Page 1 of 3
Can you fold a piece of paper more than seven times?
Posted: 10.11.2004, 06:00
by Michael Kilderry
You may have noticed my signature is:
"No matter how hard you try, you can not fold a piece of paper in half more than seven times."
Has anybody actually tried that? Remember, it has to be in neat folds, if it looks like a scrunched up ball by the time of the eighth fold, then you haven't successfully proved the theory wrong.
Michael Kilderry
And here's that famous signature right now:
Posted: 10.11.2004, 18:50
by David
Yes You Can!!!!
With a large enough piece of paper A2 or A3 and is very thin then you can
your little saying does not mention size or weight
Ha Ha
David
Posted: 10.11.2004, 19:05
by t00fri
David wrote:Yes You Can!!!!
With a large enough piece of paper A2 or A3 and is very thin then you can
your little saying does not mention size or weight
Ha Ha
David
A more fruitful thought would rather be to contemplate what Michael's little sentence is supposed to tell you (and every one else) "between the lines":
By folding the paper n times, its thickness increases /exponentially/, i.e like 2^n = exp(n*log2), which --due to the enormous increase-- becomes
thick very fast, despite the paper itself being very thin...
Bye Fridger
Posted: 10.11.2004, 19:06
by t00fri
t00fri wrote:David wrote:Yes You Can!!!!
With a large enough piece of paper A2 or A3 and is very thin then you can
your little saying does not mention size or weight
Ha Ha
David
A more illuminating thought would rather be to contemplate what Michael's little sentence is supposed to tell you (and every one else) "between the lines":
By folding the paper n times, its thickness increases /exponentially/, i.e like 2^n = exp(n*log2), which --due to the enormous increase-- becomes
thick very fast, despite the paper itself being very thin...
Bye Fridger
Posted: 10.11.2004, 22:25
by Cham
Hmm, I gess what t00fri is trying to tell, between the words, is that if you auto-reference your own post n-times, it will grow exponentially with n.
Posted: 10.11.2004, 22:27
by Cham
Cham wrote:Hmm, I gess what t00fri is trying to tell, between the words, is that if you auto-reference your own post n-times, it will grow exponentially with n.
Posted: 10.11.2004, 22:28
by Cham
Posted: 10.11.2004, 22:28
by Cham
Posted: 10.11.2004, 22:31
by David
tf00i
i don't understand the equation because I'm not to good at Math's but i know that at every fold the thickness doubles so at the 8th fold it is 128 times thicker than when you started then 256, 512 etc
I do know what the saying is trying to say, I was being silly. I think it's saying that it is fruitless in trying to do something when you know it's impossible
david
Posted: 10.11.2004, 22:33
by Cham
Posted: 10.11.2004, 22:33
by wcomer
If so, then it would be rare mistake on his part. If you autoreference yourself only one time per post, then the post grows linearly. What you really need to do is autoreference yourself twice per post.
Posted: 10.11.2004, 22:35
by Cham
Posted: 10.11.2004, 22:35
by wcomer
wcomer wrote:If so, then it would be rare mistake on his part. If you autoreference yourself only one time per post, then the post grows linearly. What you really need to do is autoreference yourself twice per post.
wcomer wrote:If so, then it would be rare mistake on his part. If you autoreference yourself only one time per post, then the post grows linearly. What you really need to do is autoreference yourself twice per post.
Posted: 10.11.2004, 22:36
by Cham
Posted: 10.11.2004, 22:37
by wcomer
wcomer wrote:wcomer wrote:If so, then it would be rare mistake on his part. If you autoreference yourself only one time per post, then the post grows linearly. What you really need to do is autoreference yourself twice per post.
wcomer wrote:If so, then it would be rare mistake on his part. If you autoreference yourself only one time per post, then the post grows linearly. What you really need to do is autoreference yourself twice per post.
wcomer wrote:wcomer wrote:If so, then it would be rare mistake on his part. If you autoreference yourself only one time per post, then the post grows linearly. What you really need to do is autoreference yourself twice per post.
wcomer wrote:If so, then it would be rare mistake on his part. If you autoreference yourself only one time per post, then the post grows linearly. What you really need to do is autoreference yourself twice per post.
Posted: 10.11.2004, 22:38
by Cham
Posted: 10.11.2004, 22:41
by t00fri
right
Walton...
Cheers
Fridger
Posted: 11.11.2004, 05:42
by Michael Kilderry
I didn't think you could fold a piece of paper more than seven times because I couldn't do it myself and I tried with several large pieces of paper. I got the idea when I read it on a piece of paper with all other odd bits of information on it. Oh well, guess I'll have to change my signature.
Maybe they meant average A4 printer paper couldn't be folded so many times. Unless, David's eighth fold was a scrunched up ball.
I would like someone to try if they can fold an A4 piece of paper in half eight times, I think that would be impossible.
Michael Kilderry
Posted: 11.11.2004, 10:53
by selden
I must admit that I was a little surprised that you were using 7 as your value. I vaguely recall hearing long ago that 8 was the maximum number of folds.
It doesn't matter what the size of paper you use or its thickness. Past a certain point, the layer of paper on the exterior layer just can't stretch enough to be folded over the bend, and the innermost one can't compress any more.
Posted: 12.11.2004, 05:36
by Michael Kilderry
You're probably right Selden, as I managed to fold it eight times, but by that time it was a scrunched up ball, not neatly folded. Let's see if anyone can fold a piece of paper in half nine times!
Michael Kilderry