexagons are paper models that can be flexed in different ways to change their shape. They are easy to make, and work in surprising ways. This book explains the maths behind flexagons and includes instructions to make them. Flexagons will appeal to anyone interested in puzzles or recreational maths.Flexagons are paper models that can be flexed in different ways to display different faces. They are easy to make, and work in surprising ways. This book contains numerous diagrams that the reader can photocopy and use to construct a variety of fascinating flexagons. Alongside this, the author also explains the mathematics behind these amazing creations. The technical details would require a mathematical background but the models can be made and used by anyone. Flexagons bring maths to life and will appeal to anyone interested in puzzles or recreational maths.Flexagons are hinged polygons that have the intriguing property of displaying different pairs of faces when they are flexed. Workable paper models of flexagons are easy to make and entertaining to manipulate. Flexagons have a surprisingly complex mathematical structure and just how a flexagon works is not obvious on casual examination of a paper model. Flexagons may be appreciated at three different levels. Firstly as toys or puzzles, secondly as a recreational mathematics topic and finally as the subject of serious mathematical study. This book is written for anyone interested in puzzles or recreational maths. No previous knowledge of flexagons is assumed, and the only pre-requisite is some knowledge of elementary geometry. An attractive feature of the book is a collection of nets, with assembly instructions, for a wide range of paper models of flexagons. These are printed full size and laid out so they can be photocopied.1. Making and flexing flexagons; 2. Early history of flexagons; 3. Geometry of flexagons; 4. Hexaflexagons; 5. Hexaflexagon variations; 6. Square flexagons; 7. Introduction to convex polygon flexagons; 8. Typical convex polygon flexagons; 9. Ring flexagons; 10. Distorted polygon flexagons; 11. Flexahedra.
 * An excellent resource for anyone with little previous knowledge to understand the basics, but with enough detail to satisfy the interest of all but the most ardent mathmos. Eureka
 * Pook's book summarizes a great deal of what is known about flexagons of all shapes and types, and contains much new material. An excellent purchase for someone who already knows something about flexagons and wants to know more. Ethan Berkove, Lafayette College.
 * This interesting book contains a wide collection of nets for making paper models of flexagons. Zentralblatt.

Images of irregular strips required to make flexagons
You can get images from The Colossal Book of Mathematics by Martin Gardner, which I possess. I unfortuantely doesn't have a scanner. If nyone would be kind enough to provide such images, it would be greatly appreciated.--24.149.204.116 14:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Procedure for Creation of Hexaflexagon Strips
Flexagons of every order may be created using the following procedure.

It is known that all flexagons are eventually folded into a hexagon. In order to generate the development, all we do is reverse the process. When folded, the hexagon has free edges indicated by thick lines in the figure (right). Unfolding at a triangle adjacent to either of these free edges generates a new triangle. The next free edge is found from this partial development by counting three triangles from the fold. This is similarly unfolded and the final free edge is again three triangles away from the previous fold. The three folds increases the number of triangles from six to nine. A tenth is added on the end to provide an overlap to stick the flexagon together, but the resulting straight strip is recognisable as the development of the trihexaflexagon. Taking this a stage further, the free edge is initially taken at an arbitrary point along the strip. The strip is unfolded. Again, counting three triangles along the strip a 'free edge' of the higher order development is found, this is unfolded. Note: the direction of the unfolding is always the same; in this case the first unfolding moves the right hand section of the strip up, the second moves the left end down. Looking along the strip from the right hand end, the development is unwound in a clockwise direction. Anti-clockwise is also correct, but the direction of 'unwinding' cannot change half way through the process. The process is repeated three times yielding the complete development of the next highest order flexagon (in this case the tetrahexaflexagon).

By repeating this process, developments of all possible hexaflexagons can be produced. Different variants arise from different choices of start position, and the ancestry of the development.

I have not included this in the article because I cannot find a reference for it. Gordon Vigurs 12:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Some help and feedback
In my online book thedreamingofvictoria.com I have used a trihexaflexagon in the narrative, and have added pages to demonstrate the making of a trihexaflexagon, and how a maze can be added to a trihexaflexagon's surface. There are photos and a video page. I would really appreciate any comments, especially if I can make things clearer, or have made a mistake. TIA. David Horsley 222.144.134.247 08:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Added, for the first time publicly, ....." ?
Describing the new section about the "Elusive 3 Extra Combinations" as being "Added, for the first time publicly,", comes perilously close to breaching Wikipedia guidelines on "No original research" WP:NOR, which is barely saved only by the untraced reference to the 1995 unpublished knowledge of the "Impossible Paper Company Inc". I am somewhat uneasy about letting this claim stand unsupported by a more precise reference. The added section is notable and fascinating, so I am not going to be so churlish as to delete it for the above reasons. Please try to fix it, and do so quickly. DFH 19:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I have no doubt to its veracity, it seems that that section is original research. So unless someone can find a reliable third-party source for it, it will have to be removed.  J kasd  06:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

minor editing help needed
I added a short section "Trihexaflexagon", and changed the name of the section listing the various types to "Inventory of flexagons" (question: is the Duahexa REALLY a flexagon, given the definition that flexing must reveal different faces???). My problem is that I would like to make my reference to this in "Trihexaflexagon" be a clickable link to the "inventory" but I don't know how to code it! -- Martha (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

questioning edits by 69.37.122.92
I noted that the text I had added in January (see above) about Trihexaflexagons was deleted yesterday by 69.37.122.92. This disturbs me - not because it was my contribution, but because the way it stands now, the whole article seems very insular and lopsided. It devotes a medium amount of attention to the Tritetraflexagon, most of the page including copious colorful pictures to the Hexahexaflexagon, and barely a few words to any of the other types. As it stands, I believe the page is a very poor example of a Wikipedia article and even incorrectly titled. While I could of course reinstate my contribution, I am not doing that at present because I believe the whole article needs re-working to make it "encyclopedia quality". Is anyone interested in working on this? —Martha (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied?
It looks like the section Inventory of flexagons was just copied from Mathematical Games. I don't think that this is a good idea. Can someone verify my suspicion? CHL (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was. You're right that it is a bad idea as it probably was a copyright violation, so I removed it. I think I will also try to rewrite the whole article as it is not very encyclopedic as it stands.  J kasd  11:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite
Seeing as this article has some serious issues. I am currently trying to rewrite it at User:Jkasd/Misc_draft. Feel free to edit that page directly. My main goals are to remove the original research and how-to content, and to introduce formal definitions and such to the article.  J kasd  02:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism
The very first version of the article, in 2002, was taken pretty much verbatim from this book. Some of the text in the lead was recently replaced, but we might want to check and see if there's more still there. Oops, no. This 2004 book contains text from the original 2002 version of the wikipedia article, and claims copyright on it. Who plagiarized whom here? Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, probably best just to rewrite that part. I have previously removed an other section of this article that was taken almost word for word from Martin Gardner's book: Hexaflexagons and Other Mathematical Diversions.  J kasd  03:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

They're easy to make
I did this in our AP calc clase to show everyone. They minds were blown away, even the teach himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.165.117.4 (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Need for expansion
After cleaning up a ton of how-to content, the core of the article is now pretty sparse. There's a need for expansion and cleanup in the tetraflexagon and hexaflexagon sections, especially. The article could probably benefit from some generalized discussion of the properties of fexagons.Tomajohnson (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Trihexaflexagon
The article presently says "This is the simplest of the hexaflexagons to make and to manage, and is made from a single strip of paper, divided into ten equilateral triangles." but flexagon.net suggests that 18 equilateral triangles in two rows of one strip of paper provides this. Any disagreement with "18"? Boud (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The diagram says "This trihexaflexagon template shows 3 colors of 9 triangles, ..." but instead it shows 2 colours each of 3 parallelgrams and 1 colour of 2 parallelograms and 2 triangles. This could possibly be described as 3 colours each of 3 pairs of equilateral triangles. Any objections to correcting this? Boud (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Vi Hart video for popular culture section?
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIVIegSt81k) by vihart has 7.8M views. Would it be appropriate for consideration in the `In popular culture` section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanguill (talk • contribs) 04:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove Flextangle?
I think the bit about one particular flextangle (under "In Popular Culture") should be removed, since flextangles are not flexagons. (Plus there are many, many other flextangles out there besides this Wrinkle in Time one. There's no reason to start with this one. If it should be kept, then the flextangle "variety" should be added to the list of varieties.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjohnson.sc (talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I split a new article kaleidocycle/flextangles. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Chrysler logo
As someone unfamiliar with the Chrysler logo (not a common brand in my country) this description is confusing. The linked Chrysler Wikipedia page shows the Stellantis logo, which is a series of dots in a circle, and further down the page is the Chrysler logo which is the word “Chrysler” with wings attached. A pentagon logo that matches the description on this page can be found on the “History of Chrysler” page, in the Logos/pentestar section. Is there a way to directly link there? 118.149.78.44 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Vi Hart video
Pinging are there any sources at all for the Vi Hart video? Otherwise, I will have to remove it. Dialmayo 16:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)