Degrees of freedom — where it appears
Named by 4 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The count that promises a mechanism
Count the joints, count the bars, subtract. The number that comes out promises rigidity when it is small and a mechanism when it is large, and it is wrong in both directions — because it assumes every bar removes a freedom the others have not already removed.
The polyhedra that can flex
A cube of rods folds and a cube of cardboard does not, and the difference is a rank. Cauchy proved in 1813 that a convex polyhedron with rigid faces is rigid; the rank of a rigidity matrix sees it directly, and it also sees where the hypothesis is doing the work. Drop convexity and an octahedron flexes — followed here for forty steps with every edge length held to five parts in a thousand million million.
What six lengths decide and nine do not
A tetrahedron's volume is a determinant in its six edge lengths, with no coordinates anywhere. Add a fifth vertex and the lengths stop deciding: two shapes with identical edges and identical faces have volumes in the ratio 2.6. What survives is that the possibilities are finite — which is the whole reason a flexing polyhedron cannot change its volume.
A game that decides what counting only bounds
Maxwell's count subtracts bars from twice the joints and is a bound, not an answer, because it assumes every bar constrains something new. In the plane there is an exact repair: Laman's condition, run as a game in which each joint holds two pebbles and a bar is admitted only if four can be gathered at its ends. Two rigid bodies sharing a joint are what the count gets backwards.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
MechanismRigidityConvexityMaxwell countPolyhedronGram matrixIsostaticPeriodic frameworkRigidity matrixSelf stress