International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Chit Chat => Topic started by: nautile on September 01, 2005, 11:56:25 PM

Title: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on September 01, 2005, 11:56:25 PM
LOOONG & RISKED! Hard work too : brain lodged a complaint for higher that admissible neuronal attrition rate.

Capitalization of letters is not for shouting but since I cannot highlight in yellow here it is what I use for  visibility and attention catcher

Please do not pass easy judgement without reading it all with an open mind.
Criticize only after arriving and not along the way please
.
I call for you to suspend incredulity for the duration of reading.

I suggest a printing or a copy/paste to a .txt editor for easier slow reading and annotation, rather than on the screen.

Will have to go in 2 successive posts.

First the beginning of the tentative definition of knot, then "explanations", then the full definition

Drawings are to be seen on my album : will give link only later, you have to read on to "exploit" them.


     - - DEFINITION beginning : a lure? a bait?

" A knot is a spatialy defined structure of crossings (to be "defined" under) that are made using one or several RoTaCa (to be defined) and that obey AT LEAST these following rules :

- -

     - - MATERIAL FOR KNOTS

A RoTaCa is what is used to make a knot in : one of the axiomatics element under

RoTaCa  ( Inpired by ROpes, TApe, sTrAp, CAble,but essentialy a non sensical word created for the present purpose, not to be taken for an acronym. No need to "translate" when using another language, so stay "same" all over the world even if definition is ever adopted after corrections/precisisons/complement)

RoTaCa is of natural (vegetable: e;g : hemp, animal : e;g strip od hide, metallic :e.g steel cable) or synthetic ( e.g : nylon) origin.

RoTaCa have a geometrical section ( circular or almost, triangular,parallelogram (thin or thick), losangic, whatever existing geometrical figure, so as to provide for the future) and a "lenght"of sufficient size to be practically used by human hands. They are either "continuous" substance ( e.g gelly is continuous) or "discontinuous" ' e.g : Rice shape , the sweetened dessert, is discontinuous in my mind map here, not going to fall in that  "composite"trap (or am I?) : structure made of a number different elements or "composite" made of a unique "homogeneous" new hig-tech resin)

RoTaCa have suppleness. Mandadory to make intertwinning possible.

- -

     - - AXIOMS

Knots can be indexed in a structured, coded, Unique Index Number ( UIN as of now)

UIN will provided a way to retrive the knot "personnal file" ( content of which are "out of topic" and will be addressed later...may be...if that first attemp bring active and CONSTRUCTIVE interaction. (To who if may concerned :  Demolition specialists lurking in the peripheric darkness please refrain yourself = one destruction must be funded/paid for by at least two usable/practical constructive propositions. Yes the right little Hitler I am!   One preventing is worth a thousand cures)

- -

A NON-KNOT is a knot ( could never have been a knot in he first place) that give you back the "original"
( original )before "tying a knot" in it
Tying a knot : creating crossings RotaCa in sufficient number and in a such disposition that you have a "stable" existence
Stable = exist for a sufficiently long span of time to be seen and touch)
spatial structure "invoked" by the noun "knot")

NK is a describing label not a valuing one.
It simply mean null-knot have (or have had) room to go (or to have gone) to a lower state of energy/organization.
- -

Just as ZERO/NOUGH/NULL digit, empty of numerical value in itself, is what give sense to the other nine digits null-knot (NK as of now) do make sense.

On the practical point of view they permit to include in the census of existing knots, structures that would without them be left out of the indexation/cataloguing/whatever-you-name-it. These null-knot belong in the "real world" of "tying" structures. ( yes it is no fault, notion I was to convey is "tying effect) and not "tied")

NK are INVERTEBRATES KNOTS

NK / INVERTEBRATES are divided in
- WORMS : ( no "hards parts" in the biological ones) they cannot "stand" by their "own power", they depend upon prop or tension
e.g ABOK#tete d'alouette
- MOLLUSCS ( have "hard parts" : shell) . They can stand up on their owwn.
e.g ABOK# noeud de plein poing

NON-NK are ALL VERTEBRATES KNOTS by nature.( even if they are not "recommanded" in practical usage)

- -

A RoTaCa is what is used to make a knot in or with.

- -

Crossing = the place where a part of Rotaca intertwin (with) another part of itself or another RoTaca

- -

     - - RULES FOR NOTING CROSSINGS ON KNOT PROJECTION  ( graphic explanation in album)

http://fr.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/innominedarnold/album?.dir=30f0&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//fr.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos

The RoTaCa is supposed to be lying on an horizontal plane of reference

The knot figure is "projected" , just as a " un personnage dans un theatre d'ombres" ( a figure in a shade theatre). 2D rendering od a 3D object.

A carefully verified drawing is made.
Great care should be paid to exact design of "crossings" ( crossing is when one part of RoTaCa goes over or under another part of RoTaCa)

With  a colo(u)ring  marking instrument ( pencil, brush, marker, bamboo stick this general designation should cover almost all).you follow the tracing from one extremity, be it real Spart of designated as such for the purpose, toward the other extremity ( WE working end or designated as such) each time you meet a crossing in the drawing CORRESPONDING to the crossing that the WE following the "virtual" design of the actual design would have met ( see album for graphical, easier for me to express) you change colo(u)r and note the "sort" of crossing it is.

Simple wording :  a crossing "exist" for that precise purpose IF AND ONLY you are meeting an ALREADY colo(u)red line.

To be continued in the next post.








     








Title: SECOND PART :  DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on September 01, 2005, 11:58:45 PM
Crossing can be over or under but seing I said horizontal plane of reference ( axes for the finickers can be oriented N-S and E-W) that will be denoted either
H (High) for above/over and L (Low) for under.

Why H & L : you get Commandant Charcot's answer "Pourquoi pas?" (Why not?).

Want some phony reasons explaining my personal choice :
H and L are not easily confounded
and
are, to my eyes, graphically "better" than O & U ( can be confused by bad eyesighters) or A & U.

More : behind the shy creatures of the depths with many ropes sorry! tentacles that gave me my Nautile
pseudo hide an individual named charle HameL, see H and L.
Clever way to put myself in that (egocentrism it is calle I am said), just as Hitchcock always appeared in every one of it films, even if only his shadow.

So H and L it is!

     - - RULES FOR WRITING THE GREAT SEQUENCE OF CROSSING ( GSC as of now) ( see album)
http://fr.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/innominedarnold/album?.dir=30f0&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//fr.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos

- - You must always go for THE LEAST or LOWER POSSIBLE number of crossings , without unduly distorting the drawing.
See graphical explanation in album ( clearer in my view that what my quite imperfect command of English language allow me to put into words)

Simple wording ( so high risk of imperfection) :
crossing in going High/over/above or going Low/under that is the first condition; but IN CONTACT with is the second one.
In the e.g graphically you will see that the yellow line in the 3D model is not in an "obligatory" contact with the green line but it is in a "mandatory" contact with the red one.
So "pile up" the crossings whenever possible without distorting the knot.

- - NO NON-NK can exist under 3 crossings.

- - NK and NON-NK are possibilities as soon as you have 3 crossings or more.

- - You can ALWAYS find AT LEAST one terminal triplet when there exist at least 3 crossings ( note : less that 3 is a "forced" NK)

HLH (e.g)give one TRIPLET
HLHL (e.g) give 2 TERMINAL TRIPLETS one is the Beginning triplet : HLH, the other is the Ending triplet : LHL.

     - -EXPLOITATION OF GSC

- First :Can be used as such ( without forgetting that all the H may become L and all L can become H) : a serie of HL:e.g : HLHLHLHL

- Second :It can be used ("added to" and not "in place of") as a number, counting the letters. e.g : HLHLHLHL =8 denoted 08 in the UIN.

- Third : TRIPLET can tell you if the knot is a NON-NK or a NK knot

If either one or both or the terminal triplets or the GSC of a knot is of the type :

HLL  or  HHL  or LHH  or  LLH          then it is a NK ( null-knot)

Examples :

ABOK#1837 : HLHLHL    NON-NK  Fatal triplet does not appear
ABOK#1889 : LH under 3 anyway : IMPLY NK
ABOK#1188 : HHLL  2 Fatal tripets : NK
ABOK#360  :  HLHHLH  no fatal triplet but if bighted  HLHHLHHL  fatal end terminal triplet HHL therefore a NK but that is the "why" of doing a bight in that case.

- - - - - - - - - -

     - - FULL TENTATIVE DEFINITION :


" A knot is a spatialy defined structure of crossings that are made using one or several RoTaCa and that obey AT LEAST these following rules :

- All knot with less than 3 crossings are NK

- All knot with at least 3 crossings are either NON-NK  or  NK

- Knot having in their GSC at least one terminal fatal TRIPLET : HLL  or  HHL  or LHH  or  LLH    are    NK

(should be verified if it is possible to state it is a NK if and if only with at least one fatal terminal triplet in other word are there NK without fatal terminal triplet, or can one of these fatal triplets "inside" the GSC be "fatal" : in my small experience : no. But experience is no proof : trying a little harder, a little longer could find such a specimen) (Good hunting country for the finicky-minded that one)

- All NON-NK are VERTEBRATE KNOT

- NK fall in 2 main categories : VERTEBRATES and INVERTEBRATES
 INVERTEBRATES are in 2 sub categories : WORMS and MOLLUSCS
 
- Corrolary : All VERTEBRATES KNOTS fall in 2 categories : NON-NK and NK

- All knots can be affected with a UIN  [Unique Index Number ( rather than Unique Identifiying or Identification Number)]
UIN is to be adressed later.

For the moment with these elements one can try a dwarfish UIN

- Vertebratres/invertebrates : use either Worm or Mollusc in that case
- GSC
- Number of crossing
- "Discriminator" number ( to differentiate between "twins" with the first three criteria. Suggest a, b, c....z,aa, ab...az,aaa, aab..aaz and so on. Should not be more ( but speaking out of turn here since i really do't know for sure) than very few "twins"certainly less than 26.
Perhaps their number can be cut down, and these discriminator "rubbed" out when adding before the vertebrate/invertebrates criterion one of two other criteria : unique identificator ( sort of security number , dont know how to get it here) and a "family" and/or "gender criteria. Neurons gone on strike for indefinite time.

A thousand mile trekking begin with one step!

Well I tried to take it, will I fall flat on my face;?

That is for you to decide and to pursue either new first step or second step...

No, Iam not shouting with my capitals! just know you are now quite tired and just try to make it visible

The above tentative definition has at least one merit : EXISTING!

Now as the Japanese saying goes : THE GREATEST ROOM IN THE WORLD IS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT!

I acknowledge that about my effort and DARE YOU TO GO ON......IMPROVING.

That will be , as the Royal Navy formula goes : FOR THE GOOD OF ALL, AND SO AS TO PREVENT UNREST AND CONFUSION" ( but that was for dealing stern punishments, here it is an energetic, well almost energetic, encouragement.

I will be going "silent running" while on vacation until Sept 12th .

Hope to have many posts ("good" and "bad" to read on returning, if I am not dead)
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Willeke on September 02, 2005, 12:11:52 AM
I found how to highlight your text in yellow, copy the code underneat into your text and put your text instead of the word TEXT
In the row of buttons above the 'type your text' window is one with a G on a green backdrop, click on that and you get the text highlighted in whatever colour named in the code. You can change the colour as long as the program understands the name of the colour.

Code: [Select]
[glow=yellow,2,300]TEXT[/glow]
TEXT

Willeke
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Dan_Lehman on September 02, 2005, 01:24:26 AM
Before following with some longer msg. giving some of my musings re knot,
I should advise that there are various perspectives to take on this,
and my follow-up will be (initially) more on a philosophical bent.

There are physical entities that one can discover in cordage, and these are
called "knots"--like finding e.g. a sort of animal called "birds".  One can
imagine a game/challenge arranged for some scouting class in which children
were asked to enter a room and to count how many knots were in it:
most children might reply "ten", but one girl says (only) "four"; questioned
about her apparently low total, she justifies it with "There is a bowline, a
clove hitch, a timber hitch, and a square knot."--whereas what her testers
had expected would be expressed more like "there were 2 bowlines, 4 square
knots, 3 clove hitches, and a timber hitch".   --different senses of "knot".

--dl*
====
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Dan_Lehman on September 02, 2005, 01:26:17 AM
[snippet of some response focused more on classification ]

There are two things to keep in mind, here: firstly, exactly
how should (or have been) knots be classified, and then how have
such classes been denoted in the language. I have a somewhat
clear conception of simple knot classes, where the knot involves
one or two pieces of cordage and possibly some object. I'm happy
to see this as a fundamental basis of a greater classification
in which more complicated structures are accounted for, but in
general practice I think that the simple classification covers
most of the universe of extant cases. Some of the problems I
see are how to classify mid-line knots--loops & hitches (but
sometimes binders)--, how to treat nooses, and whether to see
any knotted structure that could be noose if loose qua nooes
(e.g., the Midshipman's/Tautline H.s tied to form an adjustable
loop--which will be quite a noose in slippery rope!). E.g.,
Two Half-Hitches is a common hitch, but should it really be
classified as a noose; and should "noose", along with what's
called "Trucker's/Waggoner's Hitch" be classified not as a "knot"
but as a "knot structure" (which has component knots)?! Similarly,
I'd prefer to treat the lariat as a knot structure, not a knot;
it's composed of a loopknot with its eye around the line.

My conception for most simple things is of six classes:

| ON DEFINITIONS OF RELEVANT TERMS FOR KNOTTING
|
| knot ::= A curvilinear structure that can be realized
| in one or more pieces of some flexible material(s)
| of uniform crosSection, incorporating or not some object(s),
| under tension, and independent of torsion
|
| hitch ::= A knot that joins a piece of flexible material
| to an object and is dependent upon the object for its
| structural integrity, for its shape
| or
| ::= a knot of a single PoFM with an object where one
| end is tensioned
| or
| ::= A knot that joins a PoFM to an object which gives
| it structural integrity, shape, where one end is tensioned
|
| loop ::= A knot that creates one or more eyes of any size,
| with one end tensioned in opposition to the eye(s)
|
| bend ::= A knot that joins two pieces of flexible material(s),
| tensioned on one end of each
|
| binder ::= a knot in a single PoFM with an object where both
| ends are untensioned
|
|stopper ::= a knot of a single PoFM with one end tensioned
| through an object against which the knot body is stopped

---------------------------------------------------------------
(some related notions)

| universe of existence ("UoEx") ::= the Flexible Material(s)
| in which a given knot can be manifest (so, maybe w/fuzzy
| boundaries, even tension limited?)
|
|natural univ. of exist. ("NUoEx") ::= the Flexible Material(s)
| in which a given knot is commonly manifest

I can see that in specifiying tensioning, I've excluded some
of the cases I would find problematic (mid-line knots), which
really wasn't my intention, but simply is the state of these
definitions & thinking at this time. Yes, one could form (and
in fact often does in setting up a 2-leg anchor) a Fig.8 loopknot
with BOTH ends tensioned: certainly, it's a knot, and a loopknot;
but it's a different animal, I'd think, than the Butterfly, though
the border then would be some fuzzy range of angles of the two
ends.

Note that I've defined "knot" to be an ideal as opposed to something
physical; this might not be the best course. And how to determine
what are "same" knots--exact geometry will differ by a range of
degrees for anything pair of knots we might commonly call "the same".
(A case to consider: Ashley's #1033 can look much like *A* sort of
bowline--same central nipping loop, and a collar of sorts--, but as
one tightens the end further it collapses the central structure into
a Crossing-knot form, which I think should be seen as a different
basis for the knot.)

The *noose* vs. *hitch* vs. *friction-H./adjustable loopknot*
issue is troubling: I'd like not to have a classifcation hinge
on materials or force of tension--i.e., to not have the adjustable
h./loop become a noose only at some higher force or slicker rope!
Rather, to assess class based on the construction & loading (type
vs. degree), irrespective of the particular function that some
physical knot might perform in a given circumstance (a Clove H.
can be a friction h. and effect a fixed loopknot, within some
constraints--perhaps to rupture).

--dl*
====

[1] from Cyrus L. Day's _Art of Knotting & Splicing_, p.12ff

"The word 'bend' is almost obsolete as a noun except in names like
'carrick bend' and 'sheet bend'. It is still used, though not
extensively, as a verb (e.g., to bend a sail or cable). Now
primarily a nautical word, it was once familiar to landsmen as well
as to seamen. To bend a bow meant to tie (bind, bend) a bow string
to a bow. By transference, the word acquired its modern meaning
to curve or to crook.
Ashley tried to reestablish the word 'bend' as a noun; he wanted
on the one hand to limit its application to knots whose function
is to join the ends of two cords or ropes, and, on the other, to
call every such knot a bend. This system of nomenclature, however,
cannot be justified on the grounds of traditional usage. The sheet
bend, for instance, is so named because it was formerly used to bend
the sheet to the clew of a sail, not to the end of another line.
[nb: we'd prefer to call this "becket hitch", I think! --dl]
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: knot_tyer on September 02, 2005, 04:04:28 AM
....it would seem to me that if there is going to
be a universal catalog of all "knots" it would have
to involve:
1. a universal language (Latin???)
2. a number system
3. photos (and/or first-rate graphics) etc.
4. (again) some group/committee (IGKT!) to take
   on this huge project!...
5. ???
6. ???
.....i'd buy the book/catalog/dvd?!!!...
Dan-Alaska
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: PatDucey on September 02, 2005, 07:18:37 PM
To continue Dan's note, how about:

5. Chapters (probably based on ABOK)

6. Different methods of tying the same knot.  As Roy Chapman has pointed out in other threads, there are several ways to tie a common bowline.

I would also buy a Book/Catalog/DVD.

Pat Ducey

P.S.  I will also add "H" and "L" in addition to Over and Under for my knot templates.  It will take a while to get them posted, but all future projects will start using these definitions in anticipation that some of my work might make it into a catalog of this nature.
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Willeke on September 02, 2005, 11:46:15 PM
With English now being the generally used language as well as becoming the language of science and on top of that the common language for almost all members of the IGKT as well as of this forum, let us use English and give as many names as we can find in as many languages as an extra feature.

I feel that any reference book on knots should have pictures. And I feel that line drawings are better than photos, as you can show those parts that are hidden and the parts that are only partially seen or have the same colour/same string and are against each other. On top of that, line drawings are easier to get the same all over, when you use string or rope, you will have to have several styles of pictures.
But why not have both.

And numbers are a big help when discussing a knot in ABOK, so yes, I would like to add numbers. Maybe with letters attached for the different tying methodes. So the bowline can be number 203 and a way to tie it will get number 203 a, a different way will get 203 b, and so on.

Maybe we need to leave gaps between sets of numbers to be able to add more knots that escaped being included the first time around.

Willeke
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on September 12, 2005, 01:07:23 AM
Hello to all!

Will be "sketchy" thinking, will have to go back later to some points.

Posts : Can of worms...Tentative defining and the ABOK unabridged-compacted are a plaiting of thoughts, rather similar but that I deem better kept on different lines of thought/post.

For all : I will have, if interest is sustained, to think some more about the GSC and the so-called "fatal-triplet" rules.
Must be "dug in deeper".

As a first practical step : see my post : ABOK compacted.


I will try to heed Willeke wish: shorter posts.
Instead of my previous procedure : One post and one paragraph for each point
I will try to adopt this one : One point : one post. They will be shorter but more numerous. Should make for easier reading of each, , reading, answering,retrieval, but for a "harder" synthetic viewing..

-- Knot-Tyer : thanks for an helpful input and your always open and friendly stance. Will have to ask you your help about (ornemental knots / simple and compounded or composed)

-- Pat-Ducey : thanks for a frienly post. Hope you will continue to read my post about this "topic". If nothing grow out of those postings, I will make contact with you and try to work out somethink with a handfull of other individuals.


For the above threesome : Will have to address your points in further posts.  
I think I will answer globally with a "practical" draft to be criticized and modified.
Have in mind a draft for a "Knot's individual file". Will be "multiple-entries" for retrieval and "exhaustivity" purposes.

Just to answer quickly and I hope, not too ellipticallly : I would rather adopt a "cladistic" point of view than the "linear/Tree-like" of hard and fast "chapters".
Just wait for me having time enough to do something clear (?) and relatively short enough for a post.

Or for those of you who want a "direct" contact, please feel free to use my mail.


-- Dan-Lehman : last but not least, I will address the "tension" issue and other points in another post. But thanks for your input.
Title: tension_ TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on September 12, 2005, 06:58:32 PM
Hello!
We will have to agree to disagree
Tension as "a force applied to or on..." is not mandatory to have an " existing item that is recognized as a knot".

Under the provision that tension / pulling is used when "laying" a knot structure and when "dressing it" or putting it into use I would hold that a knot lying "flat on a reference plane does not need tension to exist, it can even be "taken in hand" without any precaution ( unless may be for "worms" knots).

A knot is what you get/have even if you have not "dressed" it. It will be "ugly" but still be a knot structure. ( structure is operating word here and not function!).

Even after relaxation of tension applied while "shaping, dressing" it, it will still be a knot.

If tension is intrinsic to "knot" then how come that it is not possible to make a knot on a RoTaCa under tension?
If no tension all along the RoTaca means no knot, I cannot suscribe to the idea.
If  relaxation of tension means disparition of knot into thin air I do not suscribe either.

I believe that a "knot" have an "existence" independent of its naming ( quite a Platonician stance!), that the different names given to it in a given language or in different ones do not change one iota to the "reality" of the "knot being". or that would be equivalent to saying that a "stevedore's knot" is quite different from a "noeud de tresillon". And they are the same, but different languages.

- - -
As for object incopored into knot

Ring, stone or nothing it is all the same! I would  not put it in the tentative defining of knot.

A Monkey's fist without something inside is still a monkey's fist!

What "it is" and not "what it do" is the angle of my tentative defining of knot.
Defining structure and not function or uses.

A hammer is still a hammer without a nail to strike.

My hand is not defined by what it does but by how it is constructed.

"Anatomical" definition and not "physiological" or "ergonomical" definition was my stance.

Or if you want to extend defining then go the whole way and include "pathological" and define the lessening of the RoTacA induced by a knot and the way it break, and the different method to "make " knot.

A jewel in the shape of a knot, made with gold or silver RoTaCa has no external tension applied to it and it is still a knot;

Title: Knot's individual file
Post by: nautile on September 12, 2005, 07:00:01 PM
fictionnal and incomplete example given of one knot's individual file


1)UIN : 12...89

2)drawings of knot
3) photographies of knot

4)Tying methodS ( plural if apply)

5) Names: ( could be in position 2) )
     - ...
     - Dutch
     - English
     - French..

6)Qualifiers : Junction knot / same diameter / no loop

7)Uses :
     - considered best for/with ( or primary indications)
     - considered possible ( or secondary indications):
     - considered not recommended( or not an indication) :
     - considered prohibited ( or contra-indications)
     
8)RoTaCa usable : ( recommended - Possible or indifferent- not recommended- contra-indicated)
     - static:
     - Dynamic :
     - Other :
...
11) ?
...
??) ?
     
- - -

Trying to "name" some chapters or some grouping of knot - Remember it will not be a book with glued page in set charpters but "mention" in the appropriate place in the Knot's Individual File. Each is independant from the other. Remember "appellation should be as much "transcultural" as possible hence the "descriptive naming ratherthan using bend-hitch....)

UTILITARIANS ( TOOLS)

Junction knots:( with declensions) ( splices if considered as knot would be there) ( tied in the bight or not : that would be in MethodS) ( the "bends" would be there)

     - single RoTaCa
     - multi-strand
     - Moving/Sliding
     - Non Moving
     - Same diameter
     - Different diameter
     - Forming a single loop
     - Forming multiple loops ( 2 or more) if Loop & Sliding = Noose)
     - simple or unitary
     - composed or compounded

Stopper or terminal knots ( here is the place of the monkey's fist : it is a termnal knot!)
     - single stand
     - multi-strand
     
Fixation knots: ( there would be clove hitch and crossing knots, and binding knots. Too the belaying and making fast ones and spar and rail knots, ring too, lashing and slings belong here))
     - right angle pull
     - lenghwise pull
     - indifferent pull




( can imagine Sports / Fishing / Trees climbing...if some knot does not fit in the above)
The Turk's heads case : I would tend to put them in Utilitarians seeing their ancesty in old sails days

ORNEMENTALS ( lanyards - buttons - knob) ( no differentiating "in hand" "on table"...that would be in MethodS of tying) ( flat and 2 dimensional knots would rather be here)( knot covering here too and fancy ones and sqaure knotting)( sinnets are here)

- simple/unitary
     - single strand
     - multi-strand
     
- composed/compounded

TRICKS AND PUZZLE : they should be put radically apart;


Note = the practical seamanship could be dispensed with altogether in a first time.
Note = each KIS need not by "complete" fisrt time. It could be "completed" afterwards.
Title: Re: tension_ TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Dan_Lehman on September 13, 2005, 03:29:17 AM
Quote
Hello!
We will have to agree to disagree

What, without any deliberation?  --not so fast.

Quote
Tension as "a force applied to or on..." is not mandatory to have an " existing item that is recognized as a knot".

Obviously, it is in my definition.  You miss the point of the requirement:  tension
is required in order to determine that the structure is not just a confusion of  crossings
of the PoFM.  E.g., loosely dump cord on the ground and you'll see a lot of crossings;
pull the ends apart and see if there is a knot.  So, to my mind, specifying tension
helps make sense of things.

I can see that in a practical way if someone asked whether there was a knot in some
PoFM and only a very loose ("exploded") knot was present, the answer "no" would
be wrong.
But another practical sense I don't think we want to spend time thinking about
such loose things.  (Would one care to wonder whether some such vague, loose
structure was a Bowline or rather Ashley's Stopper?)

Quote

A knot is what you get/have even if you have not "dressed" it. It will be "ugly" but still be a knot structure. ( structure is operating word here and not function!).  Even after relaxation of tension applied while "shaping, dressing" it, it will still be a knot.

Yes, which is consistent with my definition.  What exists there is something realized
in a PoFM that can sustain tension.

There are problems here re "dressing" and trying to establish some kind of identity
or equality function for knots, as actual geometry will vary with tension,
with materials, with different knot tyers (' moods).

Quote
You must always go for THE LEAST or LOWER POSSIBLE number of crossings , without unduly distorting the drawing.

The use of some notion of crossings bothers me, in that this notion is much
a planar view of something three dimensional (though, yes, a crossing implies
a bit of depth).  How to choose the perspective from which to determine its
crossings?  At least in some that I have, the Bowline has that fatal termination
you have defined (HHL/LLH).

Quote
I believe that a "knot" have an "existence" independent of its naming

Where was this ever an issue?
More the issue is whether a knot exists a priori to any human (or other)
awareness of it, any physical manifestation.  Note that my definition favors the
view that knots are ideal entities (although I ground that with the requirement
to be "realizeable in some PoFM").

Quote
As for object incopored into knot
Ring, stone or nothing it is all the same! I would  not put it in the tentative defining of knot.
A Monkey's fist without something inside is still a monkey's fist!

And a Clove Hitch w/o the spar it's tied around is a ... "Non-Knot"!  I don't see
how one can omit the object.

Quote
My hand is not defined by what it does but by how it is constructed.

Your hand's muscles & tendons are going to be hard to place/define w/o bones!

Quote
A jewel in the shape of a knot, made with gold or silver RoTaCa has no external tension applied to it and it is still a knot;

Well, I would only say that it might represent a knot; but a jeweler's workings
cannot be used to determine what is a knot, for the jeweler's materials are not PoFM,
for the most part; the structure holds shape by means other than what is thought
of for a knot.

But note here the shift from the ideal to the real:  my knot is ideal. and is what
"can be realized ... "; it is not the realization itself.  (But, of course, we do use
the same word and speak like this commonly.  Recall the example of the children
counting "knots" in a room, where the expectation was that they cound physical
objects, but one child counts identifiable schemas for such things (and so has
a lower count).

--dl*
====
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on September 13, 2005, 07:03:31 PM
Quote
..let us use English..

Yes it is common sense to "begin" with the English language but to provide for "world wide" diffusion and translation ( sky is the limit! ) the way to use this language should provide as much point of congruence as is possible with the "mind map" of other people from other cultures or it will be a "ghetto" a wide spaced and pleasant "ghetto" but still a ghetto.
( See  : Edward T Hall : "The hidden dimension" and his other books).

Why risk to limit possibility of access.
I can tell you, having both, that the French translation od ABOK is quite "open to improvement".
The "fault" lie as much in the "english mind map and culture stamping" of the ABOK as on the lack of Naval/Maritime in-depth knowledge of the translator.
I would like to evade that trap.
If I could do it "compatible" with Martian or Jupiterian, I would choose to do it!



Quote
...add letter for different tying ...

I do not suscribe to that : the knot obtained  would be the same. I can do my "surgeon's knot"in at least 3 differents sequences of gestures ( methods if you will) but once they are "fast" you cannot decided how I did them.

MethodS would be in their own sub-paragraph in the Knot's Individual File were all the "recorded" manners would be duly noted.


Quote
...needs to leave gaps between sets of number

Sorry Willeke, but from were I stand that is a no-no.

At least as far as the "compacted ABOK is concerned.
I am not so "decided" for the "extended" part.

But I see no reason to provide for gaps it. The "new" ideas can always be put at the end of the queue.

Remember the numbers here have a "nominal" fonction only and certainly not a "ranking" or "ordinal" function (still less an "interval" one.)
So 4587 as as much or as less value than 412 or 7391.
It is just a way of "naming".
Since human brain is more at ease with "ordered" item it is best (easier to use for retrieval), to leave them in sequence.

These number does not have a"social standing" value in the world of knot.

In the case of a "new" variant found for a knot already numbered, one call always keep that numbered designation and add a letter as you say.
So in my mind no need for gaps.

Just as in London tube (subway) "mind the gap"! :-)

You see Willeke, I am being good : only a short post and all for you! Nice guy I am. :-)
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on September 13, 2005, 07:14:16 PM
My "not young anymore" but not yet quite senescent ( hopefully) neurals network are approaching the pre-agonic phase.:-)


Quote
...knot structure...

I will certainly keep that point. Did a drawing to be put in my Yahoo album.
But that "subtlety" can be provided for in the "knot's individual file".
I see that, much more as a police file, than as an autobiography of the knot so to speak.


Quote
...UoEx...NUoEx...PoFM

Make for quick expression, acronyms do, but are they not a bit "grand" once "deployed", may be it is simply that they are not "not my style".
Not enough "down to earth", "every day" words.
But sure that make for "high standing" formulation.
But then I am just arguing...:-)
More seriously : I think that all "expression of an idea" should be accessible to everyone interested in it, whatever his/her level of education and not necessarily with some years at University.

I strongly believe that ( but then some 37 years, all told, of practice made me meet with all sorts and trained me to stay "basic", Even my haughty nuclear theoric physicist was lost when I explained his condition with my medical mind-map.

Experience told me that since the onus of good communication rest on the sender and not on the receiver, then it is more efficient to address the intelligence ( even an idiot have one, of sort) of the other rather than his/her level of education.
That is without taking in account that a few were educated way beyond their intelligence. :-)


Quote
... is much a planar view....

Yes and I insist on it.
Please bear with this dictatorial statement.
All should be clear as to why at the end of this post.
And if it is not clear I am ready to bet that you will let me know. Want to bet? ;-)

Quote
fatal termination

Rule is to go for the least possible number of crossing IN WRITTING the sequence

BUT rule for DRAWING is to show ALL the crossings. ( here capitals are not shouts)

The bowline is HLHLHHL in DRAWING  and you are righ there seem to be a fatal triplet.
But the concept of fatal triplet apply not to the drawing but to the "sequencing" ( Jimbo you should not have introtuced me to BBcode!).

but in sequencing, applying the rule of "pilling up crossing" ( that is what happen when it is not anymore in a planar projection but becoming a "real" knot) the SEQUENCE is HLHLHL and here is no fatal triplet unless I am mistaken.

May be I was not precise enough before.
Thanks for giving me that opportunity.
That is why the forum is not only can be fun but is a tool to make the ideas expressed progress in quality.

I think I wrote it in one of my recent post : the fatal triplets need to be verified and precised. Working on it.
I would like that rule with no exception, however rare. So wait and tell me of all the "exceptions" you find, if possible with drawings in an album or by using my mail to send it.


Quote
A clove hitch....can omit the objet

Here again we are not on the same angle.

You are speaking of the "real" knot in use in the external world. And that is  where it must end ultimately.

I, am speaking of a "tool" and a "definition", rather a "screening definition" to get ( hopefuly) an exhaustive (hopefully) census of knots.
It is just the fishing net for getting knot.
After their capture they must be "dissected".
A schematic of each one must be one.
Schematics are nor reality certainly, but they have had, for as long as they have been put in use, a way of making understanding the "thing" much easier.
Sure they are not really the "thing" ( remember Magritte "this is not a pipe", or the map is not the teritory, but mighty useful maps are, at least in my experience).

Just as the museum dissection piece is not the animal.
But you cannot bypass that stage in building a "nomenclature - stuctured list- catalogue raisonné..."

After that study yes, yes, and yes :  return to the field of life is mandatory.
I will meet you there.
In the meantime help me clarifying my thoughts ( for me and for those to whom I dare express them), you have my thanks for that.



Quote
Your hands.....bones

Should not have tread on my patch!

Sorry by muscles, tendons are not the only parts of the anatomy of the hand I had in mind : bones, ligaments, fascia, nerves, blood and lymphatic vessel, skin, and all that I forget, you get it all for the same price in the "anatomy" box.So you see easy as pie to place/define my hands. All was in my words: "anatomical" , "constructed"= anatomy.

As for the "physiology/functionning" then that would be your stance as it is with the knots

Quote
represent a knot

I agree to that, most of the time (cast jewel)
Out there, is a guy,  making jewels : throwing real TH. They are knots.

--
As my paternal grand-mother opposed to me :

- Yes, of course you are right, but I am not wrong!

In fact two who disagree can still be "right" at the same time.
Speaking of the same thing but from a different perspective.

I look at the left profile and see no handicap.
You look at the face and you say "that person is afflicted".
Both right : person has lost the right eye!

That,only to say that, may be we are both right at the same time :

- you look at the knot in the wild, the living creature.  You can get the ecology, behaviour... of the beast..

- I look at the specimen lying on the laboratory dissection table.
I will certainly hold the upper hand on about its anatomical nomenclature and classification.

My "planar projection" is the knot undergoing an autopsy. Yes!
Your is the "real" one. Yes

I am speaking anatomy, you are speaking physiology. "Same hair, same beast" as they say in French Antilles.

View are not incompatible and certainly not mutually exclusive.

In the end both angle of perspective should be taken on account to get the "bit less" fragmentary portrait.
Title: Re: Petitroy-1021-1038-44-45-1053
Post by: nautile on September 19, 2005, 04:44:46 PM
Hello!
please consult album for a graphical "proof" using the H& L drawing sequence tool :


http://fr.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/innominedarnold/album?.dir=/a37b&.src=ph


PABPRES and Jimbo gave this natural testing ground for the "in the wild testing" of the H&L [drawing] sequence ( not the Great Sequence of Crossing that is a different entity altogether in structure and usage)

#1021 and #1038 to the knot Ptitroy submitted."what's name"

I hope this example establish the ease with which one can graphically and quickly determine where the differences are if any.

And this should also show how this drawing sequence could serve for retrieval of a knot and for quick comparison with "near" knots.

Method/recipe for "doing" the knot should be irrelevant here since you are supposed to get the same knot in the end.



Ptitroy           : H1  L2 H3  H4  L5  L6  L7  H8  H9  L10
#1038           : H1  L2 H3  H4  L5  L6  L7  H8  H9  L10
#1021           : L1  H2 L3  L4  H5  L6  L7  H8  H9  L10

  #44                     : H1  L2  H3  H4  L5
  #45                     : L1  L2  H3  H4  L5  L6  L7
#1053           : H1  L2  H3  H4  L5 H6  L7 L8  H9  H10 L11 L12

Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Jimbo on September 20, 2005, 10:29:51 PM
Quote
I found how to highlight your text ...
Code: [Select]
[glow=yellow,2,300]TEXT[/glow]
TEXT

Willeke,

Thank you for sharing "style points" for dressing up posts!

However...

If your computer (and/or browser) is "secure" and you block nasty things like ActiveX, this trick won't work.  The TEXTstill shows, but the effect is gone.

Ditto (i.e. same results) for the [shadow=red,left,300]SHADOW[/shadow] code (That's the button to the Right of G[/b]low).

Another oddity I couldn't work around:  Both the 'GLOW' and the 'SHADOW' codes apparently trigger a LF (Line Feed) before and after they do their business.  Ah, ActiveX!  :-/  That means, even when it did work for me, I have been completely unsuccessful in getting the glowing or shadowed text to appear interleaved with the rest of the text.  YABBC insists on sticking the glowing or shadowed part on its own line.  And of course the posts I made showing that have long since been flushed.

:(

YMMV, of course.

But please don't let that stop anyone from using them!!

Jimbo
(PS: OTOH, the col or codes seem to work (although word wrap will wreck multicolored word tricks like <- that one), and if you add bold it looks a little "pretty"... EG:
Code: [Select]
[color=Orange]Your Orange (and [b]bold[/b]) Text Here[/color]Your Orange (and bold) Text Here.)
(PPS:If you see a "trick" you like in a post, use the "Quote" button instead of "Reply".  Then are all the secrets revealed!)
Title: Off-Topic But (Hopefully) Helpful...
Post by: Jimbo on September 20, 2005, 11:28:30 PM
Quote

Yes it is common sense to "begin" with the English language

Bonjour et bonne santé, nautile!

One of the nice things about English is its efficiency.  Eg: "Adjustable Loop Knot" vis-a-vis "Noeud Réglable De Boucle".  Also its adaptability.  Eg: "vis-a-vis" vis-a-vis "compared face-to-face to" and "eg:" vs. "Exempli Gratia"!

But before you accuse me of being an arrogant American, let me assure you I studied Latin, Greek, French, Spanish, German, Sign (both both "deaf-mute" styles and Native American), some Mandarin, and a double-handful of computer languages as well, so I'm trying to reach out here.

In that spirit, and in hopes of being helpful to All, here's Yet Another Jimbo Trick:

If you want to write in almost any language, but post to a forum based on another language, there are a lot of WWWeb pages that'll help.  Here's the one I like best (so far): BabelFish (http://babelfish.altavista.com/).

I hope this helps.  (I also hope I didn't offend Jacques when I used this site to translate a whole paragraph of Jimbonics!)

Going to Google (http://www.google.com/) & clicking on Language Tools (http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en) may be useful too.

;D

Jimbo
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Nick Wilde on November 30, 2005, 03:08:41 AM
Such learned submisions, I am loath to lighten the tone with my offering, but being a Yorkshireman I am going to anyway.

"A knot is a deliberate complication induced into a piece of rope, line or cord, in such a manner that it may be later undone, or not, as may be required."

Sorry!  I'm feeling frivolous.

Nick
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Dan_Lehman on December 01, 2005, 04:05:19 AM
Quote
but being a Yorkshireman

Does that include drinking "Yorkshire" tea?  :P

Quote

"A knot is a deliberate complication induced into a piece of rope, line or cord, in such a manner that it may be later undone, or not, as may be required."

What counts as a complication,
and how does one discern deliberateness?
Say that in your pleasant stroll along some beach--maybe as Dee's companion--,
you come upon a grand tangle of cordage:  how will you sort out knots?
Is a kink a knot?

(-;
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: KnotNow! on December 01, 2005, 06:46:39 AM
I may have missed Charles original point, you know I often do... but I think it was not to define "knot" but how to define a specific knot in hand.  A bend?  A hitch?  A binder?  A lashing?  A knob?.... and then I think he was hoping to get further reductions for "functional yet decorative" "purely functional" and so on.. or mybe I had too much Yorkshire tea (which I deduce is the "Spirits Up" that keeps my bones from grinding too badly).  Please read back over and see if you don't think we are trying to define each knot.. not the word "knot".
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Dan_Lehman on December 02, 2005, 01:07:17 AM
Quote
I may have missed Charles original point, you know I often do... but I think it was not to define "knot" but how to define a specific knot in hand.

Well, one need only read the Subject, really; but, beyond that, do consider his post:

>  - - DEFINITION beginning : a lure? a bait?
>
> " A knot is a spatialy defined structure of crossings (to be "defined" under)
> that are made using one or several RoTaCa (to be defined) and that obey
> AT LEAST these following rules :

In short, yep, you missed it.
And there are various aspects to this:  what a "knot" is, in general; what should one call
some unit to be considered (e.g., what does one call the general structure common
to the Bwl (3 ends loaded), Becket H. (3 ends loaded), Sheet Bend (2 ends loaded), mesh knot (all 4
loaded), Eskimo Bwl, Lapp Bend, T knot?  Is the general, topologically identical
structure "A knot" which can be given hitch/loop/bend/mesh loadings, or ... ?

Quote
or mybe I had too much Yorkshire tea (which I deduce is the "Spirits Up" that keeps my bones from grinding too badly).  Please read back over and see if you don't think we are trying to define each knot.. not the word "knot".

Or not enough--take it literally, not, ah, Spirits-ually.  Cf. www.yorkshiretea.co.uk
(or www.barrystea.ie) --though I recommend a tea w/keemun in it, quite distinctive!
Now, speaking of tea, I think it's about tea time here (got the weather for it).

(-;
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: merickson on December 02, 2005, 06:01:37 AM
Let me add a further confusion to the question:
It has been said that two knots with a topological difference are different knots. The main question has been whether loading is a factor in what makes knots "different".

But, topological considerations are not a sufficiant criteria.

A 3 stranded Matthew Walker Knot is topologicaly differnt from a 4 stranded MWK, but is that enough to be call them different knots? Isn't it more useful to recognize them as the same knot?

Another example is a coil. I consider a coil a knot. (a stopper knot actualy). Yet, two figure eight coils are not the same or different depending on the number of turns taken around the neck of the coil.

Perhaps a defintion of would read:
Given two "complications of cord" A and B.
If every person who is taught how to tie A immediatly knows how to tie B, then A and B are the "same knot".  
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Dan_Lehman on December 02, 2005, 09:39:52 PM
Quote
It has been said that two knots with a topological difference are different knots. The main question has been whether loading is a factor in what makes knots "different".

This is what I tried to articulate near above:  that there can be a need to refer to
the general knot-structure w/o regard to loading, and the Meshknot/Bwl/BecketH.
/SheetBend/T-bend/LappBend/EskimoBwl is a nice paradigm to consider.
Although for this structure, there can be some sharp differences in the geometry
between the various enumerated <other_sense> "knots"--the SPart of the Bwl
being sharply bent in the Eskimo Bwl. as the end.

Dick Chisholm, e.g., has defined a notion of abnormal loading which is to be
attached to each particular-knot structure (to the Bowline, e.g.); but note that
for an Overhand loopknot the abnormal loading named "ring-loading" (where the
eye alone is loaded, making the knot effectively a bend), the knot is loaded just
as the Offset Overhand Bend (OOB, aka "Thumb Bend", "EDK", "Overhand Bend")
is normally loaded!  Were one to step a level back from this "particular-knot"
perspective, to be considering the doubled Oh. knot indepent of loadings, one might
then have no basis for "abnormal/normal" and talk of the knot in any/all of the
possible loadings.  (Being a symmetric knot, unlike the Bwl///etc./, there are fewer
differences for the Oh. structure.)  There should be a name--maybe not "knot"--
to denote this level of consideration, this sort of general entity.

<general_entity>

  + particular loadings  => <particular_entity_1>, <p_e_2>, ... <p_e_N>

Quote
But, topological considerations are not a sufficiant criteria.

Not sufficient, nor even necessary!  At least in some sense of "knot", one much
wants to discriminate between the Sheet & Lapp bends.  Also, consider the case of
the Bwl & capsized Bwl--something I've seen (the latter phys.entity, i.e.) pretty
often, almost as though it is the desired result!?

Quote
A 3 stranded Matthew Walker Knot is topologicaly differnt from a 4 stranded MWK, but is that enough to be call them different knots? Isn't it more useful to recognize them as the same knot?

--good example; also the multiple Oh. series, and knots built with them (e.g. the
Grapevine bend & Triple Fisherman's knot; or the "Fig.N" series of stoppers & loopknots
("Fig.8" begetting "Fig.9"--a half-twist more--and thus "Fig.10" (which, btw, all have
TWO symmetric forms, of which for the Fig.9 the stopper is Ashley's Tweenie (#525)
[nb:  ABOK error--left & right images are of opp.handedness!])).
Here I think I'd say, yes, different knots but definable from a construction rule that
can be scaled.

Quote
Another example is a coil. I consider a coil a knot. (a stopper knot actualy). Yet, two figure eight coils are not the same or different depending on the number of turns taken around the neck of the coil.

Hmmm, not a multi-eye loopknot?
At some point, I think that some of what are presented as "knots" should be seen
as compound structures--the Trucker's H. seems an obvious case; the Sheepshank
and Twin <X> (X = Bwl.s, Overhands, ...) bends seem problematic.  In these,
the actual knotted/entangled parts are disjoint/separated by indefinite amounts
of material.  (Chisholm also has a notion of nub, but what's the nub of the
Sheepshank?!)

Quote
If every person who is taught how to tie A immediatly knows how to tie B, then A and B are the "same knot".

I'm leery of invovling human intent or other external aspects.  (And certainly
not everybody will be able to do anything!)

--dl*
====
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Jimbo on December 03, 2005, 11:34:08 PM
Quote
I consider a coil a knot. (a stopper knot actualy).

Uh...

Isn't that actually a loose 1L x 1B Turk's Head Knot with an inordinate number of Doublings? ???

I only guessed this because I like that particular 1L x 1B THK (ABOK# 1313) for "Flashlight Service", wrapping "oh-snot" handles in trucks, etc.

Hey, don't look at me!  I'm paraphrasing CWA!

;D (Ain't I a stinker?)
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: merickson on December 05, 2005, 02:33:22 AM
I've had further thoughts about the figure 8 coil. It looks like a Sheer Lashing with the poles removed and extra frapping turns. Or like a seizing. In either case, it seems that it would be in the Binding Knot family.

On the main topic, I think that the desicion of whether two knots are similar enough to be "the same" depends on what aspect of the knots the decider considers.

Each branch of knotting looks at knots differently, leading to  different criteria for deciding "sameness".  All of those are equally valid. I am not sure that there is much value in choosing one canonical system. Each branch of knotting should evaluate knots (including "sameness") in the way that serves that branch the best.
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Willeke on December 05, 2005, 01:41:22 PM
I think that each knot can have a numerical definer to it, in addition to its name and describtion, for the variations.

Like a overhand knot, (1)
Double overhand knot (2)
Multiple overhand knot (7)

Can be simplefied into 'overhand knot (N)'

Or Crown knot 3 ends, tucked under 1.
Crown knot 12 end, tucked under 5.
(Yes I do make knots like that and I do have to make notes like that at times.)

This is the scientifical aproach and not everyday language unless you are into tying a lot of different versions of a knot.

I hope I make sense here.

Willeke

Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on December 06, 2005, 01:07:42 PM
  Hi all around !
 
 Yes Roy I had in mind to define the knot structure in a general manner.( go back to different "mind map" in different languages)
 I was not addressing this or that knot or bend or hitch ( those 2 last words are not "sense-bringer" in French for exemple).
 
 But I understand what could have misled you, just like in English foxhunting ( you being the Fox of course) instead of the dogs taking it, it was the fox that followed that red herring ( to the confusion of the Hun): the repeated apparition of specific names.
 
 My part in that was my proposing a method of "sequencing" with H&L and to examplify I had to specificaly evokes particular knots ( understand that in my French mind I can only use noeud/knot = knots + bend + hitches ), since it is to be applied to "real" knotS and not to "an ideal knot".
 
 So you were not so much erring as having been mislead by, at least, some of the "how" it was argumented here and there.

 
But your "confusion" is to me less that the "constant" return of  "loading, use/usage of  knot so and so" in this particular topic.

I thought that I had made clear the following points :( must have over-estimated my capacity to explain my thinking in another language than my own, so I will try one again. Sorry to be so repetitive, but I will try to keep it "short and to the point " at the risk of appearing curt and abrupt, and will not come at it again if I do not succedd this time, since I do not knos how to re-formulated it).)

- My main intention was structure - construction - anatomy and  not function - usage - physiology

- reasons for that were :

            - arbitrary : my own inclination and mind map.
            I tend to perceived "structure" well before I am sure of "function"
            My "mind map" make me rather think that defining some "materialized" thing is rather WHAT this thing is first and foremost and only after ascertaining that, then I go to "what can I do with it" and "how I can" and "how does it works".
            See, in French : only "knot" : structure, whereas as in English "knots, bend, hitch"....this already imply a "function"point of view as well as some aspect of structure.
            
            - wanting to be reasonable :
                  
                  
                  - structure is usually more "apparent" and/or "evident" than function. (See history of "sciences of Life" : anatomy was knwon well before physiology, and usage of bodies in specialized tasks were in action without any physiological knowledge, just "imagined" 'how it works')
                  
                  - structure is more "discriminating than "function". I mean : seing a structure you can infere more easily a function than stating a function and after infering a structure.
                  Or in other words : given a structure it will be easier to get several people to aggree to a function ( one among others posssible), whereas stating a function you will be more often hard put to get people to agree on one structure.
                  Preferences, opinions, preconceptions and so forth would be let loose, while they are "coralled" when you start with the structure.
                  Don't know if that comes out "clear"?
                  
                  - structure being what you "get at first" is more helpfull, more discriminative, than the quite empirical"to what use it is put" which in turn is much more easier to know than the more difficult attempt at being "experimental and rigorous""how it works" as classification criterion
                  
                  - Structure was to be only one of many things ,not even the main heading.
                  That(heading) was to be something like an  "identification number"to be put in what was imagined as the "personnal identification file for a knot".
                  That was "in the body" of the file that the "how it works" would be attended to.
                  
                  - about, knots specifically, you have to "MAKE" it before "USING" it, and also you can put it to use ( not "advisededly" may be) without "KNOWING its inner working".
                  
                  The time sequence of using a "materialized knot" begin with structure ; I understand that the "immaterial" part of the time sequence could very well be thinking about "function".
                  But in the phenomenal world the "structure" is the first to be made manifest. Or so I think.
                  
I think ( yeah! bringing down open doors) that in "knowing a knot" there are at least two folds :
- may be a third that I put first : knowing "of" or "about" a knot

- First fold ,structural: knowing how to lay the knot without any mistake, even dressing it properly. without fail, even under stress, as when in military training with dismantling a gun in the dark and putting it back to working order in the shortest time possible.
That small part of knowledge is what opens the door to "danger" since you can "materialize" the knot and put it to use.

- that lead me to the second fold ,functional : knowing how, why, when, to use, not to use a knot, and in which sort of rope to cast or not to cast itand so on.

-----  
                                   
- uses, tests versus opinions or lore, internal working, how to cast the knot, different methods, different naming, indication, not-an-indication, contra-indication, in which rope to do or not to do it, remaining strenght in a rope ( to be clearly stated in nature, sizes....) with  it..... were all conceived to be in the file not in the defining.

I quite understand that this individual file would be of no use if left at the defining of the structure.

But I would like the "logical planes" (structure - functionning - uses ...) be respected ( differentiated clearly) and not "opposed" one to the other(s) in "defining" THE knot.

...to be continued in next post...
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on December 06, 2005, 01:13:52 PM
...continuing above post

Already two threads are intertwining or entangling (?) not to distinctly : "defining knot" and "can of worms". A third one, may be in order : " internal functioning of knots" with a bit of "uses of...".
It would not add too much confusion.
Those three threads being "at the end " compacted and synthetized ( by common working) in a template for individual file.

I would like for all our collective thinking effort, not to go down the drain. Hope that it is "kept in archives" by some of us in case that, one big bright day ( the one pigs will fly or as they say in France "hens will have teeth"), the powers that be at IGKT will really hear, (as in "understand and act upon" , not as in : "giving the silent treatment " or the "pooh-pooh", or the victorian "quiet and not to be seen and heard"  ), what we say on this forum.
( yes I know I should not levy judgment at my betters. "Most sorry! Beg your pardon, will do it again though")

That necessity "doing a specific work at Igkt" is already, since a long time, in clear and no uncertain terms, expressed by Dan_Lehman in KM66 ( march 2000) "Knot Slops".

Must say it rather pull the rug under me to see that much more than 5 years later, nothing, that I know of, has been done, by the "Wold Authority On Knots" WAOK , if not Igkt's acronym it seems to me it was implied in the declaration of intent at founding.

To jest with a silly politician sentence " it is more than urgent to powerfully apply the brake on the immobilism that drives us at full speed into the abyss where we will attain summits of despair".
At this moment in time,I am suffering a bout of "sub-chronic motivation loss".
Condition can ail but can just as easily go : "terminal" :-) and I will go just cast my knots and renounce thinking about them.

Suppose that part of the problem is  : Igkt is an "entity", and only administrative at that, and not a "being".

- - -

Now to quote :  "3S and 4S are MW are topologically different" .
Certainly they are not topologicaly equivalent , and that answer itself : they are not the same knot.

I propose some silliness just to be amusing :
Obviously, a lion and a panther, though different, are "intrinsicaly" the same animal .
Yes do not doubt it : they are mammals, carnivorous,felines both, just as 3S or 4S it is still a MW.
Saying they are different and give them the same specific "label" is  "?" ( let you choose the value to be put here.)
Said like that it is a "no-no" from where I stand.

To me saying MW /S and MW/4S are not different knots while saying they are the same is a logical "no-no"( without the topo in it this time) .

They are indeed MW  ( or felines)  so they can go in a "file" MW", that well known criminal using many aliases and disguise, so in his file, disguises ( 3S, 4S, 5S...lion, panther, tiger...) would be recorded.

Just the same for the Turkshead group, or the Crown and the Wall with their hybrids siblings, or the Tack and Manrope, just to name the ones that come to my mind: recognize that they are "family" ( there ,going back to FCB - Hi Frank !- seems to me a good idea ).

- - -

Now to what Merickson" wrote :
- I like a lot the tolerance of "different point of view" or of "oulook" that it imply. So I keep it, in the interest of being "open and tolerant" ( a "structured" work need not be to be "dogmatic and closed" ).
In the interest-of-saving-ethnographic-data I would say that it will ( should have said "would",  but I want to be optimistic or irrealistic as you want) be a good thing to put that notion as a paragraph" in the individual file.

- - -

I am a bit stranded at the moment with the H&L : have something like 50 Mo worth of writing and drawings with sequencing.

Drawings are all right , tabulation of sequencing are all right, but what is still a much less that preliminary draft is the text and conclusions. I am aiming at "generalization" and not " 4 or 5 set of different rules" as it looks like to be now.

I am ready to take the risk ( and the time - lower estimation : 3 to 4 hours - to put it in line on my site ( in zip format, eventually .html,;doc (as it is) and .pdf) for those interested to "work" on it. Would be quicker to put it not on site but in "web space" and I would give access, and to do zip of course but only one format .doc or .pdf or .html. I will not loose time ( now, since I considered the "product has not passed quality control" so I am waiting for ordering if any one is sufficiently interested.

But please that is under the understanding that you will not -yet- judge the written part, but only the drawing and sequencing part.
                  
                  
      A formal but not very useful ( for us ) defining
      A polygonal curve in 3D
 Cannot be shorter! Cannot be much less useful to us.
      Just to satify the "functionnalists" party I will amend that to
      
      A material polygonal curve in 3D which can be put to some uses depending on factors pertaining to its internal functioning.

PS:

Is a kink a knot ?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? ( long medieval debate was "What is/are the sexe(s) of angels"
What is the opposite of my cat ? ( HE asked me to go for that one)
What is the sound of a one hand clapping , ( Zen this one)
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Dan_Lehman on December 07, 2005, 03:53:10 AM
Help!  I'm swamped beneath another Nautilevanche of ideas!!   :o
;)

Nautile, how do you view the Lapp Bend and the Sheet Bend?
(Consider the Sheet Bend oriented so that the bight tip is up (N =north, 12:00),
its legs thus South; the looPart ties to this by entering the tip crossing Under,
turning leftwards (West) and crossing Over the left leg and then goes back around
Under the bight legs, to continue then in anti-clockwise turning to cross Over the
bight leg, Under the earlier set part of itself, and Over the left bight leg (pointing
thus NW) ?
Call the four ends, starting at the top (N) and moving anti-clockwise as A-B-C-D.
The Sheet Bend would  be defined as tensioning A & D (ends being B&C); the Lapp
Bend ... B & C.
Do you consider these to be the same knot, anatomically?

--dl*
====

ps:  What size pin?  ::)
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on December 07, 2005, 07:28:27 PM
Hi Dan_Lehman

Was a bit "Da Vinci Code" like.
Had a bit of a problem with naming nomenclature since what I have seen give as true the following statement :


Lapp =  eskimo/esquimo bwl =  dutch bwl = left-handed bowline   ( equality A )  

some even add to this above equality  = Asian or Turkish bowstring knot !?  in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/knottyers/message/2933?viscount=100  
and even Honda knot !? this one in http://www.scoutxing.com/knots/honda_knot/honda_knot.htm

I do not see all that as "true"

eskimo = lapp (?) suppose that "True"
dutch bwl = left-handed bowline  "True"

eskimo = dutch  "False"   plus  eskimo = Asian Bowstring is "False" and Eskimo = Honda is False

so Equality A is "False"

Worded instructions instead of "traced instructions"   are always a bit dicey for me to follow.
Thank you for adding orienting and vectors.

eskimo bowline in http://eskimo-bowline.wikiverse.org/media/8/80/eskimobowline.jpg  
Bowstring knot in http://www.realknots.com/knots/sloops.htm#bowstring

There is no problem comparing : sheet and eskimo or bowstring as shown in the above links so no interesting point in the "quizz" it is rather evident that no equivalence is there.

Just as bowline right-handed is based on sheet-bend right-handed
Dutch or left-handed bwl is based in left-hand sheet bend as I understand it.
So :

Dan_Lehman quizz as I undestand it :

- - Dutch bowline : http://www.realknots.com/knots/sloops.htm
left hand bowline     in   http://www.layhands.com/Knots/LeftHandBowline.jpg  or in budworth "the book of knot" Fig 13Bowline p 49  

compared to

- - Sheet bend ( left-handed) as you say  : not same lay as ABOK#1432   and   http://www.videos.sailingcourse.com/images/sheet_bend_left_hand_X.jpg  

See the one I did following (or rather thinking that I was following) dl instructions  at http://tinyurl.com/7loan


Anyway I do not feel it is all that important in this particular set.

I fell this particular one can be reasonned about, in the "abstract"


To be a "real tease" it must be one of these cases so as to offer as many red herrings as possible in aspect:

- First case    -NOT same number of crossings : if that is the case  :topologicaly non equivalent


- Second case   - same number of crossings  : then number of crossings is not discriminating  so seek elsewhere:

           - if same number + NOT same sequencing : then topologicaly non-equivalent ( for these controled points, there are other to be controlled but too mathematical to be easy)
           
               - if same number AND same sequencing then not discriminating  seek elsewhere :
                           - - it is a given that it is a "bowline" compared to a bend.
                             Hence with a loop in the first and not in the second.
                                   Hence one more "hole" than in the bend : not topologicaly equivalent
                 
Seems to me there was a post about "naming" the "emptiness" enclosed between the "line joingning the crossings".
Left it here at "hole" though "lagon" with its bordering coral has a lot of appeal for me.                  

                 
I do not hold those 2 structures as equivalent due to the number of holes discriminating them , but there are clearly sharing an important part of the same "genetic" background so to speak.

Do I pass? or do I fall flat on my face ?  :-)

I would like to see the following hypothesis be examined and if retained, then 'researched' for examplifications :

- - if structures not equivalent, the more 'non-equivalent' they are ( what IS more non-equivalent ? I don't know at the moment), the more 'functionaly" different they will be found , it would then follow that the uses/usages are different in a direct function of the 2 preceding, but not in equal part.
Or is that a tautology so not worth thinking about.


Cheers

     Nautile

PS
Pin size ?
Try the one you used trying to pin me on the corkboard like a hapless insect with this "quizz" lapp/Left-Sheet :-)

PPS
"swamped" you are dl ?
Did not intended to mired you.
Was neither able nor inclined to make it shorter.
Thanks to Guardian Angel in Chief for longanimity in fellows knotters.:-)

Well! in my psychitry training what I did in my last posts, depending upon the fraction of victorian era, in the background of the speaker , was labelled" "verbal incontinence" or "verbal diarrhoea" though I am sure it is better in literary fashion : "logorrhea". Shameful.
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Dan_Lehman on December 07, 2005, 10:38:36 PM
Quote
... since what I have seen give as true the following statement :
Lapp =  eskimo/esquimo bwl =  dutch bwl = left-handed bowline   ( equality A )

No, "Lapp" is  bend, "Eskimo" a loopknot (related as are Sheet & Bwl).

>>>> eskimo = dutch  "False" ...
>>>> it is rather evident that no equivalence is there.

Although we can shift the question to the loopknots field, if that catches onto
something.  Now, why do you say "False", for anatomy?  How is this evident,
as I was getting the sense that by excluding function at this stage of analysis,
you wanted to exclude considerations of loading (and thus more knots would  be the
same, such as I've suggested for one sense of "knot" for the SheetBend-Meshknot
structure)!?

Quote
See the one I did following (or rather thinking that I was following) dl instructions  at http://tinyurl.com/7loan

Good, but upside-down--same order, so "A" in your pic is at bottom, and then go
around anti-clockwise for B-C-D.


>>> number of crossings

Frankly, I'm often put off at trying to assess this, which works with a 2-dimensional
perspective that must be (somewhat arbitrarily) forced upon the knot of 3-D space.
How do you see this for Sheet/Lapp?  I guess one is forced somewhat into the area
I'd seen as "functional" if that is what positions one for determining the crossings
structure (begin at THIS not that end, and proceed)?!

Quote
PS
Pin size ?
Try the one you used trying to pin me on the corkboard like a hapless insect with this "quizz" lapp/Left-Sheet :-)


Of course, it might depend on the particular dance ...

:P
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on December 07, 2005, 11:30:31 PM
Hi
I think , with the dutch bwl and the eskimo bwl  in the links I sent, that they are , to my eyesight, at first sight, different knots.

Sorry, not trying to dodge the question, but where can I find the Lapp bend you are speaking of ?
Can you sent drawings ( plane projection ) or the two structures you are speaking about so that I get a chance to follow.
Sorry about my misunderstanding of your question.
Which difference(s) do you see between this left-hand sheet bend and the "lapp bend" ?
I only found ref to "lapp bowline" with all the "discrepancies" I put in my last post.
Google pictures "lapp bend " = zero result. Same thing with Alltheweb.
There is a limit to my ability to follow in English, the more so without the "images"; am at my limit and going into "massive incompetence" level here. Remember I have not your shared background in language and in knot naming.

If "Lapp bend" is "exactly" done as the "sheet" bend I do not understand the question about their difference. That would be only on name or in "mirroring". If differently tied then it answer itself : not same knot.
Or I am coumponding misunderstanding with misunderstanding?
You got me totaly lost and erring here.
.
Crossings : may be going back to my set of rules would clarify.  I cannot do it in a clearer manner. Short : no hidden crossings and no "not necessary" crossing" or "collapsable one"  in the "flat" projection of knot. Without that convention crossings and holes counting is useless as it has become arbitrary. ( crossings and holes are used by topology just in that manner, except that knot is "closed" for the "math"). But doing "right" you get  the mean to "tie" the knot by following slavisly the diagram drawn. After that of course much dressing may be in order.

I do not know how to  count the crossings in a 3D representation .
If plane projection rejected , then I do not know how to do it, not having  the competence for higher dimensions topology and may be not even really for the  plane one.

Added : came to my mind this morning! can be lightening quick if I really want ! :-)
I will do an eskimo bowline, cut the loop and : lapp or eskimo bend should be there. Will go and see



You can download my H&L drawings (no text ) 10 Mo  so long time on dial-up and less than 1mn with high speed at :

http://tinyurl.com/7ajer

click on the lonely file and it should propose download
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on December 08, 2005, 08:02:49 PM
Hi!
complication

I have a problem here.

Is it to  mean : more intricate, more confused.
If so  I can suscribe, even a simple overhand certainly, in that perspective,  "complicate" the curve of the rope or the way to describe it. Sort of complicate its structure.

Can or may or must I take it to mean as in medecine : an unfavorable evolution ?
Then "à propos" of casting a knot in a rope I do not see quite well if I can suscribe since you casted it to have "more" than with the rope unknotted.
Unless if one take on account the weakening of the rope by the knot.
I can find that interesting to consider. Sort of complicate its function. But somehow I doubt that it is  what it was meant to mean


Does it means, the same that the horloger denote with this word, as in saying "this is a watch mechanism with complication(s)", for telling something has been "added to the "basic" needed to be used as a watch ( hours/minutes and seconds).

Then I am not sure I can suscribe :
A watch with the complication, say date,  is still a basic watch, it nature of "basic watch" is not altered, it has just been "added to" it and it still function very much like the "basic" watch it was, its giving performance in hour/minute/second measuring is unchanged.

But I am not so sure that a rope with a knot in it does not have its nature changed and can be said : It stay a "basic rope" ( for example the knot leave "a memory" in the strands and fibers and there is now a "weakened" point in it.

I will, for the time being, choose to stay with first : complicate its curve, making it polygonal.
"
Or I am trying to understand more that I can ?

And I have more of a problem with " know how to A  AND know how to...B then  A equal B"
I know how to catch a rabbit so I infer  how to catch a cat, then cat and rabbit are the same ?
I learn how to write "PA" then I know how to write "PAPA" (then PAPA = PA. Hard for me to believe they are the same.

Cheers
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on December 10, 2005, 05:50:03 PM
Quote
"A knot is a deliberate complication induced into a piece of rope, line or cord, in such a manner that it may be later undone, or not, as may be required." Nick



Hi Nick

Given : (single) Overhand knot , Double Overhand Knot , Triple Overhand knot


Conclusions :
Single oH is a "complication" of the rope
Double is a complication of Single oH then it is  complication squared of the rope ?
Triple is a complication of Double oH then it is a complication of the double, a complication squared of the oH, a complication power 3 of the rope ?

?? as use in chess notation.

See where "complication" can lead.

Why "complication" rather than "complexifi-cation" ?

I am ready to learn that I am "erring in error country" but I rather think that some knot are more complexifying the rope than they are complicating it.
( my caricatural mind map here is :  complicated : usually numerous parts and low level of intrication of relations between the parts   and complex : not necessarilly a very high number of parts but highly sophisticated integration of the parts)


- - - - -

Quote
Let me add a further confusion to the question:
Perhaps a defintion of would read:
Given two "complications of cord" A and B.
If every person who is taught how to tie A immediatly knows how to tie B, then A and B are the "same knot".




Hi Merickson

I have some clarification to ask.

Firts
I teach someone the underhand crossing loop ( L1)  [ in the nomenclature I pout in precedent posts : H is as above and L is as Under ] then she/he knows how to add 2 "half twist" and get an underhand knot ( L1 H2  L3 )ABOK#519 in underhand
Knowing Underhandt he/she know OverHand
Knowing that she/he immediatly know how to add an half twist and get (L1 H2 L3 H4 ) a Fig-8 like ABOK#516 with a begining as underhand
Then knowing that he/she immediatly know how to add another half twist and get (L1 H2 L3 H4 L5) a stopper like ABOK#520 with a begining as underhand
Then knowing that she/he immediatly know how to add another half twist and get (L1 H2 L3 H4 L5 H6)  like ABOK"522 stevedore with a begining as underhand
When one know the Overhand one can get the Fisherman's and  the Overhand Loop too.

Are you prepared to say, abiding by what you wrote that :
crossing loop = underhand = overhand = fig-8 = stopper = stevedore = fisherman's = overhand loop = underhand loop
Me I am not prepared to endorse that long equality, false from where I stand now.

I could have begun with : "you know how to handle a rope so easy to go to "underhand loop" "
That would have given
rope without knot = crossing loop.......underhand loop.
To get the above "surprisig statement" I just appliedyour statement in a step by step manner.

All I am prepare to say is "they are related" but not they are "same knots". Kno-Kno!

Second
Crown learned then you immediatly know Wall or double crown or double wall or crown and wall or wall and crow, or tack or manrope or...

Following your rule then all are the same knot ? Or do I misunderstand your rule?

Third
Overhand knot
Having learned to cast it you immediatly know how to "combined" some of them : getting just a few exemples : Zeppelin/Rosendahl- ABOK#501 - ABOK#1408  -ABOK#1408-9 - ABOK#1409 - ABOK#1425 - Fisherman's

So following rule you stated  I can state

Zeppelin/Rosendahl is same as ABOK#501 which is same as ABOK#1408  which is same as ABOK#1408-9 which is same as ABOK#1409 hich is same as ABOK#1425 which is ame as Fisherman's
I could add the thief knot or the granny since if you knwo the oH you know how to do them or ABOK#1412 ( ring knot) plus ABOK#1414 plus ABOK#1426.

Really ?

Why so much different names and so much different "instructions to cast them" if they are indeed "the same knot" ?


Fourth
Overhand knot if learned then you know immediatly the Underhand knot
Following  rule stated by you then it means you are ready to say Overhand is the same as  Underhand.

Me I am not, since they are not the same knot just as your right hand is not the same as your left one.
Just try to put on the left glove ( without putting it inside out first ) on your right hand.
If you have a "machine" geared for making overhand you will have to change the algorithm to get an underhand. If they were the same there would be no need to. ( Note : chirality is not "an abstract" mathematical view : in human biology there is a strong bias towards the levogyre ( turning polarized ligt to the left) and the chemical synthesis give dextregyre and levogyre in 50-50, meaning that half the molecules of, say chemicaly synthetized C vitamine, are not "used"  by your body ( unless things changed since I learned)


Sorry but decidedly I will not stamp this rule as "importable" into my mind map.
Either it leads to "bizarre" conclusion, or it leads to misinterpretation of it  just like the one I may have commit and just exposed applying a reductio ad absurdum

Cheers.
Nautile / Charles
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Dan_Lehman on December 10, 2005, 08:38:55 PM
Quote
Hi
I think , with the dutch bwl and the eskimo bwl  in the links I sent, that they are , to my eyesight, at first sight, different knots.

So, yes, but WHY ... ?
I'm trying to understand anatomy vs. physiology/function, which I took
to be something of a distinction between form w/o loading and that
WITH loading!?  (If one makes a circle around the compared knots above
so that all "ends" ("limbs"?) run outside of the circle and one cannot
know their existence beyond, what is that ?!)

Quote
Sorry, not trying to dodge the question, but where can I find the Lapp bend you are speaking of ?

I described this above.  Tie a Sheet Bend; now load the ENDS:
that is the Lapp Bend.  (that's a same-side (ends & SParts) SB, btw)

(-;
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on December 12, 2005, 10:47:27 PM
Quote

So, yes, but WHY ... ?
I'm trying to understand anatomy vs. physiology/function, which I took
to be something of a distinction between form w/o loading and that
WITH loading!?  
(-;


It is rather visualy "evident" that they are not the same.
But I suppose you want something "articulated".


Please use http://tinyurl.com/869ly : I used Peterson's notation system in animal description : Arrow only on distinctive points.

1_
Crossings are at different level (red arrows) . That alone make them apart, without any reasoning just looking.
No real need to go further.

I will try to give more "articulated" arguments

2_
I found no way, using only sliding, and putting more length in play ( no cutting, no flipping, no "redoing" of crossing by re-threading the WE) of starting with one and  finishing with the other.
Only that equal "are not same". Agreed I could have miss a trick with the Reidemeister's moves, so...

3_
Crossings sequencing (just following the "imaginary" WE along the diagram, ) are different.

4_
I even "signed" the crossings ? ( http://tinyurl.com/d926f  to see the convention )

I hold that topology  is necessary to analyze a structure, be it a knot.
Just try learning anatomy without using it!
First bone ( one of the simplest : clavicule / collar-bone) I learned, without having those tools, kept me more than 8 hours.
After mastering the topology used, even the most complex one was not even  1/4  of that in learning time):

Note : neither numbers of "holes" , nor Drawing Sequence of crossings can discriminate here ( The "GSC" would discriminate since in the left bowline H3 & H4 can be "one H3-4" crossing H1 in High position.

I think I have shown them to be different in structure".


- - - -

My sense ( mind-map) of structure - usage - internal functionning is based   :
- on my French culture  - on my training in anatomy ( animal - vegetable ), in physiology of thereof - on a non negligible training in chemistry ( mineral of course, but organic and biochemy too, all domains where "structure" , "orientation" & so forth are most important).
It may not be congruent with an english culture mind-map.
I feel unable here to use any more of my feeble english mind-map and language knowledge.


Structure : anatomy, how it is "built", static inter-relations.

For a "knot" : laid diagram-like.
No superfluous crossing, no missing crossing, no crossing hiding another.
After setting it in close conformation,  dressing it, tightening it , using it : if you reverse what you did and lay it flat again you get the diagram you begin with.

I understand that with "structure/form/shape" I did a mistake.
"forme" in French is "shape", not what the way it act as in "form" for english language ( "that is bad form" as in "bad behaviour").
So discount my precedent use of "form".

Usage : what you do with it, what it is applied to. What "this knot , here" can be use to . In negative: what it cannot be used to.

Internal functionning ( physiology ; dynamic inter-relations, the activity inside ) : what happen inside the knot, slidding there, pinching here, torque here, strangling elsewhere, inner curve compression or outer curve elongation, less strain in the inner fiber than on the outer ones in a laid rope, friction between fibers...
The internal moves and what is happening in the knot being tightened by hand first and then by load.( I suppose that it is during this transition hand to load that the "correct dressing" is much important )

- - - -

Reformulation :

Structure : my right upper limb ( bones, muscles, sinew.......IN A STATIC state, just as you can look at it on a dissection table)
My anatomy does noes change when I use it in life, unless I have an accident that "breaks" or "strains" something.


Usage : what my upper arm may be applied to: throwing a javeline, writing, holding a load in static position......
That is the "imagined", "conceptualized" upper limb as tool.
In my view it very much depend on the structure :
An articulation like the human ankle is quite different in mobilities from shoulder and that is just because of the anatomical disposition & construction of parts/B]. Just seeing one I can tell you what it can do and what it cannot do mobility/stability-wise. ( I can infer the pressure zones too).

Internal working : which angulation between bones segments change, how it change and how much ; muscles put in action in an agonist and in an antagonist way ; which part of which muscle it put to contribution ; modification of blood circulation, nerves impulses,  hormonal discharges and many other things..My limb in  action this time.
Of course though done the same shoulder anatomy a move in external rotation-abduction imply something quite different from a move in, say, antepulsion, or internal rotation-abduction.

Of course my real limb is all that and more, simultaneously.

I am sorry not to be able to express it in a better fashion.

Last try:


Would "morphology" be better than structure

structure : that is the carpentry skeleton."drawing of architect"
usage : garden shed or house
function : how the shed allow me to "pack" my things in an orderly and safe manner
If house : how it goes from daylight to artificial light, air circulation, heat repartition, noise repartition, circulation ways between the rooms, loss of heating from bad isolation, heating from the sun in summer, reaction to a high wind...
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on December 12, 2005, 10:48:33 PM
Quote

I described this above.  Tie a Sheet Bend; now load the ENDS:
that is the Lapp Bend.  (that's a same-side (ends & SParts) SB, btw)(-;


I still have the feeling I do not understand you question, that I keep missing some important point.( first time I already misunderstood it : mind block about the whole notion)
I know it must be frustating for you, sorry.

I will try to answer though I do not really understand how, for the only reason you load it ( I understand :loading is  pulling strain applied ) you change its name.

To me it is a bit like :empty in the hands of the cowx-boy it is a lariat and around the neck of the straining bull it is now another knot ?

Whether you write it C6 H12 O6 or C6 (H20)6, it does not change neither that it is still sugar nor how it is used by your cells.
It only denote your "mental attitude" in conceiving of it. As a "not special coumpound" or in the other as a carbon hydrate clearly flagged as such.

Quite mystifying to me that a knot can be evoked by another name just because it is in use.
I can barely think that a "knot structure" put to 2 different usages will have 2 different names.
Intellectually I conceive this but I don't feel it inside my brain, it stay "alien".

Now I am asked to push it further : name changing with loading pattern.
I cannot understand how Sheet Bend can become Lapp Bend just by virtue of different loading.
Am i misunderstanding gravely some fine point?

I am feeling like the complete moron.

I do know that you are stating some important point, I know that I do not hold silly notions about what I am saying about structure/usage/inner working, but I cannot begin to get your point,and I cannot see how to "synthetize" both our outlooks ( not as in "making" but as opposed to "analyse", as in "making it a non-contradictory whole)

Anyone think she/he understand without any misty areas, the finer point of what I try to state, he/she is quite welcome to state it better than I did.
I will see if I recognize it "in depth".


Or is it a case changing appelations  just to differentiate the different way "pulling" ( loading) can be applied ?
Then I do not see the need for a second name, to me source of confusion: saying sheet bend in a lapp loading pattern would have been quite enough.
I cannot envision calling my upper limb one name when it is pulling and another name when it is pushing.
Well I learned something today, so a day not wasted.

Structure  to me is what you get back  if you "undo" gently the knot so has to lay it flat on a plane with all the crossings there, not one missing, not one too much.
I do not see, since loading cannot change what the crossing are ,how I will not get the same "laying flat" knot I had before loading.

If after loading the sheet bend ( and calling it lapp bend) I can get , by laying it flat again the same disposition with which I begin with : then in my view it is the same knot, unchanged.
To be another "structure", another knot, at least one crossing would have to be "changed". Frankly I cannot see how that can happen.

See here http://tinyurl.com/7djrb  (nomenclature of the extremities )
I do not see the "structure" changing whether I pull on :
A & C  or A & D or B & C or B & D or AB & C or AB & D or CD & A or CD & B or ABCD

I am quite ready to say that the "pressure points" , the "happening" inside the bend , are quite different in each of these configuration of "pulling on the extremities".
They are the same knot structure, working differently under different loadings

Whether you are lying quietly in bed or running full tilt in the woods does not change  your structure on iota ( unless accident !).
it only change what your struccture is doing, your inner functionning,( rest versus effort , base cardiac and respiratory rythm, tachypnea, hearth beating faster, glycogen and hormons being released....
Internal functionning is momentarily modified. Structure is left "unchanged".

- -

A metaphore : structure / inner functionning   === genotype / phenotype
genotype : the entire genetic library contained in the cells
phenotype : the "observable" result of the genotype being "externalized", being made manifest in the outside world.

With same genotype some quite different phenotypes can get expressed :
- thermal shock on drosophila and you get some queer wings
- temperature gradient on reptilian egs and you get a different repartition of sexes
- age or demographic modification and some fishes change sex

Same genetic structure , different inner functionning.
Say that the driver, different driving styles.

- -

Structure === say "a watch" ( not ticking yet)
Usage : as in reading the time, measuring time intervals, using as compass, using as reflecting surface to send "sun signals"...
Inner functionning as in "this watch" how it ticks, what move, how, in which order, what happen if you modify this part...." say a mecanical watch non self-winding , a self-winding one  and an electric one with hands : same usages but not same structures and not same inner functionning.

If you use it"in the manner of a good family man" as goes the judiciary saying, the structure of the house is not changed by how you use it .It is not change in "its building"  because you put the lights out early or late, or because you leave it "empty" during your vacation, or invite some friends to stay for a few days.

- -
In my world "naming" is rather for structure and then you "qualify" it for function, or for usage.


house : maison ( M. as of here )
M. de retraite  : house for the retired
M. de santé  :  house for the ailing
M. d'arrêt : a house to put under arrest ; a jail, a prison.
- -
Sorry if it "read" confused, I feel confused and making an ass of myself.
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on December 12, 2005, 10:49:16 PM
Usage and meaning again  ( Hi Brian_Grimley)

Just to insist on how quickly misunderstanding can happen when "comparison of knots are done", particularily when having "strangers" like me  coming in.



EQUIVALENT ( Webster Thesaurus : equal, duplicate, identical, indistinguishable ) :
What I find i my Cambridge dictionnary do not reaaly satisfy me : "having the same value , purposes, qualities"

I do not think that "having the same value" "having the same purposes" and "having the same qualities" are interchangeable statements.
And as far as "phenomenal" as opposed to "ideal" is concerned with knots , the more so.

Just saying "these 2 knots are equivalent to each other" is to open the door to confusion, in my view.
equivalent "in/on which comparison plane" must be stated to alleviate a bit this confusion.

SIMILAR ( Webster Thesaurus : akin, alike, analogous, comparable, corresponding ): looking or being almost but B]NOT EXACTLY[/B] the same.
looking and being are quite different concept to me ( just as what you look and your sibblings looks, and what genetics you each have are quite a different things).
To me it is not at all the same thing to say "they ARE the same" and "they LOOK the same" ( and much less they works/fucntions the same")

SAME ( Webster Thesaurus : identical, selfsame, equal, equivalent, comparable):
Not different

SUPERPOSABLE ( in French if you say : this is superposable to that then :  this = that , point to point correspondance)

ANALOG / ANALOGOUS ( Webster Thesaurus : akin, alike, comparable, similar, undifferentiated, ) :
Something which is similar OR which can be use instead of something else


IDENTICAL ( Webster Thesaurus : selfsame, equal, duplicate, identic, indistinguishable ):
exactly the same OR very similar
To me since [similar = not exactly the same] that statement above is non-sense.

I will keep only [exactly the same]


COMPARABLE ( Webster Thesaurus : like, alike, corresponding, parallele, similar, undifferenced, uniforme):
As good as, similar
Shed nothing more that "similar" then.

ASSIMILABLE TO  ( Webster Thesaurus : identification ): in French is A is "assimilable" to B  it means you can indifferently use one for the other
Assimilate : to make similar.


All this to show that precision and absence of ambiguity is not the forte of these words, doing like the snake biting its own tail!

If someone believe the above they can use anyone of these words in place of any of the others ! Not so in my mind map.

Not reassuring at all for clear interaction.
Better not go the short way : not one word but  the lenghty way : a full expression of the meaning to be transmited, I think.


One day I will learn to limit myself with just casting knots and not trying to understand anything, beyond how to throw them, sort of keep the hands and leave the brain well enough alone!
Just about to go and make some splices, to soothe my nerves. :-)
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Dan_Lehman on December 13, 2005, 08:12:38 AM
Quote

I still have the feeling I do not understand you question, ...

Yes, well, your image referred to below shows that!

Quote
I cannot understand how Sheet Bend can become Lapp Bend just by virtue of different loading.
Am i misunderstanding gravely some fine point?

I am feeling like the complete moron.

Finally, we agree.  ;D

I asked: I'm trying to understand anatomy vs. physiology/function, which I took
to be something of a distinction between form w/o loading and that WITH loading!?

Quote
If after loading the sheet bend ( and calling it lapp bend) I can get , by laying it flat again the same disposition with which I begin with : then in my view it is the same knot, unchanged.
To be another "structure", another knot, at least one crossing would have to be "changed". Frankly I cannot see how that can happen.

See here http://tinyurl.com/7djrb  (nomenclature of the extremities )
I do not see the "structure" changing whether I pull on :
A & C  or A & D or B & C or B & D or AB & C or AB & D or CD & A or CD & B or ABCD

Hmmm.  Firstly, for some reason you have added a black image here, when in fact
my words clearly say ONE image, with different ends to be loaded.  (Why show a
"Left" (Opposite)-Sided Sheet bend?  I expressly say "Same-side".  How is the bend
derived from Eskimo Bwl?  --wrong orientation (by 90deg. angle):  rotate clockwise, ...)

It is very simple:  I want to know how you regard the structure/thing you show in
red & blue, a Sheet Bend (maybe!) all of whose ends/"limbs" (we need a neutral term)
run out of sight, loading unknown, CONNECTION unknown (eye legs of a loopknot
e.g. connect themselves).  Well, I guess we need ONE color (else there is the implication
of connections/non-connections).

How does this quite general, unspecific entity fit into your scheme?
It becomes the Same-Side Sheet Bend loading AD, the Lapp Bend BC, the Bwl A-BD,
the Dutch Bwl A-BC, the Meshknot ABCD, the Becket Hitch A-CD,
and so on (w/needed material dis-/connections).
And in the Lapp Bend case, the actual geometry is markedly different in that A will be
drawn sharply back, folded.  (Though one can dress & set a Bwl somewhat like this.)
(As you can see, this General-Meshknot form if fertile with possibilities!)

Quote
Structure is left "unchanged".

--my bolding.  Is it pure structure that one has in the situation above, where the
connections & loading of "limbs" are unknown/irrelevant?
This is what I'm asking, for I see some need or desire to want to talk about knots at
this general stage--which we might decide is at some level removed from our locus
of "knot".

--dl*
====
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on December 13, 2005, 12:03:29 PM
This is  for me hopeless, I think I cannot conceive of where you are trying to lead my thinking. I feel I am falling ( and failling)  from thing misunderstood to thing totaly un-understood


Quote

your image referred to below shows that!


http://tinyurl.com/869ly  was answering why left Bwl and Eskimo Bwl are not the same, just as I understood you asked.


Quote

to understand anatomy vs. physiology/function,...distinction between form w/o loading and that WITH loading!?


In my mind:
structure imply without loading : laid flat on an horizontal plane , no dressing, no setting

As soon loading is  ( or even dressing and setting ) at play that is "physiology" not anymore basic "anatomy"


Quote

you have added a black image here, when in fact
my words clearly say ONE image, with different ends to be loaded.  (Why show a
"Left" (Opposite)-Sided Sheet bend?  I expressly say "Same-side".  How is the bend
derived from Eskimo Bwl?  --wrong orientation (by 90deg. angle):  rotate clockwise,


Black image was for me as I did the drawing like that and did not feel like doing it again so discard the left, black image.

Why an opposite sheet bend : your first post ( under as quote) did not specify and you agreed on the picture I sent.
.
Yes the derived bend is being "derived" so not in same orientation as in the eskimo Bwl. That is why I prefer "images" to words in such case.

Quote

(Consider the Sheet Bend oriented so that the bight tip is up (N =north, 12:00),
its legs thus South; the looPart ties to this by entering the tip crossing Under,
turning leftwards (West) and crossing Over the left leg and then goes back around
Under the bight legs, to continue then in anti-clockwise turning to cross Over the
bight leg, Under the earlier set part of itself, and Over the left bight leg (pointing
thus NW) ?
Call the four ends, starting at the top (N) and moving anti-clockwise as A-B-C-D.
The Sheet Bend would  be defined as tensioning A & D (ends being B&C); the Lapp
Bend ... B & C.
Do you consider these to be the same knot, anatomically?

Where do you specify "the short leg, side, of the bight ?


Quote

the structure/thing you show in
red & blue, a Sheet Bend (maybe!) all of whose ends/"limbs" (we need a neutral term)
run out of sight, loading unknown, CONNECTION unknown (eye legs of a loopknot
e.g. connect themselves).  Well, I guess we need ONE color (else there is the implication
of connections/non-connections).


Yes it is a sheet bend, the same one you "accepted" in a precedent posts, only remarking it was upside down.

...run out of sight... : it is a sheet bend so only the tails are important and are shown.
I was not speaking here of it as "a component " of a larger stucture, say a BWL, where connection ( loop for example and no change of colour since same rope ) would have to be shown.



Quote
How does this quite general, unspecific entity fit into your scheme?
...Lapp Bend case, the actual geometry is markedly different in that A will be
drawn sharply back, folded...this General-Meshknot form if fertile with possibilities!)


geometry is markedly different : not to my mind  which equate structure = static geometry.

drawn sharply back : yes : inner working, dynamic geometry, physiology to my mind.
I did say that the inner working is different from one loading pattern to the other. I just pulled on the different "extermities".
When I wrote "loading" it was in THIS sheet bend not on some other structure with it as "component".



Quote

Is it pure structure that one has in the situation above, where the
connections & loading of "limbs" are unknown/irrelevant?
This is what I'm asking, for I see some need or desire to want to talk about knots at
this general stage--which we might decide is at some level removed from our locus
of "knot"


Yes pure structure of sheet bend as whole entity and not as some component.
If you put that same "tangle" (math) in one rope instead of in two as in sheet bend then you get the bowline and that is another structure.
"one hole" more, which is a decidedly important topological criterion and "real life" difference for using.

sheet/bwl are not same structure : no way you can , using only Reidemester's move ( contrary to what can be done  with you pet ABOK#525 and Fig-Nine), you cannot go from one to the other. ( only moves accepted are "continuous" ( math sense) as in a very fine and elastic rope . No "discrete" ( math) move : cutting, joigning, flipping as flippping a page in a book to turn it.



My structure is purely staticly descriptive and for "classification", "discrimination", purposes only, not for "analysing a knot behavior under loading" or only as a theorical play, trying to see if the suencing of crossing can shed any predictive light upon the "comportement" of the knot ( I tried that with the whole serie of carrick : see here http://tinyurl.com/7ajer if you want to download L&H-Carrick comparisons.zip 660Ko  )

Sorry? But I feel that I am at the end of my tether and cannot make my conception clearer to you.
Not trying to change the world of knots, just airing my thoughts, no proselytism here, just seeking to test them.
Laying down my king, board is yours. Cheers.
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Dan_Lehman on December 14, 2005, 02:21:49 AM
Quote
In my mind:
structure imply without loading : laid flat on an horizontal plane , no dressing, no setting
As soon loading is  ( or even dressing and setting ) at play that is "physiology" not anymore basic "anatomy"

But this really isn't quite so, for you implicitly involve loading.

Quote
Why an opposite sheet bend : your first post ( under as quote) did not specify and you agreed on the picture I sent.
Where do you specify "the short leg, side, of the bight ?

I specified the labelling of knot-limbs, and the loading (A-D) for the Sheet bend.
Now, what is "the short leg of the bight"?
IT IS AN IMPLICIT INDICATION OF LOADING!   ::)
(Knots aren't really defined by relative lengths:  one can easily join two ropes with
a Sheet Bend such that the SParts are shorter than the ends.)

This is the distinction I've been driving at, that there is a general view of the knot in
which loading is removed and so equivalences at this generalized level can be found
with other knots--how we can say that the Sheet Bend & Bwl have the same structure,
or maybe we need some other term.  But I believe that we DO want to at times view
knots at this level of generalization.

Quote
If you put that same "tangle" (math) in one rope instead of in two as in sheet bend then you get the bowline and that is another structure.
"one hole" more, which is a decidedly important topological criterion and "real life" difference for using.

Hmmm, I'm unsure about how the legs of a loopknot (or the span between the tangled
parts of the Sheepshank) fit in the scheme of things.  Dick Chisholm has defined "nub"
to denote the tangled part of a knot, but this has seemed redundant of "knot",
to me, who I guess must view "extremities" as beyond the "knot" proper.

Quote
sheet/bwl are not same structure : no way you can , using only Reidemester's move ( contrary to what can be done  with you pet ABOK#525 and Fig-Nine), you cannot go from one to the other.

But you see, in the way I was thinking of structure, there is no "move"
needed, just a change of what is regarded as loaded (and in what degree, or how
things are externally connected).  (And, as for moving the Tweenie into the asymmetric
form similar to the Stevedore, I see much less likeness of "structure" there;
I've not tried to figure out crossings profiles of them.)
One will hear people utter that the Sheet Bend and Bwl have the same structure,
or same ... --well, what should it be called?

Quote
Laying down my king, board is yours. Cheers.

Can I accept this, with only a knight?

--dl*
====
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: merickson on December 14, 2005, 04:27:23 AM
I'm not going to defend that statement for two reasons. First, I advanced it as the starting point of a different way to look at "sameness" more than a studied conclusion.
Secondly, after reading this thread and thinking more about it, I don't think it is a good definition.

To answer your question, at the time I would have said that an OH knot is the same as an UH knot. (Actualy I was thinking of the Sheet Bend and Becket Bends at the time.)

My current thinking starts from the point that "sameness" in knots depends on how one thinks about them. When working back stage, I frequently run into the situation where THIS knot holds up the back drop and THAT knot holds up the lights. But even though both this and that knot would have the same ABOK number, it is important that I recognize them as "not the same".

On a different level, as I mentioned before, seeing a 3-strand Matthew Walker and a 4-strand MWK as the same is valuable at times.

My current thinking is that, given two knots A and B, consider the set {A,B}. The various relationships that {A,B} has to the rest of knotting are more important that how many elements there are in {A,B}. Those relationships change with the interests of the knotter. I realize that this sounds very stilted and incomplete. Which reflects the state of my current thinking.

If one is to tell someone "Oh no, those are different knots", it is important to include how the knots are different and why the difference is significant. In many cases, the difference can be ignored for the use to which the knots are to be put.
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: KnotNow! on December 14, 2005, 08:25:57 AM
Hi Merickson,
 You have me wondering.  Are the two knots, as used "back stage", the same knot but holding up two different parts of the theater, hence different to you or are they different knots in the structure?  Help me out.  The belaying knot that holds the "lights" is a different structure than the one that holds the "backdrop"?  I'll bet they are not.  Nor do I think they are on the ships of old.  I think (and many fine sailors will jump to the fore to correct me) that "knowing the ropes" had to do with where the rope was belayed on the pin rail or other.. and that you could tell in the dark and cold, not by the structure... but by the location on the rail... am I not correct?  So, when you are back stage... isn't the backdrop always belayed on the same "pin" or cleat and aren't the lights always on the same location.. not by the structure but by location?
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: KnotNow! on December 14, 2005, 08:46:03 AM
I think this has gotten "off thread" from the second posting.  I think Charles wanted to start a classification of knots.. not a defining.  Animals/mamals/hoofed/ungulant/horned = cows.  line/end/loop/fixed = bowlines.  Now cows can be Brown Swiss or Gurnsey or whatever and bowlines (If I can believe the 87 bolines or so proposed in Knotting Matters) can also be diverse... so maybe Charles needs more levels beyond "bowlines"... but it seems to me that what Charles was headed for was a classification.. genus, species, and all the stuff that I missed in school.  I think he intended to ask us to help develope a classification of knots.  I am sorry that it got so easily derailed.   Is it a bend?  Class it as such.  Is it a fixed Loop? Class it as such.  And I am ashamed that a fine mind as Chas should be browbeaten to resign.. tip his king.
 
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: KnotNow! on December 14, 2005, 08:58:55 AM
I may be wrong and often am but I thought that Charles was not trying to name specific knots but develope a vocabulary to help classify knots.. not define to the word "knot".  or even define a particular knot... but open the vocabulary of knotting to classify any complecation in a cord by the form, use, method, configuraion... or for all I care the color.. but lets not get tangled in our own cords and throw away the original idea... "Tentative Classification of "Knot"".. yes I know that is not what he said but I think it is what he ment.
   My point is simple:  This thread went off on a "naming" tack and  not on "classification".  Naming knots is an almost impossible task.  However classifying is not.  Bends, loops, binding, nooses, etc.. with standardized moves such as underhand, overhand, backhand and so on.  With some further effort the "common" names could become standardized, if we could come to an agreement.  After all we could agree that in the USA the "square knot" is for all others the "reef knot" and that the world wide square knot is the "good luck" knot in USA  .  Under some univerasal system.. it could be "left over right/right over left binding knot" for the reef and "four crowns" for the other "square" knot.
 I think this will never happen if we argue about eskimo bowlines.  Of course I may have missunderstood the whole post.
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: merickson on December 15, 2005, 03:30:09 AM
About the stage work example, I was giving an example where two physical instances of the same knot had to be considered as different knots. I mostly work outdoor festivals, so the regularity found on sailing ships is lacking. (Hanging banners makes outdoor festivals similar to sailing ships in other ways.)
An indoor stage, with more lines and more demands on the rigging, is a very good example of how identically tied knots cannot be thought of as the same knot. Whether they are mentally tagged by location or by function, they have to be thought of as different from each other.
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: knudeNoggin on December 15, 2005, 04:51:05 AM
Quote
I may be wrong and often am but I thought that Charles was not trying to name specific knots but develope a vocabulary to help classify knots.. not define to the word "knot".

???  You asked exactly this question earlier in this thread, and got a direct
answer from Nautile confirming that in fact it was indeed the intent:

>>> Yes Roy I had in mind to define the knot structure in a general manner.
>>> I was not addressing this or that knot or bend or hitch

Quote
the original idea... "Tentative Classification of "Knot"".. yes I know that is not what he said but I think it is what he ment.

Which is apparently to know more than he does! :o

Quote
Naming knots is an almost impossible task.  However classifying is not.  Bends, loops, binding, nooses, etc..

I think you misread the notes.  There was some difficulty in specifying some
example knots, and names were bandied about, but the point still was
to focus on this or that pair of knots and try to see how the pair might be
held to have the same or different "structure", in an effort to nail down
what was intended (by either speaker) by that word.

Classification is a good topic, too.  I think we have also a thread that began
exploring that (but not this one).

*knudeNoggin*
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: knudeNoggin on December 15, 2005, 04:52:55 AM
Quote
About the stage work example, I was giving an example where two physical instances of the same knot had to be considered as different knots. ...  Whether they are mentally tagged by location or by function, they have to be thought of as different from each other.

As with PABpres, I too don't understand what / why the difference,
unless as he suggested, it was to help locate the particular item.

"Tie the X knot just like the Y knot" would be an adequate instruction
to someone in this case, would it not?

*knudeNoggin*
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on December 15, 2005, 10:56:00 AM
HI!
H.L. MENCKEN  : "The average man does not get pleasure out of an idea because he thinks it is true ; he thinks it is true because he gets pleasure out of it"


PABPRES is absolutely right in the reading of my fundamental intent : classification.
Instead of, like the rest of us, losing sight of the forest to look only one tree, he took the "integrated view", and that allowed him to see the broad perspective.


When I answer "knot in general" it was about the very precise starting point of this topic we are inside just now, not about my deep intent.

Defining "in abstracto" what a knot can be is in my mind only a tool to be smithed. If it were not to make a tool it would be useless words juggling.
The real objective, the work, is "classification"

PABPRES took the larger view and rightly integrated 2 topics that are not really "separated".

Thanks Roy, you put me on the right track again : I was so occupied looking at where I was putting my foot that I lost the way, with a bit of help here and there.:-)

A bit of history : in fact 2 topics are on "classification"

I started "can of worms : naming knots". In it is evoked the probleme of a "knot individual file" (KIF here after - I think it was another acronym I used previuosly, will have to "clean" that) to make a sort of database.
inside this topic Dan_Lehman asked about what is a knot ?

That made me start this topic : defining knot .

Not a new thread in fact, only a paragraph following the first one, in the general topic : classifying knots. They should be read, as PABPRES seems to have done as two paragraphs in the same chapter.
I then met, thanks to Fairlead with FCB who shared his ideas which much precede mine. ( see his documentation on my web space :http://tinyurl.com/cwf3f

While trying to precise my thought I found the H & L , again only a possible tool.
That sent me on further "things to be put" in the so-called "knot individual file"

Thanks to PABPRES, I now recall what experience taught me : when one stopped "thinking" about the perfect way to do something, and actually "begin to do it", things have a way to clarify themselves.

So I will work with a method I used with success quite a few times : "consider all problems solved and start!
If only for my amusement, I will go on, this time drafting a form for the KIF. May be I will propose it one of these days.


Quote

My current thinking starts from the point that "sameness" in knots depends on how one thinks about them. When working back stage, I frequently run into the situation where THIS knot holds up the back drop and THAT knot holds up the lights. But even though both this and that knot would have the same ABOK number, it is important that I recognize them as "not the same".


In my view you are not speaking here of what the knots "are" but what they are "used for".
This distinction of function is more important than the difference in nature/name/whatever in the situation you speak about.
Nothing to do with the knots which here are only an "epi-phenomena" to the "rope needing to be used in view of getting "that effect"

Quote

On a different level, as I mentioned before, seeing a 3-strand Matthew Walker and a 4-strand MWK as the same is valuable at times.

They are not the same, I insist.
But I aggree that one can "view" them , momentarily and knowing it is in error, on a "practical" plane as : "they have the same recipe" Sure that is a useful "tool" to see them as such. ( See Jimbo)


Quote

My current thinking is that, given two knots A and B, consider the set {A,B}. The various relationships that {A,B} has to the rest of knotting are more important that how many elements there are in {A,B}. Those relationships change with the interests of the knotter. I realize that this sounds very stilted and incomplete. Which reflects the state of my current thinking.
If one is to tell someone "Oh no, those are different knots", it is important to include how the knots are different and why the difference is significant. In many cases, the difference can be ignored for the use to which the knots are to be put.


That was why, while FCB is thinking, (and did a real start), along the lines of a linear hierarchical classification akin to the one Linneaus created and that was used for so long, I would rather think more along the lines of "cladistic" classifying.
Allow for "fuzzyness" and "emptiness" that the linear do not allow.

About cladistics ( not heavy reading if really interested in subject):

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html
....Cladistics is a particular method of hypothesizing relationships among organisms. Like other methods, it has its own set of assumptions, procedures, and limitations. Cladistics is now accepted as the best method available for phylogenetic analysis, for it provides an explicit and testable hypothesis of organismal relationships.

The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of a group share a common evolutionary history, and are "closely related," more so to members of the same group than to other organisms. These groups are recognized by sharing unique features which were not present in distant ancestors. .....

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad5.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~clade/faculty/lipscomb/Cladistics.pdf

http://www.med.nyu.edu/rcr/rcr/course/phylo-cladistic.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics

I will NOT discuss the merits/demerits of cladistics. At this stage my thinking is not "practical", only "theorical, on principles".

Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Alcosinus on December 15, 2005, 07:54:35 PM
Hello Charles !!! :D

Je viens de tomber sur ton sujet et de le lire, du moins d'essayer de le lire dans ces grandes largeurs. Il me manque trop de vocabulaire hélas pour tout saisir. :-/
Mais j'ai compris en gros les gandes lignes !  :)
Je suis sincèrement désolé de répondre en français mais là encore, il me manque trop de vocabulaires pour être compréhensible par nos amis "anglois".
Tu as parfaitement raison de dire, qu'une classification un peu plus scientifique s'impose en matière de noeuds.
Certes le AKB par Ashley en fait une mais par usages ou type de noeuds, mais sans plus.
Je suis assez fasciné par ce débat dont j'ai essayé de comprendre le sens et les interventions de chacuns.
Je regrette d'avoir été si longtemps "coupé" du net car je prends le train en route avec beaucoup de lacunes.
Pourrais tu si te plait me ressituer le débat ?
Je serais moins idiot !
Par le biais de quelques uns de tes liens, j'ai vu le fabuleux travail que tu as fait. Fantastique !
Je dois t'avouer avec sincérité mon admiration.
Une chose cependant, je crois que cette classification doit être comprise de n'importe qui, dans sa langue maternelle par le biais de shémas explicites et par des mots simples.
L'aide des traducteurs, du moins dans le détail, n'est d'aucuns secours car le vocabulaire est trop technique parfois.
Peux tu s'il te plait, sans que cela ne te demande trop d'efforts traduire mon propos, celui d'un simple noueur parfois béat d'admiration devant le travail de certains sans qu'il ne puisse comprendre, le comment du pourquoi, de certains noeuds.  :o
Cela est parfois très frustrant ! >:(
Transmet également à la communauté anglo-saxonne toutes mes amitiés et mes salutations. ;D

Avec amitiés à tous et à toi en particulier,

Al


My Text translate by Nautile.
Thank's very much to you Charles.

Hello Charles !!!

I just came and read this topic, at least, the main lines of it. I am
missing too much vocabulary. But I understood the main lines.
I am truly sorry to answer in French, but then again I do not master
enough of the specialized vocabulary to be able to make me understood by
our anglophone friends.
You are right to say that a classification, more structured in a sort
of scientific way,is "a must have" in  knots.

BOK by Ashley do a classification, but by uses or by types of knots,
and no more.

I am fascinated by this debate in which I tried to follow the meaning
of each of the posters.

I regret to have been out of the Net loop for so many months and I am
now "jumping on board the moving train" with many "missing parts".
Can you give me a good resume ?
I will feel less of an idiot !
Thanks to some the links you gave, I saw the work done.
I must confess...

One thing though, I think that this classification must be made
understandable by anybody, whatever her/his mother-tongue background, by
making much use or many quite clear schematics and simples words.
On-line translators are of no use for the finer points and details with
a very technical vocabulary such as the one used at times.
Can you please, without overstretching yourself translate this post,
one by a simple knotter sometime admirative of the work of others, even
if he do not get in detail the "why and how" of some knots.
That can be quite frustrating !
Convey to the anglo-saxon community all my friendly salutations.
With "mes amitiés" to all and everyone, and to you in particular.

Al




Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Jimbo on December 15, 2005, 09:01:42 PM
Quote
Tu as parfaitement raison de dire, qu'une classification un peu plus scientifique s'impose en matière de noeuds. [...]
Cela est parfois très frustrant ! [...]
Transmet également à la communauté anglo-saxonne toutes mes amitiés et mes salutations.


Bonjour et bonne santé, Al!

I agree completely!  Any knot language needs to be easy to understand in any spoken language!  Like math, but knot.

And, on behalf of the "Anglo-Saxon community", thank you! ;D


Jimbo

OR...
Hello and Good Health, Al!

Je conviens complètement!  Il doit être facile comprendre n'importe quelle langue de noeud en n'importe quelle langue parlée!  Comme les maths, mais "knot".  

Et, au nom "de la communauté anglo-saxonne", merci!  8)


Jimbo
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Alcosinus on December 15, 2005, 10:23:25 PM
Hi Jimbo !!!  ;D

Many Thank's to you for your response in french ! ;)

Very best regards,

Al

Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on December 16, 2005, 08:42:50 PM
Hi
Glad you are back Alain.
Hey Jimbo, when are you going to post only in French?

See here  http://tinyurl.com/bmt5a
clarifying : structure ( topology) versus geometry
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on January 27, 2006, 07:10:05 PM
Hi!

Still pounding at the coconut...
Going again at structure versus geometry  leaning on these knotting diagrams (http://charles.hamel.free.fr/Mes%20Diagrammes%20Small/) .

Topology/structure = the very foundation of a "materialized knot".Without it no knotting  is possible.
Without geometry/fairing it is not a finished thing but only a careful arrangement of crossings in cordage that you get.
Simply this is usually "implicitly hidden" in the verbal instructions given to thrown a knot.

Because topology is "very visual" it is better shown by "picture/drawing/photo" than by words.
But once the structure is correctly laid the words take power again in that they are more performant for the geometrical instruction of the fairing of the knot.

Just try to get hold of a ROUVIERE if you are French or a GRAY's Anatomy if you are Anglo-saxon and try :
- to learn the anatomy of the upper limb without looking at even one part of a drawing
then
- try to learn the anatomy of the lower limb, without looking at the text but only at the detailed illustrations

and see which is easier to do! Of course, in the end you will need both PLUS to see a real anatomical piece.

As for me I will say that the only sure way to  some give instruction about a knot"over the phone"is to be "topological and diagrammatic to give simili-visual drawing instruction" : (e.g) :

Start at the south of a sheet of paper , middle of the width.
Go straight North on a 360° course for 2 inches
Turn westward on a 330° course for 1/2 inch
Turn eastward on a 30° course for 1/2 inch
Turn westward again on a 330° bearing for 1/2 inch.
Then due west on a 270° bearing for 1 inch
Then south on a 180° bearing for 1.5 inch
Then est on a 90° course for 11/10 of an inch (or as long as necessary to be able to cross in a straight line bearing 360° or due North the 3 zig-zag previously drawn.)
Then due north for 3 inches : first crossing is High/over, second in Low/under third is High/over
Done.

I have known apprentice-surgeons able to recite backwards the "words of a procedure" but absolutely unable to find their way on a real anatomical piece at the morgue!
So uniquely powerful is the "image" that only with it can "the picture be complete"!!!.

I can draw the way to throw a knot for someone with which I have no language in common and she/he will get it.
It is not so sure with words, or blind persons would be wonderfully swift tyers of complex knots with just verbal instruction!

For reference see these knotting diagrams (http://charles.hamel.free.fr/Mes%20Diagrammes%20Small/)

Granted the  Moebius diagram (http://charles.hamel.free.fr/Mes%20Diagrammes%20Small/target25.html) has no immediately perceptible "rapport" to this Moebius Turk's head (http://charles.hamel.free.fr/Mes%20Diagrammes%20Small/target26.html) but it is the simplest way to get this conversation piece "done". The Moebius strip outward appearance will come with doubling and  tripling! Yet seeing the diagram you are hard put at "imaging" the final result. Try doing this Moebius turk's head with this "structural" diagram and try another one with the " usual sort of illustration mixing structure with geometry with what when it is explained to me, appear to my mind when as "revelation of an insider secret" and "alleged global perception and knowledge"!

Still in doubt about difference of structure and geometry ?
........then  try this ABOK#2272 (http://charles.hamel.free.fr/Mes%20Diagrammes%20Small/target41.html) to get something like that (http://charles.hamel.free.fr/Mes%20Diagrammes%20Small/target42.html)

Laying the topological structure is child play with this diagram and need only 2 or 3 minutes at the most.

BUT fairing the geometry is the Devil's own job! Do you FEEL it now ?

That was with only 6 to 9 feet of 1/10" of polypropylene not 99 feet of 1/2" of hemp or manila!

IMO the sequence  is : intent, structure, geometry,use, re-evaluation. and not some "global perception/knowledge of a knot" even if the fast ( real slow in fact ) neuronal work in our brain  make it appear so.

Try to make this Oval mat (http://charles.hamel.free.fr/Mes%20Diagrammes%20Small/target6.html) using the traditional "global instruction" and then again with this analytical structure diagram (http://charles.hamel.free.fr/Mes%20Diagrammes%20Small/target5.html) .


A topological structural diagram is the "resume" of a knotting,on this resume one can apply the geometrical manoeuvers destined to give it its "faired" final aspect.
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Bill_DeWitt on March 05, 2006, 08:02:36 AM
I apologize in advance for this definition. ;)

While teaching a few children some basic knots last week I had one 8yo child who kept tangling her cords randomly and I made the mistake of saying, "That's not really a knot".

Of course one of the brighter children immediately asked, "What makes a knot a knot?"

I replied that a knot is something you make in rope for a specific purpose, which you remember how to make, and which you know how to untie your own darn self.
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: knudeNoggin on March 09, 2006, 09:33:55 PM
Quote
Of course one of the brighter children immediately asked, "What makes a knot a knot?"

I replied that a knot is something you make in rope for a specific purpose, which you remember how to make, and which you know how to untie your own darn self.

Then if you come upon knotted, er-hem, cord w/entanglements, you really cannot
know if you behold knots or mere happenstance (which might have identical
shape)!

Nautile's "first crossing is High/over, second in Low/under" or "H/L" rubs my old
"Over/Under" raw; but a compromise of "O/L" esp. in some typeface as "O/l" has a nice
obvious match to binary strings!  '01101010010101' (pronounce "oh-un-un ...") (:  ;)

(-;
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on March 10, 2006, 12:12:09 PM
  First thing : thanks for rekindling this thread.
 
 
   Witty and swift answer you gave,
   and absolutely pragmatically tailored for 8 years old
   children who like Nature " abhor the void" and will never
   let you off the hook if you do not answer one of their queries.
 
   With it they got an immediate operational 'handle' on the notion
   that cannot be faulted outright and cannot be rejected as 'in error'.
 
   Of course "they are arrangement of crossings in a malleable
   material that give it a 'relatively continued existence'...."
   would have been a silly answer for them and more than likely
   I would have fall for it!
 
   But ...
 
 
   What make a hammer a hammer ?
   It is something made in a heavy and hard matter with the intent
   of hitting something and that I know how to wield so as to do
   the job in mind without crushed some parts of myself...
 
...
   Now I am not anymore, by leaps and bounds, 8 years old, and when
   I were  still 8y I had already been quite finicky for some years
   on definitions and things never amended themselves I am sorry to say
   ( "cannot you stop with your endless questioning, even of books!"
   was a sentence I heard many time everywhere except in
   my parent's mouths   :-(  ) so I will say that :
 
   - it begs Berkeley's question : does a tree falling in a wood
   with no 'consciousness' to hear it make a noise ?
 
   So if I give you a knot that you cannot tye or cannot untie it is not a knot? ...
 
   Are knots only those you can throw AND untie yourself?
   while those I can do and not you are not knots ?
 
   Take an  absentmindedly thrown knot
   ( knotters do their 'dwindles twiddles scribblings' with cordage as other make doodles with a pencil )
   so with out 'intent : is it a knot or not ? ... ( by your definition absence of intent = no knot)
 
       In a way it is as right as to say that someone who
       do not believe in tiger cannot be eaten by one.
       Even if someone else witness the ' tiger's meal'
       and say that it was indeed a tiger the "meal and first guest"
       will go to the other side believing rightly he never was eaten by a tiger.
 
   So if one person do not remember how to make a 67B x 57L turk's head it is not a knot?  ...
 
   A knot set so hard it cannot be untied then become a a-knot
   The Gordian knot was not a knot ( could not be untied ) ,big historical enigma solved ! ;-)
 
   "Specific purpose" : the spontaneous overhand ( a knot you will agree)
   that happened in proteins or in vines or in blades of grass
   or in a bunch thin chains left dangling then are not knots.
   Well you may be right they are 'accidents'.

 
   Still... putting 'intent' and 'purpose' in a definition
   of a 'material' thing is leading fast onto the path to become
   a disciple of this French philosopher who wrote that :
   " a melon has 'ribs' because it is meant to be eaten at the family table."
   A bit too much of a leaning towards teleology, at least IMO.
   But still teleology give you hard and fast answers if what you are
   after is only "some sort of answer".  :-))

   Kind regards.
 
   PS I am still working in this topic...one day...i will...I hope...may be...  >:(
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Bill DeWitt on March 10, 2006, 03:21:25 PM
Quote
 First thing : thanks for rekindling this thread.

I love definitions.  
 
 
Quote
 
   So if I give you a knot that you cannot tye or cannot untie it is not a knot? ...

It is a "conundrum". 8-)

Of course, I had no intention of defending that definition beyond its humor value... but I begin to wonder if we might not be having a problem that is fully caused by not allowing different usages for different situations.

Many of us will allow that there can be one shape which around a spar is a 'hitch', around a larger cord is a 'bend' and around a bundle of twigs is a 'binder'. In one sense, none of these is a "knot" (they are a "hitch" etc.), in another sense they are all the same "knot", in yet another they are all different and distinct "knots".

So, to avoid having to defend a rope thrown into the air and falling down tied in a "knot", I assert that the word "knot", while used in a ropework class, adheres to my spurious definition, while other definitions apply in other situations.


 
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on March 10, 2006, 05:25:37 PM
Once again it seems that we are at Brian_Grimley's usage and meaning!

I will not repeat what I wrore at length about "mind map" names, structure and geometry,
my theorical answers to your   practical remarks
even in the guise of fun are already in this thread or in "can of worms".

Sorry to have missed the connotated conundrum,
I had the mistaken feeling you were writing seriously;
Babel effect! ;)
Though paradoxes do  tend to appear when two 'logical' planes are mixed. ???
Cheers
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Bill DeWitt on March 10, 2006, 06:15:08 PM
Quote

I will not repeat what I wrore at length

I have to admit that at many points in reading this thread, my eyes came unfocused. I plead unfamiliarity with the many terms and a calcified brain. I just went back and tried to read it again, but had to stop long enough to restore blood flow to my cerebrum. 8)

That said, I noticed that there was a discussion about classification and I wonder if something I ran into might be of some help.

The folk who solve Rubik's Cube have notation for their turns. Most use a combination of letters and symbols such as T'B2R (meaning "Top counterclockwise 90º, Bottom 180º, Right clockwise 90º). Another guy uses what (to me) seems easier to learn and remember, TaBiRo (Top Anti, bottom twIce, Right Once).

I, needing something even easier to remember, immediately translate the latter into "Take a bight in a Rope".

Perhaps if clever people develop a notation for knots which could be made pronouncable, even knots which have well established, historical names could be equiped with subtitles which not only describe their form, but which concantate into phrases which illustrate their purpose.

Off topic, I am sure.

Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: nautile on March 10, 2006, 06:40:47 PM
Hi !
I was not trying to be stern or demeaning or disparaging, it is just that I fear that I am unable to write things really differently. It would only "feed up" the rare readers still somewhat interested. Your post certainly does not show any symptoms of failing neurons and I should know!
By nature I tend to avoid being disparaging since it is not what I put in the category or "intellectual arguments", sorry if the wording used ( but then I am French! ;-) ) came out somewhat stern or rude.

Here is a 'natural' knot :
http://www.keef.net/tanner/archives/photos/vine-knot.jpg

See other 'natural' knots here:
http://www.igkt.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1130521042;start=0

Thanks for the interaction.
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Bill_DeWitt on March 10, 2006, 06:57:42 PM
Quote
Hi !
I was not trying to be stern or demeaning or disparaging,


I never imagined that you were, I hope I didn't give the impression that I was somehow offended!

I use a somewhat formal writing style which might easily be mistaken for testiness. Nothing could be further from the truth, instead, "jocular and easy going" better describe me.

(Learning to make Pineapple knots)


Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 26, 2006, 09:59:55 PM
Let's take the new query by Derek into the extant thread on this very topic.

Quote
or - 'When is a knot not a knot?'
 
Charles (Nautile) holds that a knot must be a self contained entity and cannot rely on any external help for the maintenance of its function or existence.  Yet this seems wrong to me.
...
Is this then the essence which defines a 'clever kink' as a knot?  If the kink performs the function of holding - is it a knot?
...
This brings me to the root of my post.
 
Is the object around which the hitch is made in fact part of the knot?  I believe that there is good reason to argue that it is indeed part of the knot and that this has significant implications in Defining and Indexing Knots.
I concur in your sense of involving the object.  I'll excerpt & reiterate my thinking
on "knot":

My conception for most simple things is of six classes:
 
| ON DEFINITIONS of RELEVANT TERMS FOR KNOTTING

| knot ::= A curvilinear structure that can be realized
| in one or more pieces of some flexible material(s)
| of uniform crosSection, incorporating or not some object(s),
| under tension, and independent of torsion
|
| hitch ::= A knot that joins a piece of flexible material
| to an object and is dependent upon the object for its
| structural integrity, for its shape
| or
| ::= a knot of a single PofM with an object where one
| end is tensioned
| or
| ::= A knot that joins a PofM to an object which gives
| it structural integrity, shape, where one end is tensioned
|
| loop ::= A knot that creates one or more eyes of any size,
| with one end tensioned in opposition to the eye(s)
|
| bend ::= A knot that joins two pieces of flexible material(s),
| tensioned on one end of each
|
| binder ::= a knot in a single PofM with an object where both
| ends are untensioned
|
|stopper ::= a knot of a single PofM with one end tensioned
| through an object against which the knot body is stopped
 
---------------------------------------------------------------

Let's assume (keep in mind) that we are here trying to "come to terms" by
analysis & defining-as-per-needs, NOT looking for the Trvth of some What Is.

Further, I'm coming to regard such structures as nooses--fixed or sliding--and
trucker's hitches as rope structures that involve knots, but not as knots
themselves.  And I've wondered about cases where tension is necessary for
the integrity of the knot--say, for some fixed loopknot.

We should not be terribly bothered if we find there are fuzzy boundaries,
esp. if such boundaries are rarely touched.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 26, 2006, 10:30:30 PM
To my prior definitions, I see that some cases are left out:
1) 2 PoFM with all ends loaded:  net-knot ;
2) 1 PoFm with both ends loaded:  knob
3) 1 PoFm & object w/both ends loaded:  running binder hitch?

The first is fundamental, and the "2 PoFm" is taken to mean "in effect",
regardless of whether tracing back the material in a net finds that in fact it's
one continuous PoFm--at the point of the knot, it's effectively two.  (Same
consideration applies to e.g. a rockclimber's sling, single PoFM end's joined.)

The 2nd exists as marker knots.  In a gym climbing rope (hand & foot use),
mid-line knots would be loaded this way, then qua stoppers when the climber
bore upon them, and ultimately rather unloaded.

The 3rd case exists in e.g. the binding of nets & headlines, cord run in spiral
wrap around & around and into binding knots, w/tension on the ends.
(I've a sense of "running" that takes the perspective of the material; this clashes
with e.g. "Running Bwl" where one means that the loopknot's eye runs along
the rope to make a noose structure.  Frankly, this is not a function of the Bwl,
of the knot, but of a rope structure built w/knots.)

SquareRigger stated:
Quote
 A silk scarf or sarong tied around a comely waist is a knot, but the person is not.  Does that help?  

And it does & does not; i.e., it shows a puzzle for the definitions.
If the knot in question for this sash is a Square/Reef, I'd say that the object was
involved (and knot a binder) on the initial "throw" (medical tying term),
as the pressure against the object helped hold the tension (one hopes); but on
the finishing throw, making the Square/Reef, one has tied a bend!
--which happens to hold some tension of a wrap of rope around an object.
Similarly, although "Round Turn & 2 Half-Hitches" is a common "hitch",
I now prefer to see it as a noose structure with a Clove H..  "noose hitch"
might be a good term for such common things (Scaffold knot, e.g.).
The so-called "Midshipman's Hitch" is generally regarded as a fixed loop (or one
that is adjustable between fixed points); I see it as a "noose", because it has
the same structure of a knot around the line.  (Behavior?  --well, the same
knot can change with material & force!  Hence my preference.)
So,  ... a fuzzy boundary?!

--dl*
====

Derek & SquareRigger:  Perhaps it is best if YOU each copy your full posts
from the new/short thread into this one, to keep in one place (even though
I've replied to each--I can amend my posts to point forwards ... ).
Title: Re: TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"
Post by: DerekSmith on May 27, 2006, 02:14:20 PM
No Dan, lets not joint these topics together - they are different and need to stand alone.  I hope you will look a little closer to my post in that other thread to see if you can 'see' the important difference.

Charles is, I believe, trying to define a knot by analysing its components.  A knot is a machine, and as such its components operate in both individual ways and in compound ways.  It is therefore rational to look at the components, sub components and major parts of this machine in order to understand its function.

But this approach can be limited, and starting from an altogether different point can be rewarding.

For example, take a motorbike and 'explode' its components into a three dimensional - walk through- presentation.  This is, I believe, what Charles is aiming to create.  Although you have all the components of a motorbike, and you have the potential to reconstruct a motorbike, in reality, all you have is a 'proto-motorbike'.  If you rebuild the components you have what many would recognise as a motorbike, but still you only have a machine which is capable of becoming a motorbike.

Sit on it, start it and wind back the throttle  --  WOW - so this is what all the fuss was about !!

Now you have something much-much more than that pile of components - you have the essence of the motorbike.  You have something you could never have  thought could have been contained within that pile of pieces.  You are now looking at the motorbike from a different standpoint and you are able to see and learn different things about it.  Same pile of bits, different perspective.

In order to talk the language of the knot, we must be able to understand the life, energy and the essence of the knot.  To do this we must strip away the adornments, lore and pre(mis)conceptions man has encrusted them with.  To do this we can try to look at knots from different perspectives - from different starting points - and that is the purpose of the new topic, its just one of a number of new perspectives I hope we will jointly explore.

This thread is looking at knots from the inside out.  Go to the new topic and try to keep 'outside' the knot and ask yourself - What point is Derek trying to make.  In order to learn to 'Talk Knot' I believe that we will have to take a number of 'Perspective Excursions' in order to be able to study various aspects of knot to get to the truth which has been hidden by way we have looked at knots up until now.