Author Topic: Overs Index  (Read 4535 times)

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Overs Index
« on: May 06, 2006, 12:12:11 PM »
I have just discovered from Frank Brown, that the Overs Index I have proposed as a simple means to categorise knots, see  http://igkt.pbwiki.com/Overs%20Index
is in fact nothing more than a reinvention of the method called Crossing Points proposed by Geoff Budworth for exactly this purpose.

I understand that Geoff was one of the founding members of the IGKT.  Is he still with us and if so, does anyone have his contact details.

Fairlead

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 333
  • IGKT Member since 1984 - IGKT Librarian
Re: Overs Index
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2006, 03:04:24 PM »
Should anyone know Derek well enough to give him Geoffreys details - please do so by private e-mail and NOT on this public forum

Gordon

bazz

  • Guest
Re: Overs Index
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2006, 04:28:55 PM »
Hi Derek,

If you are a member of the guild, you will have just received the new Knotting  Matters, and the new IGKT membership handbook, you can find everyone in there.

If you are not a member, I am sorry for giving you information you can not use :-[

Another way of making contact would be to E-mail the Guild Secretary and he may be able to pass on your information or comments, you can find contact details on the main site.

Take care,
Barry ;)

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Overs Index
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2006, 01:30:44 PM »
Thanks to those of you who helped me contact Geoffrey.  I have now received a very supportive email from him confirming that he did indeed pre invent the 'Overs Index' by some twenty years and that he published details and 24 examples in his book 'Knots and Crime'.  Unfortunately, I am not having much luck finding a copy.

Geoffrey has agreed that his prior use of this method should be included on the Wiki and he is interested to see how we now develop the principle through the use of the Wiki medium.

Of course, the value of such an index is that it contains as full a list of knots as possible.  There is little use of having an identification method when it only allows users to identify a knot if it is one of a tiny handfull of knots indexed and recorded.

Members of this forum who find this method of knot identification interesting or usefull can play two important roles.  First, you could check that the knots entered into the index have been analysed and recorded correctly.  If you feel that a knot has been analysed incorrectly, you could bring the knot up on this forum so that others could discuss the analysis and arrive at an agreement as to how the knot is going to be registered in the index.

The second way to help is to add knots to the index yourselves for others to crosscheck.

For those who have not visited the Wiki yet, you can reach the front page throught this link http://igkt.pbwiki.com/ and then select the 'Overs Index' from the side bar, or alternately use this link to go straight to the 'Overs Index' page http://igkt.pbwiki.com/Overs%20Index

If you feel the urge to dive in and try out this tool, simply log in using your name and email address and use the password    igkt

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 351
Re: Overs Index
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2006, 02:42:43 AM »
That is great Derek; it seems this thing is really going to fly!
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

DaveRoot

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • The Most Useful Rope Knots....
Re: Overs Index
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2006, 10:20:03 PM »
I was looking at the Overs Index and thinking about the purpose of it.  

Say a person knows how to tie a certain knot, but he doesn't know what it's called, and he doesn't know whether or not it's a "good" knot.  He finds the Wiki Index of Knots, but the alphabetical list of knots doesn't help him because he doesn't know the name of the knot.  Then he finds the Overs Index, and he discovers that he can count up the Crossing Points of his knot to find the knot in the OI.  He counts up the Crossing Points and learns that his knot is called a "Bowline."  Seems simple enough.

Then I thought I'd try my hand at counting some Crossing Points so that I can help fill out the Overs Index.  I tied a Bowline and followed the Standing Part as it entered the knot, and the first Crossing Point is where the "rabbit" goes around the "tree."  But I found that when I laid the loose Bowline flat on the table, I ended up with two Crossing Points due to the angle at which the Standing Part was entering the knot.  In addition, if the Working End is long enough, it can create different numbers of Crossing Points depending on the angle at which it exits the main loop.

So it seems that there will need to be a set of "rules" to help ensure that people are able to calculate the proper number of Crossing Points for a knot.  But is this turning out to be so complicated that people are not realistically likely to go through this process?

I also looked at how the "saturation" of a knot works.  The Carrick Bend is supposed to be "fully saturated," so to test this I tied a Carrick Bend in a length of rope to make a sling.  I started with one Working End and followed it into the knot, and it properly alternated between "over" and "under."  As the rope exited the knot it went "under," and then I followed the rope around the sling to the other side of the knot, and it entered the knot "under" again.  That's 2 "unders" in a row, so is the Carrick Bend really "fully saturated"?  Or am I just confused?   ???

The Overs Index seems like it might be a useful method of categorizing/indexing knots, if the Crossing Points are calculated properly.  But is it perhaps too complicated, too confusing, or time-consuming to learn how to do it, such that most people will just ignore it?

If we don't have an Overs Index, how will a person find his knot in the Wiki Index of Knots if he doesn't know the name of the knot?  One idea is simply to group knots into categories (e.g. Single-Loop Knots, Double-Loop Knots, Triple-Loop Knots, Hitches, Bends, etc.), and show a final picture of each knot.  In this scenario, a person can go to the appropriate category and scroll through the pictures until he finds one which looks like his knot.  An example of this is at http://www.layhands.com/knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm#SingleLoops.  If we choose to organize the Wiki Index of Knots in this way, I would suggest that the final picture of each knot should be a slightly "exploded" view rather than a fully-dressed view (e.g. the Left-Hand Bowline, Perfection Loop, and Tugboat Bowline at the above Web link).

Dave

Jimbo

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 114
  • Happy Knotting!
Re: Overs Index
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2006, 01:37:38 AM »
Quote
One idea is simply to group knots into categories (e.g. Single-Loop Knots, Double-Loop Knots, Triple-Loop Knots, Hitches, Bends, etc.), and show a final picture of each knot.  In this scenario, a person can go to the appropriate category and scroll through the pictures until he finds one which looks like his knot.

IMNERHO, this is why Ashley put his pictures in the outside halves of each page.  As you flip through the separate sections, the knots are the only thing you fully "see" until you slow down for the details.  The human mind is a lot better at that method.  If I could find ten people (present company excluded, of course) who had the analytical skill to use the OI effectively, I could give Bill Gates a run for his money...

But this is another reason why DaveRoot's site is so useful (according to the people I send there) -- the pages are laid out in a more-or-less uniformly regular, easily-scrollable way.  Especially the Knots Index!

One last request:  I agree that an "exploded" but finished view is very helpful; but please be sure to emphasize the "correct" finish!!  The magical self-untying Bowline is my reason why.  Leaving it "as shown" in so many reverences is (I think) where the self-untying ability comes from.  After I've set mine they stay pretty well.  At least until I'm done with them...

But there's no reason not to include every possible description, verbal (verbose even), drawn, photographed, modeled with a Cray super-freaking-computer if you will.  

In any case, "more ways" will always be better than "my way".  You don't have to believe that, just look.
Thank you all, for everything.  As of 6/6/6, I have changed my password to a random string (which I forgot), thereby assuring that anyone posting as "Jimbo" in the future will NOT be me.  Good luck!!!

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Overs Index
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2006, 11:52:04 AM »
Jimbo,

I agree with your assertion that we should include more rather than less in the definitive index.  If someone wants to contribute line drawings, they should be included.  If someone wants to include and alternative way of tying, it also should be included.  If someone wants to include a history of its use or development or images of it in practical or fun applications, then what reason could we have for excluding any of that?

If this thing starts to roll, I believe it will be many years before the first complaints of 'Information Overload' begin to be heard and in the meantime a great deal of valuable knot information will have been collated into one searchable and peer reviewed place.

You make the point that the OI is too complicated for layperson use and Dave echoes your sentiment
Quote
The Overs Index seems like it might be a useful method of categorizing/indexing knots, if the Crossing Points are calculated properly.  But is it perhaps too complicated, too confusing, or time-consuming to learn how to do it, such that most people will just ignore it?

This is certainly implicated by the fact that Geoffrey Budworths creation has failed to be taken up over the last twenty years - although the fact that he didn't have the internet and a Wiki, and only indexed a few dozen knots may have had more to do with its failure than the system itself.

In theory, the OI and the Saturation Index are both incredibly simple.  In practice however - in the real world - you only have to index a few knots before you start to realise that life within a knot is COMPLEX and a simple two dimensional indexing system will struggle to describe our knots in a simplistic manner.  I have only indexed a few knots so far and have already started to unearth questions that will need some thinking about before we can agree some way foreword.

But is that to say that we should abandon the OI because we stumble across some complexities at an early stage?  In fact, we should ask - do we even need a web based Encyclopedia of Knots when Google can find just about every knot you want?

I think the answer to those questions is best formulated by looking at a possible situation two years from now.  Imagine that a couple of people worked at indexing and entering basic knot info into the Wiki while a couple of others added methods of tying, uses, history, folklore, AKA names, even translating some of the information into other languages.  The Encyclopedia of Knots will still be far from complete, but at that point ask - is this thing of any value?  Is the OI useful to home in on the small subgroup of knots which might contain the knot I am trying to identify?

Instinctively, I feel the answer to both of these questions is going to be a resounding YES.  However, today we have nothing but problems and need something to motivate us towards putting in that work for two years - chicken - egg !!

I also feel that making a tool out of the OI will take us towards needing to understand knots at a more fundamental level, and this I believe is at the heart of establishing the Science of Knotting.  If we can do this, then perhaps we can argue a case for the inclusion of the study of knots as part of the school curriculum.

I just have a gut hunch that it is going to be worth the work, so I am going to stick at it.  As it takes shape, hopefully others will share my viewpoint and will also start to chip in.

Dave, you raised two specific examples of problems with the OI and saturation.  Perhaps it would be best to follow your previous suggestion that this forum be used to iron out issues.  To this end, I will start a post for each of the issues you raised.

Derek