Many thanks to everyone, who has given attention to my article. Special thanks to all, those, who shared with their thoughts on the proposed systematization. I apologize in advance, if my questions seem silly or those that were already answered. I do not know English much and certain sensitive technologies of origami. I'm afraid there is a coincidence. :)
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 01:45, Leong Cheng Chit wrote: >>>Besides Tachi's method, there are other ways of folding closed polyhedral models. On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 at 09:45, Matthew Gardiner wrote: >>>I think Cheng Chit is correct in saying there are other methods for 3D polyhedral surfaces, however for Oksana's purpose of creating a system of origami styles, I would argue there is no other style equivalent to Tachi's, it is very distinct. > >>>Though the argument is clear that Tachi's Origami does not define a whole category of origami, rather it is a unique branch in the system. 1. Will it be correct to say that there is a whole category 3D polyhedral surfaces, and it can appreciate different unique methods: Tachi's method, Chit's method and others. If it is so, what name would you give this whole category? I really liked those criterions, with them Matthew described the Tachi's method. Is it possible to define the criteria for the whole category? 2. Or other statement is correct. Tachi's method is a separate part in the system. In future, it has the potential to expand and one day may become a whole category, on level with Origami Tessellations, Origami Corrugations and others. If it is so, how is Tachi's method related to 3D polyhedral surfaces. And where is the place of Chit's method in the system? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 06:19, Leong Cheng Chit wrote: >>> Of course, all 3D models, closed or open surfaces, with straight creases can be flattened, without destructing their basic folding structures. Models with intrinsic curved crease, on the other hand, cannot be flattened without destructing their basic folding structures. 1. Will it be correct to say that Curvilinear origami is not a separate category of origami. And all (or only some) of the categories of origami can be divided within itself on those which use the straight creases and those use curved creases. If it is so, for what categories except 3D polyhedral surfaces is it possible? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you in advance all , who will answer. These ideas will be very helpful for me in the future adjustment process of systematization origami. For my part, I pledge to refer to this discussion in adjusting the system. I am always open to any suggestions and thankful in advance for any help. Oksana Chorna
