International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum
General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: DerekSmith on August 25, 2011, 08:10:36 PM

This topic is strictly about Practical knots.
ANY reference to Math will be reported as off topic for deletion as that is strictly Theory and Computing.
Now  where were we?...
Derek
PS Tell me  did the world just get a tiny tad more stupid or is that just my imagination?

This topic is strictly about Practical knots.
ANY reference to Math will be reported as off topic for deletion as that is strictly Theory and Computing.
Now  where were we?...
Derek
PS Tell me  did the world just get a tiny tad more stupid or is that just my imagination?
Then, maybe you should change your title, genius. "Topology" refers to mathematics when we're talking about knots.
HERE'S ANOTHER THREAD FOR THE KNOT THEORY FORUM

This topic is strictly about Practical knots.
Now  where were we?...
We were, as you well know, deliberating over this very question.
A question about (a) *practical* knot(s) about how to define one
of them; how to extend a common, venerable name/notion of one,
to other, possibly "new" knots.
.:. a question of definition(s), arguably philosophical & *theoretical*,
appropriate to a forum intended for such beyonduse aspects.
And it's an issue not in need of aggravation.
dl*
====

So, when I would say that the fig. 8 knot is topologically different from the overhand knot, I am talking about mathematics ? And the post I write should immediatelly be expelled to the "Knot heory" section ? Please, knot4u, be sensible...When I would dare to say "one", one whatever, the post I write this "mathematical" word should be send to the "Mathematical Journal" ? :)

So, when I would say that the fig. 8 knot is topologically different from the overhand knot, I am talking about mathematics ?
Yes! If someone asks you to explain how it's topologically different, you will have to use mathematical terms if you want to explain the difference efficiently and precisely.
In this case, the word "topology" is in the freakin' title. It makes no sense to have a request to discuss mathematics in the title and then later say this discussion shall not include a discussion of math. I'm annoyed I even have to explain that.

I will not try to explain to you that, to define the relation 1+1=2, Principia Mathematica needed/used 150 pages of difficult Set Theory definitions..
And was seriously *dented* by far fewer, but resounding pages
from Goedel, where Hilbert & Frege also tried hard but failed.
Yes, defining the "simple" is ... not so simple!!
(And these were bright thinkers amongst bright thinkers!)
Can you see the shaping of "knot" definitions et cetera as activities
in this realm of deliberation, distinguishable from just putting up
a knotform for consideration of (possible) practical use?
In fact, I might suggest that it is as well a fit to a "theory" (and
maybe a better name), philosophical but *beside* "practical"
heading that one simply explores the *knot space* of structures
that can be roughly conceived as points in some vast matrix,
a knot universe (multidinensioned). Some things can be stated
and projected as series: the overhand ("pretzel"), and next
a dble.overhand and so on, but then in the multiple forms one
has different orientations (anchor bend, stangle knot, ...?) of the
same topology.
Considerations of which seemingly "simple" things can quickly
be frustrating (to me, at least), as interconnections abound.
Of course, the mere mention of some aspect is not throwing
things off; that is different from where the thread topic focuses
on that aspect, in contradistinction to something "practical".
dl*
====

@knot4u
A quick tip: If you do not have something constructive to offer in a thread, don't post.
Consider this a first warning...

This topic is strictly about Practical knots.
No, it's not.
This has nothing to do with what a bowline can do, what problem it solves, or what role it fills. This is a transparent attempt to circumvent the decision of the moderators and forum members.
I didn't report the first thread on this, but I'm reporting this thread... as should anyone who's tired of the Practical Knot board getting hijacked, either accidentally, or in this case, on purpose.

Hi Derek
Please would you demonstrate the practical nature of this thread so that everyone can see the discussion move forwards?
Regards
Glenys

Hi Derek
Please would you demonstrate the practical nature of this thread so that everyone can see the discussion move forwards?
Shouldn't the first post do that?
Here's what it says:
What defines a Bowline?  structure, characteristics, topology
...copy and pasted from the offending thread (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.msg19323#msg19323).
Then, if there was any doubt (which there isn't really), we get:
Now  where were we?...
>:(

This topic is strictly about Practical knots.
Derek.
Would you be amendable to editing the topic title to say "What defines a Bowline?  structure, characteristics, topology: a practical perspective?". This may help to distinguish this practical discussion from the other theoretical one for those who use the Show unread posts since last visit to scan new posts/topics.

Can you see the shaping of "knot" definitions et cetera as activities in this realm of deliberation, distinguishable from just putting up a knotform for consideration of (possible) practical use?
If you are asking me, of course I do ! However, both activities have to do with Practical knots, and not Decorative Knots, or Mathematical Knots. ( I think that those three divisions should stay distinct : Practical, Decorative, Mathematical) So, both activities should be explicitly labeled as activities that have to do with Practical Knots. They may be considered as two subcategories of the same Practical Knots Section, or two different sections, but sections relating to Practical knots, for KnotGod s sake !
the *knot space* of structures ...can be roughly conceived as points in some vast matrix,
a knot universe (multidimensioned). Some things can be stated and projected as series...
For Practical Knots, I do not think that the matrix would be vast. Also, I do not think that the dimensions/orientations would be so many, or the series would have so many members. In fact, I have seen that, if we stay within the limits of some reasonable complexity dictated by the "practicality" of a knot, this "knot space" is already explored, more or less, and it is within our mental abilities to fully grasp it. Practicality itself seem to put an upper limit on the number of interconnections, within the abilities of the human minds, organised in a collaborating community. I dare to say this because I have tied many "new" knots and I have tried many alterations/modifications of old "ones", and I have seen that you only have to make one step, just one step, and suddenly your knot becomes too complex, so it is not Practical any more ! I reckon that the number of ALL possible Practical knots would be only one order of magnitude bigger than of the already known ones. With the proper computer tools, i.e. software programs, the mapping of this Practical knot space would be a matter of months, or even weeks ! ( I could not think or say something like this for the Decorative knots, of course ! There, the space is vast, indeed ! )

This topic is strictly about Practical knots.
Derek.
Would you be amendable to editing the topic title to say "What defines a Bowline?  structure, characteristics, topology: a practical perspective?". This may help to distinguish this practical discussion from the other theoretical one for those who use the Show unread posts since last visit to scan new posts/topics.
Good suggestion Mel, but it would not fit into the title bar, so I shortened it a little.
Derek

Please would you demonstrate the practical nature of this thread so that everyone can see the discussion move forwards ?
Would you be amendable to editing the topic title to say "What defines a Bowline?  structure, characteristics, topology: a practical perspective?".
Where is this thing written as a rule ? That we have to demonstrate(sic) that a knot is practical, in order to publish it in the Practical Knots section ? That we have to "state a specific application of this knot ", in advance, in the first post, in order to be able to post a picture of it ? Who is going to judge if this "demonstration" is valuable/adequate or not ? Are we going to "vote" each time? Are we going to replace the farce of "voting", by the farce of "demonstration of practicality"? If I do a photoshop fake picture, with a bend where the one end is tied on roo s neck, and the other on knot4u foot, would this be an acceptable demonstration of an application of this bend, a "proof " that this bend is a Practical indeed? Should we declare we are not terrorists, or infected by a catching disease, each time we are going to publish something in this forum ? What is happening ? Is this Forum falling apart or something ? It would be a pity...and a GREAT farce, if the king of Practical knots, the bowline, would be the cause of such a sad end...WebAdministrator, tear down this wall that threatens to separate us for ever ! Stop this madness, make all the sections one, and let all flowers to blossom !

make all the sections one, and let all flowers to blossom !
There's already an anythinggoes forum. It's the ChitChat section.
I don't understand this obsessive desire to treat the Practical Knots section like another ChitChat section. Does the Decorative Knot forum get hijacked as much?
P.S. We'll be waiting a long time to see any practical knotting solutions coming out of this deliberately misplaced thread.

Hi Derek
Please would you demonstrate the practical nature of this thread so that everyone can see the discussion move forwards?
Regards
Glenys
I would love to Glenys, but this topic has been utterly hijacked by posters hell bent on destroying it. Surely behaviour such as this cannot be tolerated. This is bully tactics of the very worst form and I am astounded that it is being allowed to continue.
I do not find it acceptable that one member can define what is, or is not, permitted on this board, and then hijack anything they deem to be unacceptable or bears a title they object to.
I fear that any further posting will simply antagonise an already impossible situation so I will withdraw from posting while you and the moderators decide how we can go forward.
Derek

P.S. We'll be waiting a long time to see any practical knotting solutions coming out of this misplaced thread.
I am not going to ask your opinion each time I will decide to publish something I judge as a Practical Knot, to the Practical Knot forum. I know better than you if the knot I am gong to publish is a Practical Knot or not, I know better than you what a Practical knot is, and I know many more Practical knots, or knots in general, than you ! If you own the place, it is time to prove it. Set up another "voting" farce, and move ALL my knots and pictures and posts to the "Knot Theory" forum, or wherever you think they belong  because you repeatedly have said that those knots I post are not Practical Knots.
Go on, I will NOT be waiting a long time, listening your nonsense ! You think you own the place, and you own the sacred practicality that I am trying to pollute...Prove it ! If the removal I suggest will be complicated, try your other beloved solution : Ban me from the Forum, indefinitely !

P.S. We'll be waiting a long time to see any practical knotting solutions coming out of this misplaced thread.
I am not going to ask your opinion each time I will decide to publish something I judge as a Practical Knot, to the Practical Knot forum.
This intentionally misplaced thread isn't about any of your offerings.
Ban me from the Forum, indefinitely !
Come now, xarax, you don't want that. The moderators would get so bored. ;)

This topic is strictly about Practical knots.
Derek.
Would you be amendable to editing the topic title to say
"What defines a Bowline?  structure, characteristics, topology: a practical perspective?".
This may help to distinguish this practical discussion from the other theoretical one
for those who use the Show unread posts since last visit to scan new posts/topics.
Really, now, let's keep track of the debate : it is precisely DEFINING
that is the subject issue (regardless of definging WHAT), and the
exercise of exploring definitions is a philosophical one, aside
from any practical aspects. The suggested change is no change
at all it completely misses the point.
dl*
====

I agree with the title change to take out the word "topology". You know you didn't have to pay attention to my nonconstructive posts above, right?

Really, now, let's keep track of the debate : it is precisely DEFINING
that is the subject issue (regardless of definging WHAT), and the
exercise of exploring definitions is a philosophical one, aside
from any practical aspects. The suggested change is no change
at all it completely misses the point.
+1

@roo: Will you please stop reporting posts as offtopic.

@knot4u
A quick tip: If you do not have something constructive to offer in a thread, don't post.
Consider this a first warning...
This should be a private message. By the way, the original poster changed the title because of the point I made regarding mathematics.

@knot4u
A quick tip: If you do not have something constructive to offer in a thread, don't post.
Consider this a first warning...
This should be a private message. By the way, the original poster changed the title because of the point I made regarding mathematics.
No  the original poster (me) changed the title because of all the off topic noise, in the hope that we could then get on with the discussion. I see that this is now further compromised because Dan doesn't even like the word 'define' in a title of a Practical Knot thread.
I give up, and have agreed with Mel to shut this thread down until some sanity returns to you all.
Derek

I give up,...
Welcome to the camp of black sheeps, or black wolves ! :)