Author Topic: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology  (Read 144477 times)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #90 on: July 30, 2011, 05:16:34 AM »
I do expect the Eskimo Bwl. to be thrown out of the *bowline* set.

   You miss the symmetry argument that I have tried to explain in Reply#82...and according to which, we should define the bowline independently of the side of entrance of the eye leg of the bight into the nipping loop. Using the "direct / indirect" argument about the nipping loop legs and their relation to the eye, you will get rid of a few pesky "crossing knot"-based loops, ( like the Karash loop ), that is true, but you will also lose the Eskimo bowline...and I think that you will do it, because that is what you had in mind right from the beginning ! :) The Karash loop was just a minor, secondary target, your true purpose was always  the declassification of the "anti-bowline" Eskimo bowline....
   It would be more general and accurate if one makes a distinction between (+) and (-) bowlines, for example ( or whatever pair of antonyms one chooses). I believe that, from time immemorial, people tied bowlines in both ways, just preferred the common bowline, when the eye legs were close to be parallel ( in loops tied around small diameter objects, where the knot s nub is far from the object ), and preferred  the Eskimo bowline, when the eye legs were close to be aligned ( in loops tied around large diameter objects, where the knot s nub is close to the object). There is no essential difference : the collar , an extension of the eye leg of the bight, helps the nipping loop secure the tail, and makes a U turn around the line that is more aligned with the eye leg of the bight. If the loop is elongated, because it is tied around a small diameter object, the collar makes a U turn around the segment of the standing part outside the bight. If, on the other hand, the loop is round, because it encircles a large diameter object, the eye leg of the bight is more aligned with the segment of the standing part inside the bight, so it is natural to the collar to make a  U turn around this segment of the standing part, i.e. around the eye leg of the standing part.
    The main victim of a restricted classification, that fails to take into proper account this symmetry I am talking about, will not be the Eskimo bowline itself : The main victim will be the objectivity DDK is talkng about : the accuracy of the description of the common bowline, and the generality of its definition...
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 06:29:05 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 507
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #91 on: July 30, 2011, 08:07:52 AM »
Excluding the Eskimo Bwl. from it's set requires you to exclude the Offset OH from it's set likewise. What 's needed is a Hierarchy of Criteria by which knots are classified according to. Say something like; Working Form, Topology, Loading Profile, Attributes, Use, Existing Name, etc. Each criteria would serve to differentiate one knot from another and in/exclude then from a particular family of knots.

alpineer

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #92 on: July 30, 2011, 11:10:41 AM »
I don't see a real need to classify linguistically in the same way as structurally. Language doesn't follow strict rules, so we may well exclude the Eskimo Bowline from the Bowline family of knots, but still call it a bowline, and the same might go for the Bowline tied in the bight, if they don't conform to any more or less random rule that we set up as a definition for the family of knots.

OTOH those knots may be included if we follow a different set of rules. I have no problem to see the Eskimo Bowline as part of the bowline family, when we consider the likeness, its way of tying and the behaviour of the knot when load is applied upon only two of its parts. Most of these knots might behave as a sheet bend when loaded at either one bight leg and the standing part or between the two legs of the loop even if many of them in their working form and intended load will incorporate a nipping turn resembling the Gleipnir. At least one collar around a leg or the standing part is a distinctive feature, but we should not disregard the possibility that the bight might not by its own means embrace its relevant part, but is attached with a toggle.

Of course my stance in part might be explained from the fact that I use several languages on a daily basis, and if a classification is done, I feel an urge to apply it to all languages, which makes it a lot more difficult to apply strict rules linguistically, while structurally it might be a bit simpler to classify knots. Still I would try not to exclude knots that as the Eskimo Bowline display so many likenesses with other knots of the family, while it is easier for me to think of the Myrtle as something else. Either way, I don't think classification is a "Practical Knots" issue, but more one of the theoretical kind.

I think disregarding the Gleipnir-like nipping turn from the family criteria, in favour of a more relaxed view based on what things look like on the surface and how they are made, is easy to live with. Structurally they may differ a lot, but that is what we should expect from different knots made for different purposes, even though they share family features.
All images and text of mine published on the IGKT site is licensed according to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #93 on: July 30, 2011, 01:23:18 PM »
  Most of these knots might behave as a sheet bend when loaded at either one bight leg and the standing part, or between the two legs of the loop

  Yes, but, most of the times, ( say, 99.99% :)), they are NOT loaded like this ! They are three-loaded-ends, single or double, LOOPS, not two-loaded-ends BENDS ! Big, Huge difference !
   You can easily see how irrelevant/wrong is that phrase, if you invert it...  :)
  "The Sheet bend might behave as a bowline, when loaded at both legs of the one link ."  :'(
   The Sheet bend is a bend, all  the times, ( .i.e., 100.00 %  :)), a knot connecting TWO lines, where ONE and - and not but one - end of each link is loaded. !
  ( I have been recently studying the "inverse" knots of the the three Shakehands bends, where we load the ends that were used to be the tails of the "parent" knots. Although the number of ends that is loaded remains the same, the knots are transformed, in looks as well as in function, completely, I would say miraculously ! )
  
   The only relevant/correct phrase would be :
   "If we load three (particular) ends of a Sheet bend, we get the bowline structure."
   So, what ?  :)
   The Sheet bend - bowline false correlation was initiated by some Ashley comments, and Derek Smith elevated it into a new theory. People are seduced into this theory by the appearance of a one-leg loaded bowline, like the one shown in the picture of reply# 60. However, appearances are often misleading, especially if they are meant to "to force square pegs into round holes "   :). The inclination of the nipping loop of the bowline is due to the pressure of the collar. So, the one leg ot the eye, the eye leg of the standing part, is squeezed in between the collar and the nipping loop s inclined plane, and it looks like it is at right angle/perpendicular to the standing end ! Legs at right angle, perpendicular to each other resemble the structure of a hitch, a misleading, confusing sign had made Derek Smith believe the obviously wrong thing, that the bowline is related to the Sheet bend... Well, my eyes, too, can see the evidently similar picture, but my mind can not fail to see the entirely different essense, due to the entirely different loading and force distribution...and, I am afraid that "The mind sees and the mind hears".
 
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 01:37:00 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 507
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #94 on: July 30, 2011, 01:44:02 PM »
I don't see a real need to classify linguistically in the same way as structurally. Language doesn't follow strict rules, so we may well exclude the Eskimo Bowline from the Bowline family of knots, but still call it a bowline, and the same might go for the Bowline tied in the bight, if they don't conform to any more or less random rule that we set up as a definition for the family of knots.

OTOH those knots may be included if we follow a different set of rules. I have no problem to see the Eskimo Bowline as part of the bowline family, when we consider the likeness, its way of tying and the behaviour of the knot when load is applied upon only two of its parts. Most of these knots might behave as a sheet bend when loaded at either one bight leg and the standing part or between the two legs of the loop even if many of them in their working form and intended load will incorporate a nipping turn resembling the Gleipnir. At least one collar around a leg or the standing part is a distinctive feature, but we should not disregard the possibility that the bight might not by its own means embrace its relevant part, but is attached with a toggle.

Of course my stance in part might be explained from the fact that I use several languages on a daily basis, and if a classification is done, I feel an urge to apply it to all languages, which makes it a lot more difficult to apply strict rules linguistically, while structurally it might be a bit simpler to classify knots. Still I would try not to exclude knots that as the Eskimo Bowline display so many likenesses with other knots of the family, while it is easier for me to think of the Myrtle as something else. Either way, I don't think classification is a "Practical Knots" issue, but more one of the theoretical kind.

I think disregarding the Gleipnir-like nipping turn from the family criteria, in favour of a more relaxed view based on what things look like on the surface and how they are made, is easy to live with. Structurally they may differ a lot, but that is what we should expect from different knots made for different purposes, even though they share family features.

Now this is the kind of level headed, even handed and measured dialog we need more of. Thank you Inkanyezi.

alpineer

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #95 on: July 30, 2011, 02:09:37 PM »
  I think disregarding the ...nipping turn from the family criteria, in favour of a more relaxed view based on what things look like on the surface... is easy to live with.

   It is always "easy" to live with "more relaxed views" of things, of how things "look like", "on the surface"...Perhaps fortunately, most people live like this...
   However, if one s purpose is not to live easily, but to live truly, and to understand things underneath the "surface", to discover the essence of things often hidden behind misleading appearances, I am afraid he has to try and search a little more...
   I hope that the much wanted "level headed, even handed and measured dialogue", should not dictate us to accept a "level headed, even handed and measured"  truth, because there is not such a thing ! Fortunately, in science, a thing is either true or false !  :)
  The bowline is not a Sheet bend, and the bowline structure is more related to a "Gleipnir with a collar"  than to the Sheet bend.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 02:12:44 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #96 on: July 30, 2011, 09:08:58 PM »

  The bowline is not a Sheet bend, and the bowline structure is more related to a "Gleipnir with a collar"  than to the Sheet bend.

Maybe  I should remind you that I was the first one to point that out?

This is not a discussion of what is truth about a Bowline, but I see it as a tentative to do some classification of a group of knots that are supposed to belong to a family, which should be further defined. In such classification it may have some merit to be very strict, but there might also be reasons for a more lax attitude. After all, whether science or not, the issue is not falsifying any knot that is named Bowline, but rather trying to find common treats if we find it fruitful to classify a certain order of knots as belonging to the bowline family.

In such an effort, I would find it natural to include the Eskimo Bowline, in spite of its odd orientation and structural difference compared to other bowlines. It is an anomaly if we consider the nipping turn to be crucial and if we regard it essential that the finishing U-turn, the collar, should embrace the standing part. Nevertheless, it shares many features with the proper Bowline, and it is a useful knot. By excluding it from the "family" on grounds that it has no TurNip, also mutiple turn bowlines should be excluded, and we get into a maze of classifications that I find unneeded. Someone else might feel a need for it, but I do not.
All images and text of mine published on the IGKT site is licensed according to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #97 on: July 30, 2011, 10:26:21 PM »
  Maybe  I should remind you that I was the first one to point that out?

  Thank you, but, as you should have known by now, questions about priorities are not my cup of tea... :) I just repeated what I keep saying to Derek Smith from my first reply. I am glad you have the same view, because I respect your knowledge about knotting, which is, evidently, far more extended than mine.

  This is not a discussion of what is truth about a Bowline...

   Well, it was supposed to be...  :) Read the heading of the thread ! The questions about other members, or not, of the bowline group, were only brought into the discussion afterwards...

... I would find it natural to include the Eskimo Bowline, in spite of its odd orientation and structural difference compared to other bowlines.

  More than simply "natural" : true ! Some things might appear "natural", and be false, but if we follow the simple definition of  bowlines I have tried to offer, the Eskimo bowline can not but be included in the bowline group. Its "structure, characteristics, topology" oblige us to clasfy it in the same group as the common bowline. If, on the other hand, we insist to specify the side of the nipping loop the tail enters into, or exits from, and/or the leg of the nipping loop that serves as the tree for our U-turning rabbit, we can eliminate the Eskimo bowline from the bowline group (which might be an unwanted thing to do), but also we can eliminate other "crossing-knot" based loops, as this !@#$%^&*()_overestimated  Karash bowline ( which is a thing I would love to be able to do, indeed ! )

  It is an anomaly if we consider the nipping turn to be crucial and if we regard it essential that the finishing U-turn, the collar, should embrace the standing part.

...from either side of the nipping loop ".
   Why ? Both characteristics are necessary. The (first, main) nipping loop should be tied on the eye leg of the standing part, because its function is to secure the tail, which is on the eye leg of the bight. And the collar is a just a clever means of the tail, to make this job of the nipping loop easier. So, the collar should embrace the standing part. Why is it an anomaly ? If there were a nipping loop and/or a collar only elsewhere, I would nt consider this end-o-line loop a member of the bowline family.

   The collar is not any U turn of a segment of the rope...The collar is a U turn of the tail, it is a mechanism of the tail, a means of the tail to be secured easier by the nipping loop....
   Also, the nipping loop is not any 360 degrees turn of a segment of a rope...A nipping loop is a 360 degrees bight around the tail, it is a constricting mechanism that nips the tail, a mechanism to secure the tail.
    It is absurd to talk about collars on the standing part, and nipping loops on the working end / tail !
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 11:52:40 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3961
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #98 on: July 31, 2011, 05:50:57 AM »
Excluding the Eskimo Bwl. from it's set requires you
to exclude the Offset OH from it's set likewise.

Huh?  (He gasps, w/o even effort at decorum.)

I don't understand what you're saying re the latter knot.

 :)

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3961
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #99 on: July 31, 2011, 06:37:53 AM »
Fortunately, in science, a thing is either true or false !  :)

How's that work for you with quantum mechanics?
Didn't the Law of the Excluded Muddle get broken there?
(And, actually, there are reams of thoughts on what
makes "true" ... .)

Quote
The bowline is not a Sheet bend, and the bowline structure is more related to a "Gleipnir with a collar"  ...

It is you who see necessity in some collar, not I
(who even sees more of collaring than you do!).
My base is the turNip (not the Gleipnir, which is a
structure incorporating that).


On the question of the eskimo bowline, I'm going to straddle
the middle, or be on both sides, as with that carrick loop
--can be either, depending upon the setting.  I think that
it might here be more unnatural to get the crossing-knot
form, given any casualness in setting, and elastic rope.
But it has some potential to go further away from the
crossing-knot geometry, past the loop into a spiral
--something I see "anti-bowlines" vulnerable to, with their
tail entering on the opposite side of the loop (making
stabilization of the turNip more a challenge).

ack!

Further, to X. : "SPart is that bring 100% tension into the
knot; what runs from this into the eye --an eye leg-- is just
that (eye leg), not SPart any more.  So your bit about some
"symmetry ..." with collaring going either direction loses me.
But then I don't need any collar as such, so I don't really
care.

To Ink., multiple-turns don't worry me, as the turNip is but
the start of a coil of constriction; but the clove base would
be tossed, or make some kind of sub-class (and it is partly
a confusion of history itself --the additional loop has been
located at some remove from the first, in some references,
and it's unclear what was in fact used).

Keep in mind, also, that we are here focused on #1010 and
seeing how it might be generalized/defined so as to guide
us on a formal *bowline* classification:  what might appear
to be something that should be brought in under this tent
from this focus could well see stronger ties to some other
start point, and a big tent here might simply result in a
fight over where things go when other knots come to get
their essences defined --and having things in several classes
at once doesn't sound terribly helpful, either.  There IS such
a thing as  a crossing knot, and one can build up a set
of eye knots with it as a base --and it will lay a claim on the
eskimo bwl. right away.


--dl*
====

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3961
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #100 on: July 31, 2011, 06:45:12 AM »
Both xarax and d.l. picked up immediately on several of the objectionable sacrifices that
an unambiguous and non-subjective nomenclature of fixed loops
might suffer from.  Namely, for the example that I gave, the ignoring of the loading of the ends,
 ...

I'm still struggling to see how I'm the one being UNobjective?
Loading is the essence of a *knot*; I think you're aiming at
something logically *prior* that, which we might call a "tangle"
--but which I've had trouble seeing as really being free of
loading or anticipating loading.
In any case, I don't find the consideration of loading to
sacrifice objectivity.
(But there are certainly fuzzy boundaries, as have been noted,
in shifting geometries coming with vagaries of dressing.)

--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #101 on: July 31, 2011, 11:28:48 AM »
It is you who see necessity in some collar, not I(who even sees more of collaring than you do!).

   Yes, that is funny !  :) I believe  that the "proper" collar is an indispensable element of the bowline (albeit only the secondary one, after the nipping loop). You do not believe this, but you are ready to accept a more relaxed definition of the collar, and see collars where  I do not...I explain it as following : I pay much attention to the collar, the particular "proper" collar of the bowline, where the second leg, after its U turn around some segment of the standing part, re-turns into the same opening it exited from, now pointing to the opposite direction. Paying much attention to this "restricted" kind of collars, it is natural and expected to distinguish the "proper" forms from the "generalized" forms you have in mind, and use this restricted definition to eliminate other loops from the bowline group ( like the ABoK#1033, the Angler s loop, the Myrtle...)
   At the end of the day, incorporating the "proper" collar into the essential elements of the bowline group, leaves us with much fewer "bowlines" than you are ready to accept, and, given the plethora of them we already have, that is a good thing, I believe !  :) You are left in an indifensible position, to deseparetely try define as "bowlines" many knots that nobody will ever name like this, believe me. You might succeed to reduce their number a little bit, by the clever "direct / indirect " distinction of the feed of the nipping loop tension into the eye, but your net result will still be far greater than wanted !  

My base is the turNip (not the Gleipnir,

   Mine too ! I do not say that the Gleipnir is an element of practical knots, I say that it is the purest knot that incorporates the "basic element" of the practical knots that is the nipping loop. I say that "the Bowline is related to the Gleipnir more than to the Sheet bend", because we relate knots to knots, not knots to basic elements of them. We explain knots by analysing them into basic elements, and the basic element of the Gleipnir is the nipping loop, exactly as it happens in the bowline. I think we are on the same page in this, for once...

On the question of the eskimo bowline, I'm going to straddle the middle, or be on both sides, as with that carrick loop-can be either, depending upon the setting.

  Well, to walk on a tensioned rope is a difficult exercise...Good luck !  :)

"SPart is that brings 100% tension into the knot; what runs from this into the eye --an eye leg-- is just that (eye leg), not SPart any more.  So your bit about some "symmetry ..." with collaring going either direction loses me.

   Just a minute ! I said about THE TEST LOOP that I submitted to Derek Smith, that the standing part there brings 50% of total tension into the eye ! ( The other 50% is brought by the combined presence of the two legs of the collar.) And I was talking about the Standing part AFTER the other structure of the compound knot, the mid line TIB loop I had used - to show that the two legs of the collar can be almost parallel to each other and to the standing art, yet the collar works. This was made in an effort to offer a counter-example to Derek Smith, who sees, in the one-sided loaded bowline, segments of rope perpendicular to each other, and so he relates the bowline to a hitch, the hitch element of the Sheet bend.The two legs of a collar can be almost parallel to each other, and this collar works :  when the two legs of a hitch are parallel to each other, this hitch doen not work !
   I characterize as "standing part" the segments of the rope before, within, and after the nipping loop, and also the eye leg of the standing part. I do not characterize as standing part the "rest of the knot", that is : the eye leg of the bight, the first leg of the collar, the second leg of the collar, and the tail - i.e. the segments of the rope that come "after" the standing part. According to this characterization, the lowest point of the bight separates the standing part from the rest of the knot : The sailor should tie the topologically-equivalent-to-the-unknot structure on the former, and pass through it the working end / tail of the later. So, when he unties the bowline, i.e. pulls the tail out of this unknot, the standing part is left with no knotted structure on it, and that happens even before the rope gets out of the ring or the bollard- a necessary requirement for the mooring line.
   What is your difficulty with the symmetry argument ? It is a local symmetry, of course, not a symmetry of the whole knot ! Locally, in the proximity of the nipping loop, the segment of the rope is, from the one hand, the standing part end, and, from the other, the eye leg of the bight that belongs to the standing part. When the rabbit reaches the nipping loop, it does not have to think/choose, in advance, from which end it will pass through : And, after it passes through, it does not have to think/choose around which particular end of this nipping loop - around which segment of the standing part - it will make its U turn. It just makes the U turn around the only leg it can ( Otherwise, it will form a loop that will slip through the nipping loop, so the rabbit will be eaten by the fox, and it will not survive to describe to us its definition of the bowline...  :))  I think that the bowline should be defined independently /without any reference to the particular side the working end / tail it passes through, ( be it as in the common bowline, or as in the Eskimo bowline ), and the collar should be defined independently / without any reference to the particular side the working end / tail passes around the standing part segment of rope, in the vicinity of the nipping loop. See the picture of Reply# 82 : No indication which is the "front" or the "back" side of the nipping loop, no indication of which is the segment of the standing part inside the eye ( "after" the nipping loop) and which is the segment of the standing part outside the eye ( "before" the nipping loop). So, the bowline mechanism is defined with the fewer possible references to particular thoughts/choises of the rabbit, and only with references to the locally, symmetrically positioned knot structures in front of it, where the rabbit has no choice at all - if it does not wishes to be eaten by the fox, of course, i.e. if it wishes to form a collar loop that can  not bedeformed/untied by a pull of the eye leg of the bight.

P. S.
Fortunately, in science, a thing is either true or false !  :)

 How's that work for you with quantum mechanics?
Didn't the Law of the Excluded Middle get broken there?
(And, actually, there are reams of thoughts on what makes "true" ... .)

  Oh, my dear Dan Lehman, your debt to me is now reduced by 100 worthless US dollars ( to -2650 $...) , just because you have mentioned QM, Excluded Middle, and all that, however erroneously you interpret them !  :) ( US congress will not solve its debt problem with this gain of yours, but it is a positive sign nevertheless...) If you keep going like this, you will be free of debt in just a few dozens of dozens years !
   I would LOVE to talk about those things, because I have spent 35 years of my life, into the mud, studying them !  :) When you were studying and tying knots, I was trying to un-tangle the various interpretations of QM, Brouwer s constructivist/intuitionstic interpretation of mathematics in relation to the Platonic/realistic one, and all that...However, I leave you to be beaten by roo this time  :), because those things have no relation to practical knots whatsoever. Truth, that beloved and betrayed goddess, has indeed, and it is that truth we are here to unveil, I believe. ( I would be glad to discuss any questions about interpretations of QM and Constructivist/Intuitionistic logic and mathematics, through e-mail).
« Last Edit: July 31, 2011, 11:32:38 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #102 on: July 31, 2011, 11:31:31 AM »
   Maybe  I should remind you that I was the first one to point that out?

  Thank you, but, as you should have known by now, questions about priorities are not my cup of tea.

Neither is it mine, and mine is also not an endless quibble about unimportant matters. If you were not focussed upon quibble, you might have understood that my remark was not about priorities.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2011, 11:34:04 AM by Inkanyezi »
All images and text of mine published on the IGKT site is licensed according to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #103 on: July 31, 2011, 04:45:41 PM »
Xarax, I'll try to write slowly in hope that you might understand:

I told you that I pointed out the turNip feature first, in order to remind you that I am not unaware of its importance in the Bowline. It is you, nobody else, who starts a "mine is bigger than yours" battle. Please chill a bit, it is not that important. You may choose any definition you want for your bowlines, I really don't mind at all.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2011, 04:46:27 PM by Inkanyezi »
All images and text of mine published on the IGKT site is licensed according to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 147
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #104 on: July 31, 2011, 05:57:18 PM »
Both xarax and d.l. picked up immediately on several of the objectionable sacrifices that
an unambiguous and non-subjective nomenclature of fixed loops
might suffer from.  Namely, for the example that I gave, the ignoring of the loading of the ends,
 ...
. . .  I'm still struggling to see how I'm the one being UNobjective?  . . .

--dl*
====

Well, let's first be clear that my comment was not singling you or xarax out as being unobjective.  My comment was that you had easily found how deficient to most an unambiguous and non-subjective (clear boundaries) definition could be.  By the way, I do not see objective = good and subjective = bad in our present circumstances.

I mean, we are talking about nomenclature here, so, there are going to be choices to be made regarding Hierarchy of Criteria as mentioned by alpineer* and from there boundaries (likely fuzzy) to be set.  I might ask if the Hierarchy of Criteria* is obvious to all (apparently not) and before one does that, is it obvious to all to whom this definition should be viable/useful?  

DDK

* http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.msg19791#msg19791
« Last Edit: July 31, 2011, 05:57:57 PM by DDK »