International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: alpineer on August 15, 2013, 08:33:10 AM

Title: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 15, 2013, 08:33:10 AM
I have found a simple way out of the Bowline front/rear view mess, at least for myself. Before sharing it I'd like to describe it's properties and the resolution provided for regarding Bowline aspect views, which are also inclusive of the Sheet Bend:

intrinsic to the knot
reference to tying method, personal viewing perspective, or spatial orientation is not required to define the aspect views in question
re-labelling of traditional front/rear views is not required 
resolves to satisfaction all arguments put forth in the DEAD THREAD

The Nipping Turn is the key element which can unequivocally define the two aspect views in question. We need only to refer to the intrinsic over/under-handedness of the Nipping Turn to know which view of the Bowline is being shown or referred to. All external other references are superfluous.

The terms proposed are "underhand view" and "overhand view".
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 15, 2013, 08:52:32 AM
   Surprize !  :)
 
   I agree !

   Read another reason why this proposal makes sense, indeed :

  Here is an "underhand" tying  method, based on an "underhand grip" of the line before we form the nipping turn, by twisting the left hand 180 degrees  towards the ergonomically easy clock-wise direction , and feed the nipping turn with the end of the line held by the right hand.
 
   ( 0. High bar grips  : Overhand grip / underhand grip. )

   1. Palms facing you, left hand s thumb pointing left, right hand s thumb pointing right.
   2. Line laying ON the palms, held by an "underhand grip", so that the end /Tail is near the right hand - it is the right hand which is going to feed the working end into the nipping turn, because most people are right-handed ( I believe that nobody would deny this ! )
   3. The right hand s wrist makes an ergonomically easy clock-wise 180 degree turn, so the line in between the two palms goes "under" the Standing end.
   4. The right hand feeds the end of the line into the nipping turn , from "above"/"up to "below"/down. Then, it can release its grip on the line, because the end of the line can remain in place, hanging on the rim of the nipping turn, the end / Tail from the one side, the tip of the eye from the other, and  the line pointing to the left.
   5. Now the right hand is free to move and grab the line again, from the part beyond the rim of the nipping turn, i.e. the part in between the nipping turn and the end. So, it can now force the end / Tail to make a U turn around the Standing end, i.e. to form a collar.
   6. After it has formed the collar, the end / Tail can be driven by the right hand through the nipping turn again, this time from "below"/down to "above" / up,  and can be released again hanging on the nipping turn s rim, as before, but now pointing the line pointing to the opposite  direction, to the right.
   7. The right hand is again free to release its grip on the line, and it is free to move, and grab both, now, segments of the line, the Tail and the eye leg of the Tail, and start pulling them, so the collar will move towards the crossing point of the nipping turn.

  "Underhand grip view / overhand grip view" , now simplified by alpineer as "underhand view / overhand view" of the bowline. These labels can also be considered as able to describe, in the "underhand view" case, a particular tying method that forms the nipping turn by an ergonomically easy 180 degrees twist of the left hand to form the nipping turn, on the one hand, and an active participation of the right hand, which is feeding the working end into the nipping turn two times, and forms the collar in the mean time, on the other.

   Visit the Google Images to see what the "overhand grip" and the "underhand grip" is, imagine a line in place of the high bar, imagine an underhand grip, imagine the end of this line near the right hand, imagine the left hand making a clock-wise 180 degrees turn, imagine the right hand feeding the end of the line into the formed nipping turn from above/up to below/down, and then use what will be left from your imagination to figure out the rest !  :)

   Congratulations, alpineer. Your previous twistings were ironed out by this straightforward idea.
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 15, 2013, 08:38:45 PM
Except that "under-/over-hand" are terms that assume
a particular *direction* of flow of the knotted material,
and that presumes that someone will understand this
--the assumption and which direction in particular is at hand.
I don't hold out hope for such nomenclature's success.
(Tying the bowline as a climber does to tie-in could
well see the *flow* running away --as is seemingly in
agreement with the quick-tie method, then--; and it
would be odd otherwise that my preferred reach-under=
with-working-end-hand method should yield an "overhand"
view!)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 15, 2013, 09:51:42 PM
   Which of the two view will be called "overhand" and which "underhand" is of secondary importance only - if it is of any importance at all ! The interesting thing is that this distinction forces us to pay attention to the "over" / "under" relation of the two limbs of the nipping turn, which is the main component of the bowline. If we wish to label the so-called "front" view as "overhand" view, we will say that this view is based on a nipping turn of such a handedness, and placed in such a orientation relatively to the viewer, that result in the eye leg of the Standing part going "over" the Standing end. If we wish to label it as "underhand view", we will say that in this view the nipping turn is such that the Standing end goes "under" the eye leg of the Standing part. Same thing with the so-called "rear" view.
  The great advantage of this nomenclature is that it uses established knotting terms, which are related to the "under" / "over" relation of some segments of the rope itself, as shown by the viewer - and that these segments are the limbs of the most important component of the bowline, the nipping turn. If we decide how we will label each of the two views, then we will see if we can add more meanings on this characterization, to make the life of the viewer easier : perhaps the Standing end goes "over" or "under" the collar, or the eye leg of the Standing part goes "over" or "under" the first rim of the nipping turn it meets, etc. The terms "over" and "under" are much better than the terms "front" and "back", which are 1. purely conventional, and , 2, denote a preference of the "front" in relation to the  "rear" view, which is a debatable issue. The "front" view is called "front" because it is seen more often by the knot tyers who tie the bowline more often in the way shown by the "front" view - the vicious-est circle of all !!  !  :)  On the contrary, the terms "over" and "under" turn the attention to the shown knot, in general, and to its most important element, the nipping turn, in particular. If we agree to use this pair of opposite terms, it would be easy to decide which name of the two, the "over" or the "under" it would be better to connect with the so-called "front" and/or the so-called "rear" view.
   The only problem I see with this solution, is that it will force us to label the "Eskimo" bowlines in the opposite way we should had liked to do - but this is of secondary importance, because in the best forms of the "Eskimo" bowlines, in the so-called "front" view, the pair of the legs of the bight component does not hide the area around the crossing point of the nipping turn so much as it does in the "Common" bowline. Let us resolve the corundum in the case of the "Common" bowline, where the problem is much more severe, and we will see what we will do in the case of the ( four variations of the ) "Eskimo" bowlines.
   The "overhand view" / "underhand view" pair has my vote - independently of what it is meant by the "over" and/or the "under" : the Standing end "over" the eye leg of the Standing part, or the opposite, or vice versa. So, independently of which term of the pair "over" / "under" will be decided to correspond to which term of the pair " front" view / "rear" view we use till now, this distinction will make sense, and it will be easy implemented - without any need to be based on vicious cycles of "often-seen-views" seen by "often-used-tying-methods" that use those views, so the knot is seen more often as such because it is tied more often as it is seen more often, etc, ad perpetuam !
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 16, 2013, 07:39:11 AM
   
  The only problem I see with this solution, is that it will force us to label the "Eskimo" bowlines in the opposite way we should had liked to do

It's not a problem. The state of the Nipping Turn (underhand or overhand) is the label. It is what it is. The medium is the message. 
The greater disconnect comes with such terms as "front/rear" which assume an understanding by the reader beyond any intrinsically described property of the knot.
 
     

Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 16, 2013, 08:44:22 AM
   So what do you see in the attached picture ? Two "overhand" views of "Common" bowlines, and two "underhand" views of "Eskimo" bowlines ? ( Or the exact opposite, which can also be a legitimate convention ).
   If we agree on this, then the question which view we should chose for which purpose ( if we have to show one only view ) would be a debatable issue - but a well defined one ! One can say : " I prefer this view, because that is how most people tie the bowline - although I can not really explain why they do it like this..." Or one can say : "I prefer this view, because I am accustomed to this view, and the tying method(s) that correspond to this view, and I do not plan to learn new tricks in this life" ! Or, " I prefer this view, because one can easier see the area around the nipping turns crossing point in this view, rather than in the "other" view, and I believe this is important, because it is important to show the most important part of the bowline. " Or even " I prefer this view, because in my human and male brain this view is an atavistic view that has been implanted by the fearful view of snakes which curl their body like this on the ground, in order to be able to extend it and catch the mice with their mouth, which lies at the end of it, at an instant - just as in the human and female brain there is this fearful view of the mice ..."  :)
   Overhand view of bowline / underhand view of the bowline : sooo much better than the "front" view of the bowline  / "rear" view of the bowline ! I can not estimate the odds this nomenclature will be established or not in the future, of course, because (only) God knows what will happen in the future ! ( That is why we label Him as "God" ).
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 17, 2013, 01:16:49 AM
   So what do you see in the attached picture ? 
From left to right: underhand view, overhand view, underhand view, overhand view.
 
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: James Petersen on August 17, 2013, 02:22:13 AM
   So what do you see in the attached picture ? Two "overhand" views of "Common" bowlines, and two "underhand" views of "Eskimo" bowlines ? ( Or the exact opposite, which can also be a legitimate convention ).
 
I must be missing something, because I don't see any "common/right-handed" bowlines. The blue ones look to me like left-handed bowlines.

What I do see is four knots where, starting from the tag end, you see the the line descend through the TurNip (the bunny dives into the hole), pass around a leg of the loop or the standing end (the bunny goes around a root),  and emerge back out of the turNip ( the bunny comes back out of the hole). This is what I referred to in the other thread, may it rest in peace, as the descending/root view (as opposed to the ascending/tree view). In other words, four knots where the crossing point of the TurNip is closest to the viewer.

-- J:P
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 03:43:45 AM
So what do you see in the attached picture ? 
From left to right: underhand view, overhand view, underhand view, overhand view.

So be it.
At the end of the day, we had not called the "Eskimo" bowlines "anti"-bowlines for nothing !
The so-called "front" and "rear" views are dead. Long live the "overhand view" and the "underhand view" !
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 04:15:42 AM
I don't see any "common/right-handed" bowlines.

The clock-wise and the counter-clockwise directions the working end forms the collar ( in relation to a particular view ) do not alter the "over"- or the "under"- handedness of the knot - and that is right to be so.

What I do see is four knots where ...you see ...the bunny dives into the hole...the bunny goes around a root),... the bunny comes back out of the hole

   If I were the bunny, I would nt be so glad with all those pythons hanging around !  :)

What I do see is four knots where...the crossing point of the TurNip is closest to the viewer.

  This is another way to see those knots, indeed, which is also unambiguously defined, and does not denote a preference for the one or the other view. We have first to label the two views in a knot / knot-viewer depended way ( and not in a knot / knot-tyer depended way ), and only afterwards to proceed to the next step, where we will discuss which of the two twin views we will prefer, in the case we will have to marry only one of them.
   It is true that the ascending view / descending view labelling/distinction describes in a perhaps more easily recognizable way the relation between the nipping turn and the bight component - but if we wish to label the knots based on the handedness / orientation of the nipping turn only ( from which the nipping turn / bight component relation follows automatically ), because it is the nipping turn which is the main component of the bowline, the overhand view / underhand view labelling/distinction is better.
     
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: James Petersen on August 17, 2013, 04:21:31 AM
So what do you see in the attached picture ? 
From left to right: underhand view, overhand view, underhand view, overhand view.

So be it.
At the end of the day, we had not called the "Eskimo" bowlines "anti"-bowlines for nothing !
The so-called "front" and "rear" views are dead. Long live the "overhand view" and the "underhand view" !
As much as I hate to marginalize the rabbit, I have to agree that the OP's solution works, and works well.

However I am not sure that the terms "overhand" and "underhand" are the best due to the potential confusion about what constitutes an "overhand" and an "underhand" knot. I think it might be best to keep "hand" out of it. Since from each of the perspectives of the bowline commonly photographed, moving into the knot from the standing end, the line passes either over or under itself to create the TurNip, might something like "overpass" (intentionally avoiding "passover") and "underpass" (intentionally not using "passunder" because I avoided "passover"), while not sounding as nice, be clearer?

This small issue aside, count me in.

Well done alpineer.

-- J:P
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: DDK on August 17, 2013, 04:23:42 AM
Could someone succinctly describe the conundrum that has been solved? 

In the meantime, I would like to suggest that the use of the concept of handedness to differentiate views is confusing since "views" do not have a handedness.  What I mean by this is that every view of a right-handed screw shows a right-handed screw, be it the top, bottom, front or back view.

Every view of a right-handed Right Hand Bowline shows a right-handed Right Hand Bowline, be it the top, bottom, front or back view.
Every view of a   left-handed Right Hand Bowline shows a   left-handed Right Hand Bowline, be it the top, bottom, front or back view.

It appears that what you call handedness is actually, whether the SPart at the crossing point of the round turn is closest to the viewer (back view) or not (front view).  You have picked different names.  I would suggest Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, but, thats just me, just kidding.  Abbott and Costello on the other hand(edness) . . .

DDK
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 04:53:09 AM
   I would like to suggest that the use of the concept of handedness to differentiate views is confusing since "views" do not have a handedness. 

  I think it might be best to keep "hand" out of it.

  I believe that nobody had spoken about the handedness of the nipping turn alone, per se, but only about its handedness AND its orientation relatively to the viewer. The handedness does not change, and the "front-ness" does not change, either - but how the nipping turn looks like is related to its handedness AND its orientation ( "front"-ness / "rear"-ness ), in relation to the viewer. In fact, I was very careful to state this explicitly, because I know how easily people misunderstand what other people say in this Forum :

... a nipping turn of such a handedness, and placed in such a orientation relatively to the viewer, that result in the eye leg of the Standing part going "over" the Standing end.

Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 05:08:16 AM
However I am not sure that the terms "overhand" and "underhand" are the best due to the potential confusion about what constitutes an "overhand" and an "underhand" knot.

  There is no confusion whatsoever about this among knot tyers - or there should not be any confusion about this among knot tyers !  :)
  If/when the python coils itself so its head and the part of its body after the head which forms the first wrap is placed "over"  / on top of the other wraps, the python is an "overhand" python !  :) ( We should mention that, evidently, an "overhand" python catches the mouse more easily, because it is easier for the snake to un-coil, straighten and extend this first wrap at an instance, and swallow the mouse - if the wrap with the head was lying "under" the other wraps of its body, i.e. if it was adjacent to the ground, it would be more difficult, because moving the head and the first wrap which would have been squeezed under the weight of the other wraps, would be more difficult, too ...)
   Personally, I like the "knotting" terms "overhand" / "underhand" be used also in the case of the nipping turn of the bowline, as they are used in the case of the overhand knot ! I see it as an advantage of the proposed nomenclature, that removes the ambiguity of the terms "front" and "back". Topology does not play any role here, it is the relation of the continuation of the Standing end to the continuation of the eye leg of the Standing part, and their meeting at the crossing point of the nipping turn that is described by this, not the topology of the nipping turn itself.
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: DDK on August 17, 2013, 05:45:10 AM
   I would like to suggest that the use of the concept of handedness to differentiate views is confusing since "views" do not have a handedness. 

  I think it might be best to keep "hand" out of it.

  I believe that nobody had spoken about the handedness of the nipping turn alone, per se, but only about its handedness AND its orientation relatively to the viewer. The handedness does not change, and the "front-ness" does not change, either - but how the nipping turn looks like is related to its handedness AND its orientation ( "front"-ness / "rear"-ness ), in relation to the viewer. In fact, I was very careful to state this explicitly, because I know how easily people misunderstand what other people say in this Forum :

... a nipping turn of such a handedness, and placed in such a orientation relatively to the viewer, that result in the eye leg of the Standing part going "over" the Standing end.

Oh I see.  When the round turn is oriented such that one is looking at the front view, the SPart at the crossing point is in the background.  If one turns the knot to its back view, then the SPart at the crossing point is in the foreground.  So by rotating the knot 180 degrees that which was in the background comes to the foreground and vice versa and things look different (fore vs. back).  What I'm missing is that this sounds rather similar to the situation prior to the proposal of the new labels (under vs. over).  I'll be interested to hear what the conundrum is and how this solves it. 

DDK
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 17, 2013, 08:35:47 AM

Oh I see.  When the round turn is oriented such that one is looking at the front view, the SPart at the crossing point is in the background.  If one turns the knot to its back view, then the SPart at the crossing point is in the foreground.  So by rotating the knot 180 degrees that which was in the background comes to the foreground and vice versa and things look different (fore vs. back).  What I'm missing is that this sounds rather similar to the situation prior to the proposal of the new labels (under vs. over).  I'll be interested to hear what the conundrum is and how this solves it. 


Hi DDK,
You haven't quite grasped the simplicity of this idea yet. You need refer only to the Loop that makes up the Nipping Turn to differentiate the two particular aspects of the Bowline (any bowline) being considered. A Loop is both underhand and overhand simultaneously, but because in our special case the viewer sees only one side of that Loop at a time, it presents itself as either underhand or overhand. Once this has been established that's all the information you need to determine which side/view of the Bowline you are looking at. No further references of any sort are necessary.
Note also that here the terms underhand and overhand are applied specifically to describe a particular view of the knot and not the knot itself.
     
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: James Petersen on August 17, 2013, 09:05:59 AM
...
  If/when the python coils itself so its head and the part of its body after the head which forms the first wrap is placed "over"  / on top of the other wraps, the python is an "overhand" python !  :) ( We should mention that, evidently, an "overhand" python catches the mouse more easily, because it is easier for the snake to un-coil, straighten and extend this first wrap at an instance, and swallow the mouse - if the wrap with the head was lying "under" the other wraps of its body, i.e. if it was adjacent to the ground, it would be more difficult, because moving the head and the first wrap which would have been squeezed under the weight of the other wraps, would be more difficult, too ...)
...
But aren't we talking about the tail end that is going over or under. Your python must be very talented indeed to catch the mouse (or rabbit) with its tail!  :o ::)

-- J:P
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 10:14:52 AM
When the round turn is oriented such that one is looking at the front view, the SPart at the crossing point is in the background.

No.
When the nipping turn ( not the "round turn : a nipping turn is a round turn which compresses the segments of rope that penetrate it - we do not call nipping turn the turn around a pole, or a bight where the two legs meet each other at a 180 degrees angle ) is oriented in a particular way, AND the viewer is looking at it from a particular side, the SPart at the crossing point is in the foreground.
No "front" view ! There is no "front" view !
No orientation such that one is looking at the "front": view ! The orientation of the nipping turn can not dictate the side from which the viewer views it, or vice versa ! 

If one turns the knot to its back view

No "back" view ! There is no "back" view ! Moreover, THERE IS NO BACK VIEW THAT IS INTRINSIC / BELONGS TO THE KNOT, as it is implied by this "to its back view"(sic).

Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 10:21:37 AM
A Loop is both underhand and overhand simultaneously, but because in our special case the viewer sees only one side of that Loop at a time, it presents itself as either underhand or overhand.
Note also that here the terms underhand and overhand are applied specifically to describe a particular view of the knot and not the knot itself.

Well said. However, I can say it even better !  :) :)
A Loop per se is both underhand and overhand simultaneously.  :)
The terms underhand and overhand are applied specifically to describe a particular view of the knot by the knot tyer and not the knot per se. :)
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: SS369 on August 17, 2013, 01:00:25 PM
In regards to the nipping turn, the central component of the bowlines, perhaps here the use of overlay and underlay can be more appropriate than a handedness, which can be then used for the complete knot's descriptor.
Example: Right hand bowline using an overlay nipping turn.

SS
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 01:33:30 PM
  JP and SS369, do not be afraid of the "overhand" / underhand" names. They do NOT denote handedness ( chirality , from Greek cheir ( χειρ ) = chir = hand ) ! Overpass/underpass and overlay/underlay are fine terms, but the overhand/underhand are knotting terms  :), and they are very well known and understood by knot tyers.
   Do not confuse them with the topology of the "overhand knot" or the "underhand" knot ! Topology is not described in knotting : does the name "fig. 8 knot" tells anything about the topology of this knot ? Or the name fFig. 9 knot" ? The adjectives do not denote the topology of the knots, never, so why knot tyers would understand something different in this case ?
   The hugfish ties and unties its body into overhand knots ( or underhand knots, depending on the side you look at this thing !  :) ), but I am not aware of cases where snakes, in general, or pythons, in particular, are coiled like this...Still, they do coil themselves, so there are overhand and underhand pythons coiled on the ground, topologically equivalent to the unknot. :)
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 01:41:51 PM
But aren't we talking about the tail end that is going over or under. Your python must be very talented indeed to catch the mouse (or rabbit) with its tail!  :o ::)

The Tail of the eye-knot is the head of the python ( the front part of the working end / of the body, as it moves through space to form the knot / to eat the mouse ). The far end of the rope / the tail of the python is not accessible to the knot tyer / mouse, the near end / mouth on the head is...
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: James Petersen on August 17, 2013, 02:46:08 PM
But aren't we talking about the tail end that is going over or under. Your python must be very talented indeed to catch the mouse (or rabbit) with its tail!  :o ::)

The Tail of the eye-knot is the head of the python ( the front part of the working end / of the body, as it moves through space to form the knot / to eat the mouse ). The far end of the rope / the tail of the python is not accessible to the knot tyer / mouse, the near end / mouth on the head is...
not head
tail
python catch mouse with tail
talented python
grog have two left hands
left hand from front
left hand from back
grog eat rabbit with left hand
grog afraid of python
talented python
catch mouse with tail

(brain hurt yet?) :) ;)

-- J:P
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: DDK on August 17, 2013, 02:50:50 PM
Hi DDK,
You haven't quite grasped the simplicity of this idea yet. You need refer only to the Loop that makes up the Nipping Turn to differentiate the two particular aspects of the Bowline (any bowline) being considered. A Loop is both underhand and overhand simultaneously, but because in our special case the viewer sees only one side of that Loop at a time, it presents itself as either underhand or overhand. Once this has been established it is all the information you need to determine which side/view of the Bowline you are looking at. No further references of any sort are necessary.
Note also that here the terms underhand and overhand are applied specifically to describe a particular view of the knot and not the knot itself.

The process you have described has already been used, that is, referring to only one part of the knot.  Historically, and correct me if I'm wrong, the crossing point of the rope (irregardless of the section of rope which is entering the collar, but, usually the SPart) with the collar has been used to specify the view.  That is, if the collar is in the background, then the view has been called "Front", etc.   

As far as I can tell, no further references are necessary for the historical process and I think it is easy to understand and remember.  In other words, when one says he is looking at the front of a bowline, the view one is discussing is completely understood.  I'm anticipating the explanation of the conundrum here.  Since we are discussing views, I'm guessing that communicating to others what view is being discussed is part of the conundrum.  The historical process seems more straightforward to me.

DDK
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: DDK on August 17, 2013, 03:11:50 PM
I feel that much is being made of the fact that left-handed and right-handed configurations can be described in such a way that one is referring to the "same" side.  Consider that mirror images have such a property.  This property can readily be described as and is identical to: that which is in the foreground, stays in the foreground for its mirror image.  Some like to refer to this as "Front" or "Back".

DDK

edit:  at the risk of pointing out the obvious, the symmetry of a mirror plane has implications for the exact relationship of the structure of mirror images as well as the exact relationship of the directionality of their performance. 
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: James Petersen on August 17, 2013, 03:24:14 PM
...
The process you have described has already been used, that is, referring to only one part of the knot.  Historically, and correct me if I'm wrong, the crossing point of the rope (irregardless of the section of rope which is entering the collar, but, usually the SPart) with the collar has been used to specify the view.  That is, if the collar is in the background, then the view has been called "Front", etc.   
...
The issue is/was: Why "front". Whose front. The front of what. In its proposed use, overhand/underhand clearly denote what you are viewing based on the knot itself, not a view that someone at some time arbitrarily decided to call "the front view". Using a set of terms such as "collar view" and "throat view" might be just as valid, in which case, all the pictures that xarax posted in reply #5 would be "collar views".

-- J:P
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 03:31:43 PM
That is, if the collar is in the background, then the view has been called "Front", etc. 

Wrong. In many secure bowline variations, the collar can be twisted in relation to the plane of the nipping turn. If it is twisted 90 degrees, it will not be in the background, it will be on the "left" or the "right" side of the Standing end.
The bight component, and especially its collar, is not the main component of the bowline. It makes sense, indeed, to have a distinction of the different views based on the orientation of the main component of the bowline, the nipping turn, in relation to the viewer.

...when one says he is looking at the front of a bowline, the view one is discussing is completely understood.

...and ALL the rest, all the workings of the bowline, are completely misunderstood ! So, people reached the point to believe the so-called "front" view of the bowline is "intrinsic" to it, i.e., that it is a characteristic of the bowline per se. It is a small step to reach the second misconception, that there is ONE God-given tying method ( or group of tying methods ), which are connected to only ONE view of the bowline, and which view, by God s will, is this God-given so-called "front" view.
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: DDK on August 17, 2013, 04:04:09 PM
...
The process you have described has already been used, that is, referring to only one part of the knot.  Historically, and correct me if I'm wrong, the crossing point of the rope (irregardless of the section of rope which is entering the collar, but, usually the SPart) with the collar has been used to specify the view.  That is, if the collar is in the background, then the view has been called "Front", etc.   
...
The issue is/was: Why "front". Whose front. The front of what. In its proposed use, overhand/underhand clearly denote what you are viewing based on the knot itself, not a view that someone at some time arbitrarily decided to call "the front view". Using a set of terms such as "collar view" and "throat view" might be just as valid, in which case, all the pictures that xarax posted in reply #5 would be "collar views".

-- J:P

I don't see how the historical method is not based on the knot itself.

Also, as described in the previous dead thread, the term "front" is not necessarily arbitrary.  Sorry that I find I need to repeat this.  For example, "back" can mean "that side which is not normally seen" as in "the clothes were hung on the back of the door".  That does not in any way seem arbitrary to me.  I had nothing to do with which view was predominantly shown over the years, so, don't shoot the messenger.  Nonetheless, "front" is an accurate label of the view commonly shown.

Again, in almost all other technical presentations that I have seen, read, given or written, the labels were irrelevant and in no way dictated the view that the author chose to present.  Apparently, we "knotters" are insecure and feel uncomfortable presenting the back of a knot?

DDK
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 05:43:46 PM
   I don't see how the historical method is not based on the knot itself.

   How "THE" historical method could be based on the knot itself, when all knots have many sides and can be seen from many views and can be tied by many methods ? How the "one" can be a consequence of "many" ?
   The "historical" method of showing the knot in ONE only of the two most obvious views, and of tying it in ONE only in the many easy tying methods that use other views, is :
   1. either a historic accident, multiplied by books and teachers as readers of old books, and teachers as writers of new books.
   2. or something dictated by a subtle way the human brain and hand/eye coordination works in this particular knot, which nobody has yet understood or explained - and you, in particular, had not even understood that it should be understood.

   
the term "front" is not necessarily arbitrary. For example, "back" can mean "that side which is not normally seen". That does not in any way seem arbitrary to me.

  So, you say that "front" is named "front" because that is the side which, historically, was seen / is seen more often. However, you can not explain why this has been happening / why this happens - so you can not say if what happens is due to a historical accident, which is reproduced as a myth, or not ! I will not ponder into the relation between an accidental and an arbitrary event here, but it is clear that a historical accident could well had happened otherwise, or had not happened at all, ever - while the existence of the knot itself is not an accident !
   There is nothing in the knot per se that dictates that the one view will be seen more often ( "normally" ) than the other, and so it will be called "front" view. "Front-ness" does not belong to the knot, it is a convention established by the fact that this particular view is more oten seen - but why it is more often seen, has no relation to the knot itself. The same knot could well be seen from the other side, and the "other" view could have been seen more often, so this "other" side could have been labelled "front" view, and not "rear" view, as it had happened to it to be labelled. 
  You have been caught into a vicious circle of believing that the "front-ness" of the bowline is not arbitrary, because "it is the view which is normally seen", and it is "normally seen" for no other reason than that it is the "front" view...  :) It might take you a while to understand the trap you have fallen into - accidentally !  :)

Again, in almost all other technical presentations that I have seen, read, given or written, the labels were irrelevant and in no way dictated the view that the author chose to present.

...but, miraculously, almost all the technical presentations that you have seen, read, given or written, show the ONE only side, is nt it that so ? And it had never crossed your mind to ask yourself : "WHY on earth is that so ? " All you have thought is that it is so, because this is the "front" view, and it is natural to people to show the "front" view more than the "back" view !  :)
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: DDK on August 17, 2013, 06:17:33 PM
   I don't see how the historical method is not based on the knot itself.

   How "THE" historical method could be based on the knot itself, when all knots have many sides and can be seen from many views and can be tied by many methods ? How the "one" can be a consequence of "many" ?
   The "historical" method of showing the knot in ONE only of the two most obvious views, and of tying it in ONE only in the many easy tying methods that use other views, is either
   1. a historic accident, multiplied by books and teachers as readers of old books, and teachers as writers of new books.
   2, or something dictated by a subtle way the human brain and hand/eye coordination works in this particular knot, which nobody has yet understood or explained - and you, in particular, had not even understood that it should be understood.

   
the term "front" is not necessarily arbitrary. For example, "back" can mean "that side which is not normally seen". That does not in any way seem arbitrary to me.

  So, you say that "front" is named "front" because that is the side which, historically, was seen / is seen more often. However, you can not explain why this has been happening / why this happens - so you can not say if what happens is due to a historical accident, which is reproduced as a myth, or not ! I will not ponder into the relation between an accidental and an arbitrary event here, but it is clear that a historical accident could well had happened otherwise, or had not happened at all, ever - while the existence of the knot itself is not an accident !
   There is nothing in the knot per se that dictates the one view will be seen more often ( "normally" ) than the other, and so will be called "front" view. "Front=ness" does not belong to the knot, it is a convention established by the fact that this particular view is more oten seen - but why it is more often seen, has no relation to the knot. The same knot could well be seen from the other side, and the "other" view could have been seen more often, so it could have been labelled "front" view, and not "rear" view, as it had happened to it to be labelled. 
  You have been caught into a vicious circle of believing that the "front-ness" of the bowline is not arbitrary, because "it is the view which is normally seen", and it is "normally seen" for no other reason than that it is the "front" view...It might take you a while to understand the trap you have fallen into - accidentally !  :)

Again, in almost all other technical presentations that I have seen, read, given or written, the labels were irrelevant and in no way dictated the view that the author chose to present.

...but, miraculously, all the technical presentations that you have seen, read, given or written, shoe the ONE only side, is nt it that so ? And it had never crossed your mind to ask yourself : "WHY on earth is that so ? " All you have thought is that it is so, because this is the "front" view, and it is natural to people to show the "front" view more than the "back" view !  :)

I can speculate as to why a particular side has been predominantly shown, but, it is irrelevant to whether that side can be accurately called the front.  Either front is an accurate description at this moment or it is not.  I do not see how it could be argued in this particular case that it is not.

As far as the technical presentations to which I have referred, I am speaking mainly of those by scientists, engineers, etc. covering a huge range of topics.  For example, a side view of the accretion disk of a black hole may be more pertinent to the presentation than the top view.  If the author's modeling of that disk was better illustrated by the side view, why would the author choose the top view?  Because of the name of the label?  I have not seen that in my experience.

I just have never run into the concept before that the label of the view dictates whether an author should show it.  In my experience, the presentation of a particular view has a purpose which is to portray the information that the author would like to share.

DDK
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 17, 2013, 06:33:44 PM

not head
tail
python catch mouse with tail
talented python
grog have two left hands
left hand from front
left hand from back
grog eat rabbit with left hand
grog afraid of python
talented python
catch mouse with tail

(brain hurt yet?) :) ;)

-- J:P

LOL
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 06:50:47 PM
I am speaking mainly of those by scientists, engineers, etc. covering a huge range of topics.  For example, a side view of the accretion disk of a black hole may be more pertinent to the presentation than the top view.  If the author's modeling of that disk was better illustrated by the side view, why would the author choose the top view?  Because of the name of the label I have not seen that in my experience.

 :)  :) :)

  So, I was really ahead of the time when I suspected that the "intrinsic" "front-ness" of all things is Universal, literally ! Anything in the Universe has an inherent, intrinsic, per se "front" view, and, of course, bowlines or black holes are no exception !  :)
  The discussion transverses the event horizon of my "experiences" and, most importantly, my patience - moreover, my tuxedo has been worn out !  :) This "accretion disk of a black hole" was such a bright thing, I better protect my eyes for a while...
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: DDK on August 17, 2013, 07:30:26 PM
I am speaking mainly of those by scientists, engineers, etc. covering a huge range of topics.  For example, a side view of the accretion disk of a black hole may be more pertinent to the presentation than the top view.  If the author's modeling of that disk was better illustrated by the side view, why would the author choose the top view?  Because of the name of the label I have not seen that in my experience.

 :)  :) :)

  So, I was really ahead of the time when I suspected that the "intrinsic" "front-ness" of all things is Universal, literally ! Anything in the Universe has an inherent, intrinsic, per se "front" view, and, of course, bowlines or black holes are no exception !  :)
  The discussion transverses the event horizon of my "experiences" and, most importantly, my patience - moreover, my tuxedo has been worn out !  :) This "accretion disk of a black hole" was such a bright thing, I better protect my eyes for a while...

Yes, granted, few have had the chance to co-author scientific papers with a current leading astro-physicist1 as I have.  Nonetheless, the example of a black hole did give a feel for the scale and scope of the technical presentations that I mentioned.   

DDK

1   Paul J. Steinhardt is the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University.   
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 08:09:30 PM
Yes, granted, few have had the chance to co-author scientific papers with a current leading astro-physicist as I have.  Nonetheless, the example of a black hole did give a feel for the scale and scope of the technical presentations that I mentioned.   

 :)  :)   :)

P.S. If Albert Einstein himself, returns now and here by some wormhole stable solution offered to him by its friend Godel, and tells me that 1 + 1 does not make 2, will I believe Him ? Nooope !  :) Because I know how to add 1 and 1 at least as well as Einstein, and, for the real or imaginary time being, my hair has not been whitened so much... :)  If Paul J. Steinhardt tells me that the bowline has an "intrinsic" front view, common to humans, octopuses, aliens and angels in all over this Universe and beyond, will I believe him ? Nooope ! Because I know how to tie a bowline at least as well as Professor Steinhart - and perhaps just a little bid more, I would dare to claim... :) So, what will I do ? I will tell him to take a quasi-aspirin, and have some sleep, because evidently he has been working too much lately... :)
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: DDK on August 17, 2013, 08:57:15 PM
. . . Because I know how to tie a bowline at least as well as Professor Steinhart - and perhaps just a little bid more, I would dare to claim... :)  . . .

I would put it differently, his string "theory" can't touch your string "practice".     ;D    -- DDK
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: SS369 on August 17, 2013, 09:25:19 PM
  JP and SS369, do not be afraid of the "overhand" / underhand" names. They do NOT denote handedness ( chirality , from Greek cheir ( χειρ ) = chir = hand ) ! Overpass/underpass and overlay/underlay are fine terms, but the overhand/underhand are knotting terms  :), and they are very well known and understood by knot tyers.
   Do not confuse them with the topology of the "overhand knot" or the "underhand" knot ! Topology is not described in knotting : does the name "fig. 8 knot" tells anything about the topology of this knot ? Or the name fFig. 9 knot" ? The adjectives do not denote the topology of the knots, never, so why knot tyers would understand something different in this case ?
   

I personally have no fear of words/names, but I was offering a chance to consider other descriptors in this discussion. Overhand and underhand are used in knot tying descriptions to date, but perhaps in this specific discussion something new can be contemplated.

SS
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 09:32:32 PM
I would put it differently, his string "theory" can't touch your string "practice".

   The opposite is also true, I am afraid - either for Steinhardt or for you... A stein can be ein or more, soft or hard, but it has no "intrinsic" "front" view !
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 17, 2013, 09:33:08 PM

I must be missing something, because I don't see any "common/right-handed" bowlines. The blue ones look to me like left-handed bowlines.


Hi James,
Right/left-handedness and over/under-handedness are two different animals. Over/under-handedness refers to the "central nipping loop", specifically the side presented to the viewer, either the underhand side or the overhand side. So, now we can apply the sideness/handedness of the nipping loop to indicate one specific side (or view) of the whole knot. 
The terms "overhand loop view" and "underhand loop view" were shortened to "overhand" view and "underhand view".

So, now we have a set of unambiguous terms based on the long established definitions of underhand loop and overhand loop to describe both the traditional front/rear views and D.L.'s preferred front/rear views. The conundrum of which of the two particular Bowline views is the "front" and which is the "rear" and whether the traditional accepted "views" should be reversed, or not, is resolved by sidestepping the issue altogether.

     
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 09:43:40 PM
   I was offering a chance to consider other descriptors in this discussion. Overhand and underhand are used in knot tying descriptions to date, but perhaps in this specific discussion something new can be contemplated.

   But why to multiply the "technical" jargon, when we can use an already existing one ? "Overhand" means to pass the end which is held by the hand, the working end, over itself. This applies for the simplest knot which is not topologically equivalent to the unknot, the "overhand knot" ( topology is denoted by the noun "knot", as in fig.8 knot, not by the adjective "overhand" ), and can very well apply to the case of the view of nipping turn (the adjective "overhand" denotes the aspect of it, in relation to the viewer, not the topology, which is denoted, again, by the noun "turn" ).
   I find as a great advantage, which enhances any odds there are this nomenclature be established some day, the fact that the terms are familiar knotting terms.
   
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: SS369 on August 17, 2013, 09:55:33 PM
   I was offering a chance to consider other descriptors in this discussion. Overhand and underhand are used in knot tying descriptions to date, but perhaps in this specific discussion something new can be contemplated.

   But why to multiply the "technical" jargon, when we can use an already existing one ? "Overhand" means to pass the end which is held by the hand, the working end, over itself. This applies for the simplest knot which is not topologically equivalent to the unknot, the "overhand knot" ( topology is denoted by the noun "knot", as in fig.8 knot, not by the adjective "overhand" ), and can very well apply to the case of the view of nipping turn (the adjective "overhand" denotes the aspect of it, in relation to the viewer, not the topology, which is denoted, again, by the noun "turn" ).
   I find as a great advantage, which enhances any odds there are this nomenclature be established some day, the fact that the terms are familiar knotting terms.
   

Adding technical jargon is OK with me as long as it works and does not overly complicate things (anymore than it is already). We are trying to learn new tricks as old dogs right?   ;)

So you are going to tie an overhand overhand knot, not an underhand overhand, right?
Or is that left?  :)

SS
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 17, 2013, 10:02:54 PM
So you are going to tie an overhand overhand knot, not an underhand overhand, right?
Or is that left?  :)

 :) :) :)
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 18, 2013, 08:36:32 AM

The process you have described has already been used, that is, referring to only one part of the knot.  Historically, and correct me if I'm wrong, the crossing point of the rope (irregardless of the section of rope which is entering the collar, but, usually the SPart) with the collar has been used to specify the view.  That is, if the collar is in the background, then the view has been called "Front", etc.   

As far as I can tell, no further references are necessary for the historical process and I think it is easy to understand and remember.  In other words, when one says he is looking at the front of a bowline, the view one is discussing is completely understood.  I'm anticipating the explanation of the conundrum here.  Since we are discussing views, I'm guessing that communicating to others what view is being discussed is part of the conundrum.  The historical process seems more straightforward to me.



The process you have described has already been used, that is, referring to only one part of the knot.  Historically, and correct me if I'm wrong, the crossing point of the rope (irregardless of the section of rope which is entering the collar, but, usually the SPart) with the collar has been used to specify the view.  That is, if the collar is in the background, then the view has been called "Front", etc.   

As far as I can tell, no further references are necessary for the historical process and I think it is easy to understand and remember.  In other words, when one says he is looking at the front of a bowline, the view one is discussing is completely understood.  I'm anticipating the explanation of the conundrum here.  Since we are discussing views, I'm guessing that communicating to others what view is being discussed is part of the conundrum.  The historical process seems more straightforward to me.

 

That's fine DDK, but D.L. wants that front/back relationship changed (reversed). The conundrum here is how, in the process of attempting to do such, would you avoid the logical conflict and the attendant consequences of having two sets of the same terms with opposite meanings at large. Who would be helped by doing this? 
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 18, 2013, 08:39:48 AM

Yes, granted, few have had the chance to co-author scientific papers with a current leading astro-physicist1 as I have.  Nonetheless, the example of a black hole did give a feel for the scale and scope of the technical presentations that I mentioned.   

DDK

1   Paul J. Steinhardt is the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University.

Wow! Cool.
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: DDK on August 18, 2013, 05:06:13 PM
That's fine DDK, but D.L. wants that front/back relationship changed (reversed). The conundrum here is how, in the process of attempting to do such, would you avoid the logical conflict and the attendant consequences of having two sets of the same terms with opposite meanings at large. Who would be helped by doing this?

I would agree that new labels should not be transpositions of old labels.  I can also see dl's point, if only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side which is more interesting.  The question, then, is how can the majority of authors be encouraged to show the back of the bowline?

I think that the label "Detailed" does provide some encouragement.  Many authors, however, are presenting to a general audience and will present that view which is more useful for the identifying and tying of the bowline - at the moment, likely the "Regular" view.  That is, most authors are likely to stick with the status quo.   

The labels "Overhand" and "Underhand" are more balanced and would have been more suitable from the beginning.  In addition, they do not reinforce the current status quo.  Those looking for a compelling rapid reversal of which view is shown, however, will not be satisfied with these labels.  I tend to think that the reuse of terminology associated with two distinct knots for the labeling of two views of a singular knot is a little confusing, but, I don't have a significant issue with it.

How about "Novice/Tier" view vs. "Expert/User" view?  Granted, that probably reinforces the status quo.  Here we go, "Old" view vs. "New" view!

DDK
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: roo on August 18, 2013, 05:42:24 PM
I would agree that new labels should not be transpositions of old labels.  I can also see dl's point, if only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side which is more interesting. 
If only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side which most clearly shows the way the knot is finished (which is also the ergonomically-tied (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57CTfXEk7qk), traditional side which conforms to human wrist motion ranges in forcing the coil into being*)?  After all, who doesn't tie a knot to inspect it?  It's far more important to communicate correct tying.

I don't think the rear view of the simple bowline is interesting.  The rear view of the Water Bowline is downright messy and confusing.  Behind this whole controversy is the false premise that you can gain secret knowledge by staring a knot diagram or image long enough.  Real knowledge comes through tying and testing the physical specimen.

This discussion probably is better placed in the Chit Chat forum.  It'll still be a duly ignored tempest in a duly ignored teapot.   ;)

*
(http://ovrt.nist.gov/projects/vrml/h-anim/forearmSupPro.gif)
(Edited due to sister thread being inexplicably and entirely removed)
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 18, 2013, 07:03:02 PM
how can the majority of authors be encouraged to show the back of the bowline?

The back of the bowline...? Piece of cake ! Show them this smashed Stone Tablet where it is carved, along with the front side - or, if that is not enough, show them your future Nobel Prize  !   :) ( i.e., implement a Goedel s backwards-in-time-like solution to your inability to understand that there are no front or back sides of the knots, or, for that matter, of anything else in the Universe - at least in the Universe as it is formed after the collision of the two initial cosmic branes !  :))


Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 18, 2013, 07:10:03 PM
I can also see dl's point, if only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side which is more interesting.

Absolutely. It's at the user's/author's discretion, as was stated in the opening post of the DEAD THREAD. I personally think that all of the information to discern the Common Bowline's central structure is easily accessible from either side of the knot. I would also agree with Dan Lehman that a greater portion of that information is more directly displayed from the side typically labelled as "Rear view". However, I do not agree this argument has enough merit per se :) to justify a reversal of nomenclature. Labelling convention is an issue we should not be overly concerned about here. The greater question is; what side/aspect of the Bowline should be given viewing priority? If D.L. doesn't like the term "Rear view" associated with his preferred view, the simple solution is to leave the image un-captioned. Done deal. No conflict.
Quote
The question, then, is how can the majority of authors be encouraged to show the back of the bowline?

By showing it.
 
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 18, 2013, 07:14:57 PM
I would agree that new labels should not be transpositions of old labels.
I can also see dl's point, if only one side is to be shown, why not
let it be the side which is more interesting. 
If only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side [that]
most clearly shows the way the knot is finished
(which is also the ergonomically-tied, traditional side)?
After all, who doesn't tie a knot to inspect it?
It's far more important to communicate correct tying.

I don't think the rear view of the simple bowline is interesting.
The rear view of the Water Bowline is downright messy and confusing.
Exactly what I'm arguing --i.e., about the better way
of tying the knot, which has more going for it in any
"ergonomic" sense than the popularly presented side.
Not that I expect you to recognize that any time soon.
As for inspection, probably the vast majority of bowlines
are tied without expectation of inspection (esp. that
of some knots-in-the-wild photographing knothead!).
But we can cite continual complaints that the bowline
--which sadly has been presented in one way, which
way I feel is partly to blame-- is hard to check; my
surmise is that were the other-than-usual aspect
presented, these complaints would be fewer.

As for the water bowline --leaving aside what exactly
should be denoted by that name (i.e., the once-shown
structure with well-separated/-spaced nipping turns,
or the tied-with-clove-hitch-base more recently shown
knot)--, I dare say that the very "messy" aspect you cite
is just what is in need of SEEING and not hiding to
make for some deceptively clean image.  QED!

As for Agent_Smith's choice, again, he can present the knots
with how he wants them tied, and consider the aspect shown
to be "front" or less afrontingly "presentation view" to which
the reversed view can be called "reverse view".

--dl*
====
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 18, 2013, 07:24:51 PM
   If only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the... the ergonomically-tied, traditional side ?
   It's far more important to communicate correct tying.

   There is no ONE ergonomically-easy way to tie the bowline ! Any number of times a mistake is repeated, it will remain a mistake, I am afraid. There are many ways to tie the bowline, most of them as ergonomically easy as all the rest. Also, many quick-tying methods start from a slip knot, and not from a single nipping turn.
   I have described and shown one of those many ways, which involves the same clock-wise twist of the wrist, just as the supposedly Chosen ONE does, which, supposedly again, dictates which is the Chosen "front" side of the bowline !
  The "correct tying" is the tying which is not a result of parroting the one knotting myth after the other ! A tying method that has been implanted into the brains of the students by brain-washing, forces them to remain ignorant of how the bowline works for the rest of their lives - as we have seen during this discussion.
   It has been almost a fashion to try to shift the goalposts of issues one does not understand by any means - and the most easy and drastic of them is to try to move the thread to another section. It has been done again with the thread about the characteristics of the bowline, which was considered not a practical enough knot ! ! ! , and that was advocated by people who had not participated in it ! Why do I suspect that something like this is attempted here, again ?

This discussion probably is better placed in the Chit Chat forum.  It'll still be a duly ignored tempest in a duly ignored teapot.   ;)

   
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 18, 2013, 07:39:39 PM
I can also see dl's point, if only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side which is more interesting.

I personally think that all of the information to discern the Common Bowline's
central structure is easily accessible from either side of the knot.
Although arguably we who know it so well
are not best to judge this (with all of our points
pro/con).  We should recognize that this issue
is one that is amenable to TESTING/research,
trying one vs. the other tying & presentation
to various collections of new-to-knots (and
"to knots" by requirement more than interest)
students --the young & restless, the old & stodgy
(boy, some of those SAR types can be so!   :P ).
One can try the different aspects in instruction
and see how well each does --is there much of
a difference?  --would there be comical (to us)
results of differing results per type of group (!)?
--or maybe a helpful indication of tying by one
method and seeing one presentation (and not
the comical one of incompatible ones!).

Quote
I would also agree with Dan Lehman that a greater portion of that information
is more directly displayed from the side typically labelled as "Rear view".
However, I do not agree this argument has enough merit per se :)
to justify a reversal of nomenclature.  Labelling convention is an issue
we should not be overly concerned about here.
I continue to believe --and think it worth reiterating--
that this conflict is much less felt/observed/important
than your comment implies --something that maybe
those who are steeped in knotting and history.

(And, boy, do some of the knotters seem knuts about
the tradition, yet woefully unaware of how dubious is
the literature in documenting/reporting that history!!
Again, Pieter van de Griend's A Letter to Lester is quite
telling of how incredibly, appallingly bad has been some
of the knotting documentation --and if they got that
much so wrong, can one have confidence in the other,
so-far uncontested, right-seeming information?!)

Quote
...
By showing it.
Yes, by showing it, Agent_Smith will have presented
how to tie various bowlines, and the presented view
should fit with the tying (though, maybe I'm presuming
more than reading his work --to date--, which is more
the presentation of completed knots and not how
to arrive at this?!), and I would be taken aback if the
naturally presented view were called "back" --which is
what the, um, backside to this view deserves, in THIS
presentation.

.:. I don't hold that knots are in general so well regarded
as to carry PER KNOT notions of front/back, at much
remove from some source's presentation of them.
In the bowline case, the ubiquity of the (wrong, IMO)
presentation gives strength to claiming otherwise;
but I don't believe that, among the general knotting
public, there is so strong an attachment to it that would
founder a presentation contradicting this.
AND, if my opinion of ease of tying, of understanding,
of comprehending
(which is X.'s primary contention/point/interest)
the bowline is valid, there would even be some
appreciation/thanks for having broken tradition here.

Beyond this, though, there will be issues regarding
the more complex, extended bowlines.  We'll need
("Joni's") "both sides now" viewing (but hope for
better results! --knowledge, not illusions  ;) ).


--dl*
====
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 18, 2013, 07:40:02 PM

But we can cite continual complaints that the bowline
--which sadly has been presented in one way, which
way I feel is partly to blame-- is hard to check; my
surmise is that were the other-than-usual aspect
presented, these complaints would be fewer.

I'm not sure about this myself Dan, but I'm certain you have done more musing on this than anyone else, and your surmise may very well be correct.

 
Quote
As for Agent_Smith's choice, again, he can present the knots
with how he wants them tied, and consider the aspect shown
to be "front" or less afrontingly "presentation view" to which
the reversed view can be called "reverse view".

Acknowledged.
 
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 18, 2013, 07:52:03 PM
   If only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the... the ergonomically-tied, traditional side ?
   It's far more important to communicate correct tying.

   There is no ONE ergonomically-easy way to tie the bowline !

And I will continue to argue more strongly --not merely
to claim various, but to argue in favor of a different one--
that, at least for tying the bowline eye-outwards
(SPart and line continuation are away, as when a climber
ties into her harness), it is better (not equal, let alone worse)
to work with the working end taken beneath the held
line and turned upwards & around, using gravity to
advantage and not having to compensate for its
effects on parts of the rope by re-gripping some part
or making extra contortion to make the initial reach=
&-twist (for, at this point, too, gravity takes the SPart
downwards --not held out conveniently forwards of
one to accommodate one's reach-&-twist!).


One further, reiterated objection to "over-/under-hand" :
those are not perspicuous, commonly used terms; and
the entail an assumption of *direction*/flow which
goes to needing further understanding, initiation;
is the reference for "flow" always that of the ultimate
knot, or is it in reference to one's current working
of parts --which could run counter to that?!  I don't
care to try to define & promulgate such concepts.


--dl*
====

ps : re "bowline is hard to check" : one can read
this on nearly every rockclimbing (and other like application)
debate about Fig.8 eyeknot-vs.-bowline !
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 18, 2013, 07:55:03 PM
I can also see dl's point, if only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side which is more interesting.

I personally think that all of the information to discern the Common Bowline's
central structure is easily accessible from either side of the knot.
Although arguably we who know it so well
are not best to judge this (with all of our points
pro/con).  We should recognize that this issue
is one that is amenable to TESTING/research,
trying one vs. the other tying & presentation
to various collections of new-to-knots (and
"to knots" by requirement more than interest)
students --the young & restless, the old & stodgy
(boy, some of those SAR types can be so!   :P ).
One can try the different aspects in instruction
and see how well each does --is there much of
a difference?  --would there be comical (to us)
results of differing results per type of group (!)?
--or maybe a helpful indication of tying by one
method and seeing one presentation (and not
the comical one of incompatible ones!).

Quote
I would also agree with Dan Lehman that a greater portion of that information
is more directly displayed from the side typically labelled as "Rear view".
However, I do not agree this argument has enough merit per se :)
to justify a reversal of nomenclature.  Labelling convention is an issue
we should not be overly concerned about here.
I continue to believe --and think it worth reiterating--
that this conflict is much less felt/observed/important
than your comment implies --something that maybe
those who are steeped in knotting and history.

(And, boy, do some of the knotters seem knuts about
the tradition, yet woefully unaware of how dubious is
the literature in documenting/reporting that history!!
Again, Pieter van de Griend's A Letter to Lester is quite
telling of how incredibly, appallingly bad has been some
of the knotting documentation --and if they got that
much so wrong, can one have confidence in the other,
so-far uncontested, right-seeming information?!)

Quote
...
By showing it.
Yes, by showing it, Agent_Smith will have presented
how to tie various bowlines, and the presented view
should fit with the tying (though, maybe I'm presuming
more than reading his work --to date--, which is more
the presentation of completed knots and not how
to arrive at this?!), and I would be taken aback if the
naturally presented view were called "back" --which is
what the, um, backside to this view deserves, in THIS
presentation.

.:. I don't hold that knots are in general so well regarded
as to carry PER KNOT notions of front/back, at much
remove from some source's presentation of them.
In the bowline case, the ubiquity of the (wrong, IMO)
presentation gives strength to claiming otherwise;
but I don't believe that, among the general knotting
public, there is so strong an attachment to it that would
founder a presentation contradicting this.
AND, if my opinion of ease of tying, of understanding,
of comprehending
(which is X.'s primary contention/point/interest)
the bowline is valid, there would even be some
appreciation/thanks for having broken tradition here.

Beyond this, though, there will be issues regarding
the more complex, extended bowlines.  We'll need
("Joni's") "both sides now" viewing (but hope for
better results! --knowledge, not illusions  ;) ).


--dl*
====

I understood hardly any of this. :) But the testing idea would, I'm sure, be fun to say the least.
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 18, 2013, 08:01:50 PM
I should remark that when I tie to a ring or an
*away* object (eye away, SPart near), I will
likely cast the nipping turn by capsizing one
that I form with the tail around the SPart,
and will have the traditional perspective now.

And similarly for the "slip-knot" method,
as my natural inclination is to being the SPart's
tucked-through bight upwards, tuck the tail,
and then it capsizes (not always (so well)!)
into the traditional view.


--dl*
====
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 18, 2013, 08:03:55 PM

ps : re "bowline is hard to check" : one can read
this on nearly every rockclimbing (and other like application)
debate about Fig.8 eyeknot-vs.-bowline !

Whellll! those silly brainwashed climbers are just parroting what they've been told instead of figuring it out for themselves. ;D

Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 18, 2013, 08:07:52 PM
If D.L. doesn't like the term "Rear view" associated with his preferred view

   Personally, I do not care if Dan Lehman, or anybody Else, "likes" a term or not - and I have seen that he, too, does not care either, if other people use other terms than the ones he uses - he keeps repeating his own terms, some more successful (PET) and some less successful (TurNip). I can not say if this will be proven, some time in the future, to be a more successful or a less successful strategy... 
   Also, the expression "his preferred view "(sic) is not less completely wrong than the "God s view", the "Chosen One view", the "intrinsic" "front" view, etc... The view that shows more and hides less of the geometrical and structural details of the bowline, is not somebody s view ! Dan Lehman pointed out something deeply simple, that should have been obvious to all of us right from the very beginning - but we just could nt see under our noses ! It is not Dan Lehman who "likes" or "prefers" this view ( that is not very important ), it is COMMON SENSE which dictates to use a more useful view, if we have to use one only view ( useful, according to well defined criteria, of course ).   
   However, this thread was not meant to be about which one of the two views one would or should prefer, and for which purpose - it was meant to resolve the issue of proper labels for both views. I propose we remain focused in THIS subject, and proceed to the next only after we have agreed on SOMETHING !  :)   
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 18, 2013, 08:15:56 PM

ps : re "bowline is hard to check" : one can read
this on nearly every rockclimbing (and other like application)
debate about Fig.8 eyeknot-vs.-bowline !

Whellll! those silly brainwashed climbers are just parroting what they've been told instead of figuring it out for themselves. ;D

The criticism has been made that the main reason
for finding it hard to check is simply lack of familiarity
with it!  Still, there is enough *smoke* about some
difficulty of understanding the knot to make one
wonder about better presenting it.  For myself,
I can only testify that IIRC I lonnnng ago learned
the sheet bend but didn't learn the bowline
and don't recall recognizing their similarity of structure
(and they were --in Chapman's Piloting Guide--
presented with opposite aspects).


To X., I've never used 'TurNip', but 'turNip' --the capital
is the result of the *impact* of fusing the two words
with same letter abutting and thus rising up into CAP(S)!
And "PET" is courtesy of Rob Chisnall, and a useful
aspect to mind.

X. wrote:
Quote
Also, the expression "his preferred view "(sic) is not less completely wrong than the "God s view",
It's quite so : you are confusing simple denotation
with some kind of blessing --I've been consistent
in expression, which expression can thus be cited
(without fully re-expressing); that is all.
Now, the contention that my & God's view might
be the same, and so equally not less completely
wrong --in fact, completely right--, is a flattery
I'll consider later, if need be.   ;D


--dl*
====
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 18, 2013, 08:25:49 PM
   However, this thread was not meant to be about which one of the two views one
would or should prefer, and for which purpose:  it was meant to resolve the issue
of proper labels for both views.
I propose we remain focused in THIS subject,
and proceed to the next only after we have agreed on SOMETHING !  :)

Discussion has been pretty constrained to this.

There is benefit in Agent_Smith's presentation to
holding ONE VIEW constant, so as to give an equal
basis for comparing variations; so far, he's given
both opposite views.  There might be cases where
one or the other of trad. "front/back" views gives
a better view of the particular variation --they can
be complex.  I don't think that he's found a need
to try to economize on imagery --that he'll thus
preserve the both-sides-now presentation.

IMO, "front" has *qualitative* connotation,
and maybe "back" also,
whereas "reverse" & "opposite" seem more
unjudgementally related to the immediate
context, and so make less contentious terms
for replacing "back".  Now, to replace "front",
perhaps there's a handy, pretty-well-seen-to=
be-limited-to-current-presentation term he can
introduce/define.
(I'm signing off at this point, no immediate ideas
for this term --noting that "view" is much shorter
than "orientation", for any compound term such
as "document view", "parts view" --thinking of
the early diagram where he identifies parts of
the structure.)

--dl*
====
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 18, 2013, 08:41:18 PM
Now, the contention that my & God's view might be the same, and so equally not less completely wrong --in fact, completely right--, is a flattery

   As it has been so fashionable to the "majority" in this Forum to portray me as the Devil, the contention that the Devil s view and the God s view might be the same ( be them completely correct or completely wrong ), means something for the Universe per se ! There is no intrinsic Evil and intrinsic Good outside black holes !  :)
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 19, 2013, 02:02:05 AM


There is benefit in Agent_Smith's presentation to
holding ONE VIEW constant, so as to give an equal
basis for comparing variations; so far, he's given
both opposite views.  There might be cases where
one or the other of trad. "front/back" views gives
a better view of the particular variation --they can
be complex.   

Consistency is a good thing. And the "priority view", whichever is deemed to be, should always be shown on the left-hand side of the page. Or right-hand side for the Chinese translation. :)
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 19, 2013, 06:18:06 AM
the "priority view", whichever is deemed to be, should always be shown on the left-hand side of the page.

Why ? I believe it is the right-hand side which is always the most important of the two ( and the more expensive, if it is to be offered for advertising ).
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: Ruby on August 19, 2013, 06:27:14 AM

And the "priority view", whichever is deemed to be, should always be shown on the left-hand side of the page. Or right-hand side for the Chinese translation. :)



why?

it's RTL? :D
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 19, 2013, 06:45:52 AM
Consistency is more important.
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: xarax on August 19, 2013, 11:45:17 AM
Consistency is more important.

  Could you, please elaborate on this a little more ? I just do not see why the "left" side of the page should be the "preferred" one !  :) I think that most people pay more attention on the right of two open pages of an open book, or on the right side of one page, because they are right-handed. That is why advertising at the right side of pages costs more.
Title: Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
Post by: alpineer on August 19, 2013, 01:22:08 PM
Consistency is more important.

  Could you, please elaborate on this a little more ? I just do not see why the "left" side of the page should be the "preferred" one !  :) I think that most people pay more attention on the right of two open pages of an open book, or on the right side of one page, because they are right-handed. That is why advertising at the right side of pages costs more.

My reasoning/conjecture here is because most cultures read from left to right, the left side of the page, the side that is scanned first, should be where the priority image is placed. Similarly, if images were to be oriented on the page from top to bottom, the priority image should be given the top position.
It's not a big deal, but whatever positioning theme is chosen, it should remain consistent across that particular document.