Parity — where it appears
Named by 4 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Twenty-one vertices, eleven tilings
Regular polygons meeting at a point must fill exactly a turn, which is a Diophantine equation with seventeen answers and twenty-one cyclic arrangements. Ten of the twenty-one tile nothing at all — and the argument that kills them counts places round a polygon rather than measuring anything.
The argument that closes eleven
Twenty-one vertex species satisfy the angle equation; a parity argument kills ten before anything is drawn, and the eleven survivors are all built. Asking the same question of tilings with two kinds of vertex, the parity argument evaporates — it constrains a walk in a graph one species decides, and two species decide the union of two graphs, which need not be bipartite. What is left is a search, and a search cannot close a count.
A centre at every other ring
A census cannot settle an infinite row, and the construction proposed to settle it was a tube capped at both ends, lengthened a ring at a time. Carried out, it alternates: a centre appears at every other ring and never between, the two families it permits reach two arithmetic progressions rather than a row, and the first of them opens with exactly the cage the census found could not halve.
A four is not two twos
A vertex of square ice can break the rule with three arrows one way or with all four, and a census that counts the two apart finds them behaving as charges of two and four should: the fours are rare while defects are few, a pair of fours is squeezed about four times as hard as a pair of twos, and the dip an earlier census reported turns out to be nothing but the first count that cannot be made without a four.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
EnumerationCensusArchimedean tilingAutomorphismCase analysisClosed surfaceCombinatorial curvatureCountingCrystal netDecidabilityDefectEdge to edge