Origami Crease Pattern Design Proved NP-Hard
Origamists have long suspected their art is computationally hard. Now they've proved it.
kfc 08/11/2010
- 30 Comments

Some 20 years or so, various individuals recognised that the problem of folding a square sheet of paper into an arbitrary 3D shape had many similarities to problems in computational geometry. These practitioners began developing algorithms that automatically generate the crease patterns that turn a flat sheet into an intricate shape of your choice. Thanks to this and the magical power of modern computing machines, origami is currently undergoing a technical and creative revolution.
But this new science of paper folding has lead to some entirely new conundrums. Having turned origami into a problem of computer science, it wasn't long before origamists began asking themselves computer science-like questions. In particular, they want to know how computationally difficult origami actually is. Today, they have an answer thanks to the work of Robert Lang, one of the world leaders in computational origami, and a couple of his buddies: Erik Demaine at MIT, and Sándor Fekete at the University of Technology in Braunschweig, Germany.
The process of origami design is conceptually simple. Origamists begin with the shape to be recreated--a spider shape say. They then redraw this as a stick figure consisting, in this case, of a body and eight legs.
Origamists know that each extremity can be reproduced by folding a flap of paper in a particular way. So the key step in designing an origami spider is to find a way of folding a piece of paper so it that produces eight, suitably sized and spaced flaps, one for each leg. After that, it's just a question of shaping the flaps to make them look leg-shaped, a relatively straight forward task.
The experts in this field have long suspected the process of turning a stick figure into a crease pattern is computationally intractable. Now Lang and co prove that this intuition is correct by showing that the process is NP-hard. So it is much harder to devise a crease pattern that produces a spider than it is to check that a given solution is correct (ie by folding it into a spider).
They've done this using the standard trick of showing that the problem of origami is equivalent to another problem that is already known to be NP-hard, in this case the problem of packing circles into a given space.
At first glance, it's hard to see how origami can be related to circle packing but actually there's a straightforward link. Think back to the stick figure of the spider. Then draw a circle around each node with a radius that is half the distance to another node. The problem of origami, finding a way of positioning these nodes so that the paper can be folded in such a way that each node represents a vertice in the final shape, is then equivalent to finding an optimal way of packing the spheres.
While the proof will come as little surprise, it does have an interesting corollary. In the course of making this breakthrough, Lang and co show that any set of circles with a total area of 1 can be packed into a square of size 8/pi = 2.546... An origamic triumph by anybody's standards.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1008.1224: Circle Packing for Origami Design Is Hard



ncm
56 Comments
vertex
"Vertice"? Really?
But this is a nice result. Maybe we can have a new public-key encryption algorithm using origami figures as keys.
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: vertex
That proof checking is way easier than proof generation is a well known fact. The former is polynomial and the latter is exponential using deterministic algorithms.
Practically speaking, computer science needed nothing more than this simplest fact which has been known for a long time. This is beause there has been no feasible nondeterministic computing machines around which really makes difference.
When the Soviet graduate student discovered the P = NP problem, his advisor thought that this problem was not so important. I do not blame him at all. The concept of computable functions do not require any non-deterministic feature. So, mathematically there are not much incentive to consider nondeterministic algorithms. Without dubious nondeterministic computation, recursion theory beautifully characterised the class of computable functions and computable predicates. Indeed it was what the first introductory course in recursion theory which taught that determinitstic and nondeterministic Turing Machines have the same computational power.
It is my current view that as virtually everything was already done by logicians, late starter computer scientists "ventured" into this rather off problem of P = NP. This problem served the CS community perfectly well for decades to generates a mountain of one publishable unit mindless problems and a huge empire of pure nonsense was built world wide. At its peak, even a very small college in the USA had at least several "experts" working on the concrete complexity "problems" at the cost of other more important research fields.
Practically speaking, as there is no feasible nondertministic computing machines, there is no point in arguing if a problem is NP hard or not. All we have to say here is that NP hard problems are exponential deterministic problems. It is correct to say that these people who talk about NP hard problems are just trying to impress general public by putting a fancy cloth on some of the deterministic exponential problems.
The problem computer science community has is something similar to that of theoretical physics. Computer scientists use mathematics without really understanding it. They do not teach mathematics properly in computer science department and so, they repeat old results of mathematics and mathematical logic in particular without knowing that their "results" are not theirs. A good example is what happened in the so called logic programming. A British computer scientist with the name Kowalski "invented" a programming system aka PROLOG which computes as a logical proof. No one in the computer science community, except Prof. Dr. Paul Voda of Bratislava University knew that PROLOG was a bastardisation of Smullyan's elementary formal system. When Voda told them about Smullyan, they .....
Anyhow, Prof. Voda pointed out that it was Kurt Godel who first showed how to compute within formal logic. He thus invented a better logic programing language TRILOGY which can not only program but also reason about programs. The first order arithmetic (theory of pairs) is more powerful than Elementray Formal Systems. Kowalski getting all promotion from British-American establishment, Dr. Voda's work was suppressed and got nowhere.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply
CzDodds
3 Comments
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: vertex
If you have nothing to say, you might as well shut up for your own good and for the good of the community.
To understand what I posted requires at least substantial post graduate training in pure maths and mathematical logic.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply
luddite
407 Comments
mathological machinations
To P or not to NP, that is the question.
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: mathological machinations
This problem has no pragmatic significance until we develop feasible nondertministic computational machines. Nondeterminism steps out of engineering norm. Moreover, it is not atomic bit level nondeterminsim we need to compute NP problems in P (nondeterministic) time. So, I do not know how QC will really help here.
The problem steps out of the culture of concrete complexity theorists and computer scientists in general. It is not a problem which can be solved by the NEOCON culture of rat race for grant and power.
The idiocy of American computer science does not understand that what is involved here is a type lifting. From nondeterminstic computation to deterministic computation, what is involved is clustering of nondeterministic states to a single state. This is what B. Russell called set as one v.s. set as many. This problem is directly linked to the nasty problem of power set axioms of the axiomatic set theory ZFC. Top thinkers of the last century could not figure out this mystery. ZFC is still unknown to be consistent nor inconsistent. Many set theorists agree that it is the power set axiom which causes problem.
So, P = NP problem is not something which bloody stupid concrete complexity people who work for military industry complex can handle. It is not a practical problem either. It is of purely meta mathematical interest. It has been decades since we produced any decently trained metamathematicians. Bloody NEOCON reduced mathematics to just a tool to destroy our free market economy.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply