Author Topic: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology  (Read 133812 times)

WebAdmin

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 285
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #195 on: August 23, 2011, 10:46:37 PM »
Thank you for your agreement to reinstate the posts, Xarax.

I have never had to do this before, so I will ask Mel to make sure that I know how to do it the right way, so it may be a day or two before they are all back in place.

For the core of the remaining discussion regarding the move of the Bowline thread - there is obviously room for lively discussion on what constitutes knot theory (in my understanding of this I do not have in mind the purely mathematical theory alone, but also esoteric discussions by afficionados of why a group of knots is defined as it is, and how they are distinguished between, and so on).  I will copy this part of my post as the beginning of a new thread to discuss such matters over on Chit-Chat initially, and I will put up a poll over whether or not to keep the Bowline thread on Theory, or move it back to Practical.  I prefer straight yes and no answers on such matters, it's easier for me to find out what people want me to do that way.

Once the final disposition of the Bowline thread is settled, then I can look through to see which of the obtruding posts can be removed.  That will probably be most of the posts of the last couple of days, all of my own posts, and the few which were in sole answer to my question.

Regards

Glenys
Lesley
WebAdmin

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #196 on: August 23, 2011, 11:18:18 PM »
   Regarding the title "Knot Theory" : I have googled it in the advanced search / this exact wording or phrase:. I have counted the number of times that an article cited there had something to do, however remote it might be, with any "Theory of Practical knots" , as we understand this term here. In the first 100 results, guess what the outcome was : 0 (Zero)
   Let the section of "Practical knots" be divided into two sub-sections, the "Applications of Practical Knots", and the "Theory of Practical knots" , or something like this. Or, let there be a label that distinguishes threads/posts along those two broad categories/classifications.
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3883
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #197 on: August 24, 2011, 06:08:25 AM »
   Regarding the title "Knot Theory" : I have googled it in the advanced search / this exact wording or phrase:. I have counted the number of times that an article cited there had something to do, however remote it might be, with any "Theory of Practical knots" , as we understand this term here. In the first 100 results, guess what the outcome was : 0 (Zero)
   Let the section of "Practical knots" be divided into two sub-sections, the "Applications of Practical Knots", and the "Theory of Practical knots" , or something like this. Or, let there be a label that distinguishes threads/posts along those two broad categories/classifications.

Exactly : there is little or no serious thinking about practical knots
(things in cordage, contrasted with mathematical *knots*).  Which
is why the development of such under this forum is a desirable thing.
Not only is there but shallow thinking --untested assumptions-- about
physical aspects of knots (e.g., the widely opined "bending rope
weakens the outer fibres, which break" (something I have seen enough
of --breaks-- to contradict)), but also scant philosophical investigations
of conceptual & nomenclatural aspects (e.g., What is a *knot*?
(as opposed to an animal, or ...);
... (as a particular *knot* in contrast to any other *knot*);
What are the types/kinds/classes of *knots* (e.g., eyeknot/end-2-end
knot/hitch/stopper/... ; of structure: traced/interlocked/pull-together).


It is just silly to pretend that subdividing the Practical forum to do
this vice using the extant forum is better --or did you find a treasure
of "Theory of Practical Knots" Google results (your apparent test for
validity of a forum title) ?!


--dl*
====

admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 77
    • Black Widow Web Design Ltd.
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #198 on: August 24, 2011, 12:42:06 PM »
This is not a problem. I can re-instate your deleted posts. So I can only echo the Web Admin's question: Do you agree to the reinstatement of the posts you have deleted?
I have a suggestion

Sorry but no. You cannot attach strings to this - no matter what knot you use. Your mass deletion of posts severely disrupted this topic and, as a result, was detrimental to the forum community as a whole. I am asking for your agreement out of politeness. I would rather carry out this (extensive) repair work with your support than without it. But either way, the good of this community comes first.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #199 on: August 24, 2011, 06:35:09 PM »
This is not a problem. I can re-instate your deleted posts. So I can only echo the Web Admin's question: Do you agree to the reinstatement of the posts you have deleted?
I have a suggestion

Sorry but no. You cannot attach strings to this - no matter what knot you use.

   If a suggestion means to "attach string to something"' , you or I need the Google translator roo is proposing !
   I suggest you read again my reply, and act accordingly. Sorry, but I am not going to untie your jammed knot.
   P.S. If you have the files, the work is not "extensive" at all ! Send them to me, and I will put the replies in order in no time ! If I had copies of those replies, I would have done it by myself. I know what is good for the forum community at least as much as you do, because I am part of it.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2011, 06:40:10 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 77
    • Black Widow Web Design Ltd.
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #200 on: August 24, 2011, 10:38:00 PM »
If you have the files, the work is not "extensive" at all ! Send them to me, and I will put the replies in order in no time !

The forum software can handle this itself. I'll get started on re-instating those posts.

Thank you.  :)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #201 on: August 25, 2011, 03:11:39 AM »
If you have the files, the work is not "extensive" at all ! Send them to me, and I will put the replies in order in no time !
The forum software can handle this itself. I'll get started on re-instating those posts.
Thank you.  :)

If so, what was the meaning or purpose of your reply :

 
Sorry but no. You cannot attach strings to this - no matter what knot you use. Your mass deletion of posts severely disrupted this topic and, as a result, was detrimental to the forum community as a whole. I am asking for your agreement out of politeness. I would rather carry out this (extensive) repair work with your support than without it. But either way, the good of this community comes first.

 I guess you used the opportumity to teach me a "lesson" about "the good of the community".
 Because I have agreed on this repair already, BEFORE this lesson...(1)
 Ok, you wished to show to me some authority...I should not blame you for this, but you should have made it on time !

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.msg20233#msg20233
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #202 on: August 25, 2011, 03:55:20 AM »
there is little or no serious thinking about practical knots(things in cordage, contrasted with mathematical *knots*).  Which is why the development of such under this forum is a desirable thing. Not only is there but shallow thinking --untested assumptions-- aboutphysical aspects of knots ... but also scant philosophical investigations of conceptual & nomenclatural aspects (e.g., What is a *knot*? (as opposed to an animal, or ...); ... (as a particular *knot* in contrast to any other *knot*); What are the types/kinds/classes of *knots* (e.g., eyeknot/end-2-end knot/hitch/stopper/... ; of structure: traced/interlocked/pull-together).

  I agree with all those descriptions and conclusions...

It is just silly to pretend that subdividing the Practical forum to do this vice using the extant forum is better ...

...but not with this silly sentence, of course ! I do not pretend anything ! I see that people have a difficulty accepting the "theoretical" discussions be mixed within the "Applications/uses of Practical Knots", and I have proposed that a possible solution to this problem is to put labels in front of any thread, indicating the character of the discussion one should expect to find there... OR a split of the "Practical Knots" section into two sub-sections. The one would deal with the applications/uses of practical knots, and the other with the structure/form/funcion/definition of practical knots. The "Knot Theory" joke should have ceased to make us laugh a long time ago !  
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 03:56:31 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3883
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #203 on: August 25, 2011, 08:36:00 PM »
there is little or no serious thinking about practical knots(things in cordage, contrasted with mathematical *knots*).  Which is why the development of such under this forum is a desirable thing. Not only is there but shallow thinking --untested assumptions-- aboutphysical aspects of knots ... but also scant philosophical investigations of conceptual & nomenclatural aspects (e.g., What is a *knot*? (as opposed to an animal, or ...); ... (as a particular *knot* in contrast to any other *knot*); What are the types/kinds/classes of *knots* (e.g., eyeknot/end-2-end knot/hitch/stopper/... ; of structure: traced/interlocked/pull-together).

  I agree with all those descriptions and conclusions...

That would be good, for the conclusion above is
"the development of such under this [viz., knotting theory] forum is a desirable thing".
THIS forum of *knotting theory*.

Quote
It is just silly to pretend that subdividing the Practical forum to do this vice using the extant forum is better ...

...but not with this silly sentence, of course ! I do not pretend anything !
I see that people have a difficulty accepting the "theoretical" discussions be mixed
within the "Applications/uses of Practical Knots", and I have proposed that ...
OR a split of the "Practical Knots" section into two sub-sections [ : ]
The one would deal with the applications/uses of practical knots,
and the other with the structure/form/funcion/definition of practical knots.

But this betrays a disregard for discussing knotting theories so labeled,
unless prefixed with "practical" ?  There should be no problem with
such discussions as anticipated already; there should be no presumption
that *theory* has no bearing on knots seen as practical; but the focus
is on non-*practical* aspects of them (such as nomenclature, such as
classification, such as notions of behavioral mechanics (testable theories,
these).


--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #204 on: August 26, 2011, 01:47:07 AM »
  
the conclusion above is
"the development of such under this [viz., knotting theory] forum is a desirable thing".
THIS forum of *knotting theory*.

    I do not have an adequate command of the language, but I feel something odd with the term "knotting theory". Of course, it is not wrong, as the term Knot Theory is ! However, "knotting" is a verb, it describes the action/procedure of making a knot, isnt it that so ? I would prefer a term that refers to the studying, examination of the object of this action/procedure, the knot itself. That is why the term "Theory of Practical knots", or "Study of structure, form,function,definition of Practical Knots" sounds better to my ears...Of course, if there is such a thing for Decorative Knots, there should be a similar section for them as well.
  I understand that the principal division of the entity "knots", is the division in Practical, Decorative and Mathematical Knots. Then, the priciple division of knots, regarding the kind of our relation to them, is the division in Application/Use, from the one hand, and Study/Theoretical examination (of structure, form, function, definition),  from the other.
   Now, what is happening here is that some people want to hijack the Practical Knots forum, reduce it to a mere "Application/Use of Practical Knots" forum, ( that is, divide its value in half...), and have all the knots that do not fall in this highjacked by them category, expelled to the other forum...I will not let them do this trick, as long as I stay in this forum, post the knots I tie in this forum, and I am not baned from this forum... :) I do not buy their hypocritical call for "mis-placed threads", the "voting" farce, and all this smoke screen of their real intentions...

 But this betrays a disregard for discussing knotting theories so labeled, unless prefixed with "practical" ?  

   No. If we should have to do the same for the prefixed as "Decorative" knots, we should have a similar "Study/Theory" section for them, too.

  but the focusis on non-*practical* aspects of them (such as nomenclature, such as
classification, such as notions of behavioral mechanics (testable theories,these).

   What you label as "practical", I prefer to label as "having to do with Application/Use", in contrast to Study/Theory. I keep the term "Practical", to the distincion Practical-Decorative-Mathematical. So, I translate the sentence above as follows: " the focus is on aspects that do not have to do with applications or uses of them (such as nomenclature, such as classification, such as notions of behavioral mechanics (testable theories, these)"  


« Last Edit: August 26, 2011, 02:10:16 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1867
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #205 on: August 26, 2011, 02:18:41 AM »
As a personal opinion on the original topic question I offer that the parts of the most common (or first to be named) bowline knot should define any or all the rest that have "hijacked" the bowline name.
Regardless of the nomenclature used to define each and every part, those have to be there to be a Bowline.
It is a fixed loop.

Do the names of the parts change if and when it capsizes?  ???

SS

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #206 on: August 26, 2011, 03:23:13 AM »
Do the names of the parts change if and when it capsizes?  ???

   I do not think that the capsized parts are the same parts any more,,,so why should they have tha same name ?
   I have seen how a double crossed-coils nipping loop capsizes into an "8" shaped one... changing also the path of the tail that goes through it. The two knots do not have any relation any more...If you had not followed closely and very carefully all the steps of the capsize, you would nt be able to figure out if / how the one was transformed into the other ! And the way each of them is nipping the tail that pass through it, is entirely different.So, why should they have the same name ?
« Last Edit: August 26, 2011, 03:24:31 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3883
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #207 on: August 26, 2011, 04:49:11 AM »
... I feel something odd with the term "knotting theory".
...//...
That is why the term "Theory of Practical knots", or
"Study of structure, form,function,definition of Practical Knots"
sounds better to my ears...  Of course, if there is such a thing
for Decorative Knots, there should be a similar section for them as well.

Perhaps we can dispense with "theory" and substitute "philosophy"
or some other term indicating discussions of foundations of things?
--"meta" discussions, might be one way of saying it.

And I don't think that we need to separate such discussions vis-a-vis
*practical*/*decorative* --I don't see 'a priori that there should be
such a gulf between them when the deliberation is on such first
principles & nomenclature; and even if there are different directions,
ideas from one camp might beneficially influence thinkers of the other.

Quote
I understand that the principal division of the entity "knots",
is the division in Practical, Decorative, and Mathematical Knots.

So far as one can tell here, no one is concerned with mathematical
knots --though ideas from those studies might be brought to bear
on some conception of others, such as the defined relations.

Quote
... and Study/Theoretical examination (of structure, form, function, definition),  from the other.
Now, what is happening here is that some people want to hijack the Practical Knots forum,
reduce it to a mere "Application/Use of Practical Knots" forum, ( that is, divide its value in half...),
and have all the knots that do not fall in this highjacked by them category,
expelled to the other forum...

Well, I understand how you might think this, but really
don't agree with your re-ACTion to it, and don't think
that you should even so fear & resist it --and if the adjustment
of another forum title can better reflect our hopes for it,
then all the better.  And as I said previously, *I* think
that the vigor you have put into such "non-practical" (to
some) topics will give improved life to another forum,
and all the usual activity in Practical Knots will continue
to sustain it --which is currently the most active forum.
(Often, in Net fora (?), when one forum accrues great
activity, managers seek ways to split it --if helpful-- so
as to make discussions & research (Search or mere paging
through topic listings) more efficient.  I recall when there
was the Usenet group "rec.bicycles" (pre-WWW days);
it grew tremendously and got split into seven or so
sub-forums (.marketplace, .tech, .rides, . ...).)


And the contentious Move of the long thread should be
seen, without hostility, like planting a mature tree into
a place lacking a forest.  --and, no, not so the tree will die
for lack of light; but so that it will help other trees grow.

Quote
  but the focusis on non-*practical* aspects of them (such as nomenclature, such as
classification, such as notions of behavioral mechanics (testable theories,these).

What you label as "practical", I prefer to label as "having to do with Application/Use",
in contrast to Study/Theory. I keep the term "Practical", to the distincion Practical-Decorative-Mathematical.
So, I translate the sentence above as follows:
" the focus is on aspects that do not have to do with applications or uses of them
 (such as nomenclature, such as classification, such as notions of behavioral mechanics
 (testable theories, these)"  


Fair enough; and that the distinction --however called-- does exist
(i.e., we humans can so conceive such a distinction).

Now, how do YOU define "practical knots" ?  --this, you must know,
is an issue with others, with which I have some sympathy, much
ambivalence.  For the presentation of a knotted structure simply
AS "practical" with no indication of why/how so except by it being
posted under the forum of that title, is a not very convincing case
for practicality.
*I* could see such presentations coming --as I earlier said-- in some
(ambitious) exploration (and marking-one's-exploratory *path*) of
the vast knotting universe.  And, yes, I think it is vast --esp. if such
knots as you have found are included.  WHo here has a full grasp
of even Ashley's set of some few hundred (NOT the oft'-quoted
several thousand!) practical knots?  --to which we can easily expand
them from many starting points to a far greater number.

But, back to your conception of "practical knot" :  how do you
understand this?  --for as you've often answered the challenge
by simply waving to the unknown future and claimed that the
knot might be found to be useful!  Isn't it only then, at such
finding (by whomever), that one has the substantiation that the
knot is "practical"?  How do we, without that knowledge, make
the prior determination?  (And if it's only by whim or hope, what
knot is not "practical"?)  (The black-walled corridor beneath the
art gallery above which has a room with a black canvas with a
frame around it and a title (maybe reading "untitlted") : and one
is called "art"!?)

You, after all, have counted my "vast" with expressed doubt at
this; that implies you have some sense of limits on what will
be so called; so, what is it that restrains the discovery of knotted
structures so that it is not vast, so that much of what is found
is deemed "not *practical*" --which your favorite critics might
be surprised to learn you could think!  --or which in any case
they have been more ready to award (that judgement) than you.



--dl*
====

ps:  I am happy that these recent posts have traded substance
and not mere "sound & fury"!  And I'll open a ...
 :)   (smiley)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #208 on: August 26, 2011, 01:56:04 PM »
  Perhaps we can dispense with "theory" and substitute "philosophy" or some other term indicating discussions of foundations of things?

   I proposed the "Study of...", and I had in mind a title like "Study of structure, of form, of function, of definition" .

  And I don't think that we need to separate such discussions vis-a-vis *practical*/*decorative* --I don't see 'a priori that there should be such a gulf between them when the deliberation is on such first principles & nomenclature; and even if there are different directions, ideas from one camp might beneficially influence thinkers of the other.

  Practical knots are machines/tools, so they are the subject of scientific/analytical/experimental study. Decorative knots are objects of Art, they are the subject of Aesthetics, they are synthetic, They can NOT be proved or disproved that they are indeed what they claim to be, by a physical experiment
  As a person that happened to get involved in both worlds, I know very well the gulf/gap between those "two cultures" C.P Snow was talking about...I am not happy with it, but that is how things are, and WE are not going to change this, I am afraid !   :)

Well, I understand how you might think this, but really don't agree with your re-ACTion to it, and don't think that you should even so fear & resist it -

  My reaction might well be proved pointless, even mistaken, ( as it was proved to be in the past). But that does not mean I am going to sit speechless and listen to nonsense, that try to propagate dangerous ideas, ideas I know very well that, if implemented, they are going to reduce the Practical Knots forum to half its value ! I have made much effort ( for my age) to enrich this forum as much as my limited knotting knowledge allowed me to do, so I will not sacrifice this,or the interest some other people showed in my efforts, without a re-ACTion !

Often, in Net fora.., when one forum accrues great activity, managers seek ways to split it --if helpful-- so as to make discussions & research (Search or mere paging through topic listings) more efficient.

  Exactly ! I proposed to split the present Practical Knots forum to two, where the one subsection will include everything about the Applications and Uses of Practical knots , and one that will include everything about the Study of structure/form/function/definition of Practical knots. Most, if not all, of the content of the misnamed "Knot Theory" forum will go automatically to the second subsection. WHAT ON EARTH IS WONG WITH THIS SIMPLE SOLUTION, I wonder...But perhaps I know...People that fear and hate the proposed second sub-section, are trying to high jack the term "Practical Knots" for themselves, and throw this sub-section as far away from the first one as they can. Well,they have the right to try this if they have such a narrow view about it, but they will succeed in devaluating the Pacica Lnots section only over my dead/baned body !  :)

And the contentious Move of the long thread should be seen, without hostility, like planting a mature tree into a place lacking a forest. --and, no, not so the tree will die for lack of light; but so that it will help other trees grow.

   A nice romantic painting indeed, but you are not as naive to see only this !
  The new tree is attempted to be planted UNDER the already grown old tree, so it does not have any chance to grow...And before it will die - as it will, no question about it - it would have destroyed the roots of the old tree as well !
   Let the two trees be planted side by side, in the same fertile ground presently covered by the old tree : that is, the fertile ground of Practical Knots forum !

  ... define "practical knots" ?  --this, you must know, is an issue with others, with which I have some sympathy, much ambivalence.  For the presentation of a knotted structure simply AS "practical" with no indication of why/how so except by it being posted under the forum of that title, is a not very convincing case for practicality.

   Tell me Dan Lehman, if you post a knot, like the "Violin" bend, a simple bend, should you indicate why/how this bend is a practical knot, or will be proven to be a practical knot in the future, with the materials used in the future ? Do you have to "state an application" for a bend, for KnotGod s shake ?

And, yes, I think it is vast ...some few hundred... practical knots?  --to which we can easily expand them from many starting points to a far greater number.

   I have just finished a first reading of ABoK, and I am left with the impression that it is mainly a book about Decorative knots. Not only because of the number of Decorative knots in comparison to the number of Practical knots that is included, but of the relation of the numbers of the knots that could have been included !
   I keep the term "vast" for the number of Decorative knots. I can not even imagine a n upper limit of this vast field, in comparison to the field of practical knots. There, with my limited experience, I do see some boundaries, beyond which knots lose their practicality. I am not saying that the number is not big, I only say that, from which I have sensed from my short journeys into KnotLand, the number is only one order of magnitude greater than the presently known...So , if we have a few hundreds knots, the total number of possible practical knots I reckon that should be a few thousands. But that is ot a vast number, in comparison with the few thousands, or even millions, of the Decorative Knots. And as I have said, with the proper computer tools, we could discover all those knots in a few months, even in a few weeks ! Testing those knots - taking into account all the possible materials, loading conditions, environmental aspects, dressings, etc.- THAT is a really vast area we should explore...in the next 10 generations.... :)

But, back to your conception of "practical knot" :  how do you understand this?  --for as you've often answered the challenge by simply waving to the unknown future and claimed that the
knot might be found to be useful!  Isn't it only then, at such finding (by whomever), that one has the substantiation that the knot is "practical"?  How do we, without that knowledge, make the prior determination?
... you have some sense of limits on what will be so called; so, what is it that restrains the discovery of knotted structures so that it is not vast, so that much of what is found
is deemed "not *practical*"

   My two pence : It has nothing to do with a subjectively chosen quality. It has to do with a quantity, and a quantity only. Unfortunately, this quantity is, at present, very difficult, or even impossible, to measure by using well defined notions and procedure. It is the quantity of simplicity.
   Simplicity should be taken into account, and an upper limit of it - that has to do with our brain abilities and the economy of material and time while we tie a practical knot - will automatically pose a limit on the number of possible practical knots.
   I had the vague idea to split this measure of simplicity of a knot into two separate domains. First, the simplicity of the "base", that is, the initial rope configuration -be it still only a mat or an already tied simple knot - we use to weave our working ends around and through it, to tie the final knot. I suppose we should be, eventually, able, to measure the simplicity of this base- somehow, by the number of rope crossings, for example, or the hand moves this "base" requires to be formed, or by measuring whatever other concrete characteristic of it.
  Second the simplicity of the next step, the tucking of the working ends through this "base". I suppose we should be able to measure that simplicity, too - somehow, by the number of tucking, the difficulty of executing the act of a particular tuck, on a particular opening of the "base", by measuring whatever characteristic of the moves required to dress and finish the knot.
   Only a simple enough knot can be a Practical knot. And having an upper limit on the number of measured simplicity of each knot, we have a upper limit on the number of possible knots.
   Do not take me wrong here. I am not saying that this is the most important thing when we consider which knot is practical and which not ! I only say that this is the thing that can reduce the number of possible Practical knots, from a vastly big one, to a manageable big one ! All the other considerations, taken together, can not generate such a great reduction from a vastly big number to a big number, as the upper limit of simplicity of a knot can. Some knots present an unacceptable slippage, or an unacceptably tend to jam. Considerations about slippage or jamming of a knot can not offer such a great relief in lowering the number of possible Practical knots, as the upper limit of simplicity can offer. Simplicity turns (vast )infinity into a (big, but finite)number!
   Now, a simple enough knot might be proved to be a practical knot, or not. However, I think that all the other characteristics are easier to evaluate - that, of course, does not mean that they could be evaluated in a shorter period of time ! Testing all the possible simple enough knots will probably last for one or century, may be more ! And it will require new automatic machines, to execute those testings in an industrial scale !  
   I know that all those things might sound as "just thin air talk", or blah blah to Practical Knot fundamentalists ! ( Some of them will have to use their Google translator, and some help from somebody else that can think, to understand what I am trying to say...) However, I can only say that this is my two pence opinion, earned the hard way, by tying and untying hundreds of knots ! I have presented about half a dozen new knots, that are practical as much as most of the known knots are practical , and I beg anybody that has a different view, to prove that they are not ! I would be glad if my artificial(compute) and/or DNA inherited(brain) memory will be shortened, and cleared to other interesting things of life !  :)


« Last Edit: August 26, 2011, 02:07:23 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology
« Reply #209 on: August 27, 2011, 02:15:30 PM »
As a personal opinion on the original topic question I offer that the parts of the most common (or first to be named) bowline knot should define any or all the rest that have "hijacked" the bowline name.
Regardless of the nomenclature used to define each and every part, those have to be there to be a Bowline.
It is a fixed loop.

Do the names of the parts change if and when it capsizes?  ???

I've followed this thread for some time and I think that this quote comes close to what I have been thinking. There is only one bowline (not "a" bowline but "the" bowline) - ABOK #1010 for ease of reference. That said there has built up a bowline family so trying to decide on the characteristics of knots which belong to this family seems to have been the predominant part of this discussion. From that one can look at how far removed from the original any qualified bowline is (by qualified I mean a knot the name of which includes the word bowline or which could include the word bowline if currently it does not or is not named at all). You then have a sort of family tree - to take an example immediately below the bowline are the cowboy bowline, water bowline and the double or round turn bowline. These differ only by one step from the original. Take another step down and you have the end bound double bowline. And so on. Then the eskimo bowline though related fits in another part of the tree perhaps. I hope this concept is clear enough, I am trying to put a visualisation into words. Although a mathematical description of any knot is no doubt possible (and like genetic make up in the plant and animal kingdom can determine perhaps if a knot belongs to a particular family) it needs an above average understanding of the math to follow. Eventually a circle can be drawn around those knots which have sufficient characteristics of the original to be considered related and from that the criteria for inclusion drawn up. Those distant cousins, perhaps recognised as such, are not therefore part of the true family.

If a knot capsizes under extreme conditions into a different knot (as opposed to falling apart) then it should have a different name in my view BUT excluding a formation designed to capsize as in making a carrick bend by reeving the end and then pulling into shape.

Barry