Cartographic Projection
every map is wrong, and by exactly how much
Concept

Combinatorics — where it appears

Counting the arrangements a construction admits, which for a polyhedral map means counting its nets. The cube has 384 of them, they all cut the same total edge length, and they differ by a factor of 1.59 in how far apart they push places that were neighbours.

Named by 5 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Which edges to cut is a spanning tree. The icosahedron's faces as nodes and its 30 shared edges as links. A net keeps 19 of those joins and cuts the rest, and the joins have to form a spanning tree — connected, so the net is one piece, and acyclic, so it lies flat. The heavy links are one such tree. The number of distinct nets is therefore the number of spanning trees of this graph, which Kirchhoff's theorem gives as a determinant: 5,184,000 for the icosahedron.

The cut has to go somewhere

A solid lies flat only if it is cut open, and which edges to cut is a spanning tree of the face graph — so the icosahedron has exactly 5,184,000 distinct nets, a determinant rather than an estimate. All 384 of the cube's were laid flat and tested: not one overlaps, while an irregular tetrahedron overlaps in four of its sixteen.

families · Polyhedral Two nets of the same solid, cut to the same length. Every net of a Platonic solid severs exactly the same number of edges, all of the same length, so the total length of the cut is a constant and cannot choose between them. Each line joins the two places a severed edge ends up. Left: the net that keeps them closest, 11.30 edge lengths in total. Right: the net that puts them furthest apart, 17.97 — a factor of 1.59 for the same amount of cutting.

The net that loses the fewest neighbours

Every one of the cube's 384 nets cuts exactly seven edges of exactly the same length, so the quantity this collection has been pricing cutting by is a constant that cannot choose between them. Measured on the reader's side — how far apart a net puts two places that touch on the globe — the best net scores 11.30 and the worst 17.97, for identical cutting.

families · Polyhedral Two unfoldings of the same 80-face solid. Both are edge unfoldings of the same solid along different spanning trees of its face graph, so both preserve every distance on the surface exactly. The left one is a net. The right one is not: 3 pairs of its faces occupy the same ground, so it cannot be cut out of paper and folded up. Nothing in the unfolding procedure prevents this, and past the regular solids most trees produce it.

A net can land on top of itself

Every one of the cube's 384 unfoldings is a net, and every one of the icosahedron's five million is too. Past the regular solids that stops being true: at 180 faces, 99 of every 100 randomly chosen unfoldings have faces sitting on top of each other, so choosing a net stops being a choice and becomes a search — except that the net anybody would actually draw works every time.

families · Polyhedral Every one of the cube's 384 nets, scored. All 384 spanning trees of the cube's face graph, unfolded and scored on the total separation their cuts leave: how far apart, in edge lengths, the two copies of each cut edge end up on the page. Every one of them is a valid net — no Platonic unfolding overlaps — and they range from 11.30 to 17.97, a factor of 1.59. The heuristic of unfolding outwards from a chosen face lands on the first of them, exactly.

What the net heuristic cannot find

Rung seven chose a net by unfolding outwards from a face and showed the choice beats guessing, and recorded that its own limit was unknown. Enumerated in full, the heuristic turns out to be exactly optimal on every solid small enough to check — rank one of 384 — and above that ceiling no sample can tell whether it still is, because eight hundred random nets never reach it.

families · Polyhedral What a rebinning loses depends on where the target's edges are. Two grids of fixed counts, fixed shapes and fixed resolution, with the target slid across the source from perfect alignment to a full cell. Nothing about either grid changes except where its boundaries fall. The loss runs from 27.5 per cent at zero to 56.3 at half a cell — a factor of 2.04 — and the longitude-only curve returns to its starting value at a full cell to six decimal places, which is the periodicity check. A cell boundary that coincides with a target boundary loses nothing, and a grid comparison that does not say where its boundaries are has left that out.

When the edges do not line up

Rung eight held the cell counts equal so that shape could be compared without the count ratio drowning it, and recorded a doubt: a longitude–latitude source shares its boundaries with a longitude–latitude target wherever their counts share a factor. The mechanism is real and worth a factor of two. It was not what the published number was made of.

applied · Cells

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Platonic solidPolyhedral projectionSpanning treeInterruptionFaceHeuristicIcosahedronSearchTopologyAggregationAliasingAngle deficit

All concepts