Author Topic: For what is a knot .....  (Read 7986 times)

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1572
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
For what is a knot .....
« on: May 26, 2006, 02:20:43 PM »
or - 'When is a knot not a knot?'

Charles (Nautile) holds that a knot must be a self contained entity and cannot rely on any external help for the maintenance of its function or existence.  Yet this seems wrong to me.  Intuitively, if a cord is given a form which allows it to perform a function, then surely it is a knot, even if that form and function rely explicitly on the presence of some other element such as force (i.e. tension) or a spar or hitching point.

At the other extreme, I accept that performance of function alone is not a prerequisite of the function of a knot.  A simple coil of rope performs the functions of tidiness and containment, but surely a coil is not a knot.  A knot may well be nothing but "a clever kink in cord" but equally - not all clever kinks are knots !!

So what then is(are) the accepted function(s) that transform a kink into a knot?

If you look at terms associated with cord use, one word crops up repeatedly  --  HOLDING.

Whilst cord in its many guises can have many functions - covering, containment, Lifting/lowering, transfer of force etc. the function of the knot is simply one of holding.  Holding the cord to an object or an object to the cord or simply holding a cord to another cord or even to itself.  Even in ornamental work, the function of the knot is to hold the cord in some particularly attractive configuration.

Is this then the essence which defines a 'clever kink' as a knot?  If the kink performs the function of holding - is it a knot?

If this is indeed the case, then the Clove Hitch is a knot (despite the fact that it physically does not exist as a knot, without the object it is made around).

This brings me to the root of my post.

Is the object around which the hitch is made in fact part of the knot?  I believe that there is good reason to argue that it is indeed part of the knot and that this has significant implications in Defining and Indexing Knots.

Take the Sheet Bend.  This undisputed knot is in fact two 'hitches' made one to each other.  One side of the knot is the simple loop OI-0:0 while the other side is the slightly more complex crossing loop OI-1:2 both in themselves useless as 'Holding' functions.  But hitch the crossing loop to a cord bight and you have the universal Sheet Bend (OI-7:10), hitch it to itself and you have the Bowline (OI-7:10) rearrange it and hitch it to a static bar and you have the Marlinspike Hitch (OI-3:3-H)??

Change the Marlinspike for a piece of flexible hawser and it is the Sheet Bend again.

And there you have the nub of the issue.  No matter what its thickness, if what you are hitching to is flexible, it is accepted as part of the knot.  Same thickness, same shape but rigid and suddenly it is NOT part of the knot - I have a problem with that sort of 'discriminatory' thinking and I have to argue that, in this example, the solid part is just as much part of the knot as if it had been flexible.

But at this point I have argued myself into a corner.  Make a 'Dave Root' Myrtle Hitch around a tree - clearly the tree is not part of the knot even though it is being 'held' by the knot.  However, make a Clove Hitch around the tree and by my reasoning the tree is then part of the knot !!!!

Help me out here - 'When is a knot not a knot'?

squarerigger

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • IGKTPAB Immediate Past President
    • The Knot Guy
Re: For what is a knot .....
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2006, 08:10:17 PM »
Hi Derek,

Let's try the language approach instead:

Dorling Kindersley Illustrated Oxford Dictionary:

Knot:  An intertwining of a rope, string, tress of hair, etc., with another, itself, or something else to join or fasten together...

But wait, there's more:

Derived from the Old English word cnotta which is of West Germanic origin (Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories)...

And then again:

"An intertwining or complication of the parts of one or more ropes, cords, strips or anything flexible enough, made for the purpose of fastening them together, or to an object, or to prevent slipping, and secured by being drawn tight; a tie in a rope, necktie, etc., also a tangle accidentally drawn tight..." from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary.

Evidently, from the past works of the erudite persons who have compiled these works, there exists a definition of when a knot IS a knot, but not when it is NOT a knot; therefore I would suspect that, in normal English usage, a knot is not a knot when it is not something already described.  Accepting that practically anything that is not within that set of definitions accepted in English usage is not a knot (e.g. a pencil) then I guess the answer lies with the beholder to determine if it meets the definitions already presented and then, if not knot, not!

What do other languages say?

I recognize that we sometimes also turn to ABOK, but he is not particularly helpful here, because he gives several differing descriptions and, properly, does not attempt to define a knot, or even what is not a knot.  Is a bight a knot - I think not, unless it is performing a function as a half turn perhaps?  Is a clove hitch a knot - when it performs a function, be that onto another line, itself or a separate object, then yes, otherwise it is a tangle of cord that performs no useful function.  So what about a carrick bend?  Is that a knot?  It performs the function of tying around itself, so probably it is a knot.  How about a marling hitch?  Without an object, it is an overhand knot.  How about a rope mat?  Certainly if it performs a function of being good to look at or does a job of resisting chafe, then yes, it is a knot.

The upshot?  When all is said and done, whether the knot contains something rigid or not, it also contains something flexible and performs a function (not attempting to re-define here) and so it fits the definition and becomes a knot.  A silk scarf or sarong tied around a comely waist is a knot, but the person is not.  Does that help?

SR

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: For what is a knot .....
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2006, 10:02:55 PM »
I'VE CONTINUED THE DISCUSSION IN THE OLD THREAD, ENTITLED
"TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT", AS THAT HAS RELEVANT BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION (WHICH ACTIVE USE WILL KEEP ALIVE).

squarerigger

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • IGKTPAB Immediate Past President
    • The Knot Guy
Re: For what is a knot .....
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2006, 04:03:51 AM »
Dear Dan,,

Quote
I'VE CONTINUED THE DISCUSSION IN THE OLD THREAD, ENTITLED
"TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT", AS THAT HAS RELEVANT BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION (WHICH ACTIVE USE WILL KEEP ALIVE).


To use your own words - Ah-uh!  No hijacking the thread to your own, or rather Charles' - this thread is about what a knot is not, not what is a knot (was that not the whole point of Charles' discussion - to find a definition for a knot?) so this is not and that is.  N'est-ce-pas?

Now, what about this:
Knot: noun;
Quote
"An intertwining or complication of the parts of one or more ropes, cords, strips or anything flexible enough, made for the purpose of fastening them together, or to an object, or to prevent slipping, and secured by being drawn tight; a tie in a rope, necktie, etc., also a tangle accidentally drawn tight..." from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary.


If the "knot" does not meet that, is it a knot or not?  Ooh!  I am having fun with this - weird, huh ;D?

SR

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1572
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: For what is a knot .....
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2006, 05:29:48 PM »
Quote
Hi Derek,

The upshot?  When all is said and done, whether the knot contains something rigid or not, it also contains something flexible and performs a function (not attempting to re-define here) and so it fits the definition and becomes a knot.  A silk scarf or sarong tied around a comely waist is a knot, but the person is not.  Does that help?

SR

Thanks SR, but No it does not help.

I have already acknowledged that a loop passed around a tree and tied in the Myrtle knot does not incorporate the tree into the knot and this is the same situation as the loop passed around the waist.  This is because the loop is not part of the knot.  The loop is simply a means of collecting and transferring the forces between the knot (Myrtle) and the tree.

The knot does not 'know' that its two loaded legs are connected, nor in fact do they need to be so, so long as they are both loaded reasonably similarly.

The historical 'muzzy thinking' which holds that a Bowline is different from a Sheetbend is at work here.  The loop is not part of the knot, it just supplies a simple means of providing the two working load ends with similar shares of the load, you could just as easily tie the two ends to the load independently and get the same beast.  Please- Forget loop knots, they are a distraction and are not what this topic is about.

To re-focus.  This topic is to consider the anachronistic misconception that component stiffness should influence its perception as being part of the knot.

"Part of the knot" means that if that part is removed, then the knot ceases to exist in that form or function.  Typical examples would be the Marlinspike hitch and the Constrictor knot.  If the rigid component is replaced with a flexible component then the Marlinspike hitch collapses to a Sheetbend and the Constrictor knot collapses to our little friend the Myrtle knot.  Remove these components and the knots cease to exist, collapsing to unknotted cord.

There is an infinite continuum of material stiffness' from absolutely rigid through to zero (i.e. non existent) and if there is an argument that stiffness negates a component from being part of a knot, then you must address where in that stiffness spectrum you are going to stipulate the breakpoint - one side it is part of the knot - the other side it is not part of the knot.  Most importantly, you have to establish a justification for this breakpoint and I would argue that you would also need to justify its very existence when simple logic directs that it is part of the knot - irrespective of its stiffness - if it performs a function within the knot or the knot does not exist without it.

So - Who has an argument that the Marlin spike is NOT part of the hitch.  And I don't just mean 'but its always been that way' sort of argument.

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 492
Re: For what is a knot .....
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2006, 06:10:18 PM »
i think that in general public, we call any lacing a knot anymore.  But, not a coiled rope, not even 'laced' (my word to cover knot, hitch , turns, splices comprehensively) in 8's to prevent coiling/ twists.

For, in use lacing must be an empowered (by rope tension) machine; and have a host to be a  knot/ hitch/ turn.  A knot just has itself as host*.  The straight parts transferring force, any arc/ angle manipulating for force (by modifying distance for same work that a straight line could do in less distance) and frictional parts(that degrade force in trade for grip and heat).


In some olde texts, one might see referances of bending a line to a spar (instead of hitching same); so these lines have been blurred before.  

To me, a SheetBend is a bight trying to escape, from the grip of the simple hitch in it's other.  As Equal and Opposites; we wish the strategy and alignmeant of the Hitch to outpower and secure the bight; to have superiority in this matching.  

A Bowline is the same lacing; but is a knot, for it is this bend to self; thus exerts itself against itself all it's forces; has it's own self as host.  Also, even though the same lacing, internalizing; folding back the forces on it's own self completely, changes the mechanics enough to make a bowline more secure than a SheetBend.  Then the lines become blurred even more, as a running bowline becomes a hitch....


A Crossed Turn is the same lacing as a Hitch; but the force direction/ which end has maximum pull; determines whether the mechanics is the high friction of a Crossed Turn, or the lock of a Hitch.  If the higher force is on the top of the crossing lines/pinching the lessor, then it is a Hitch.  If, the same lacing has the greater force as the bottom of the crossing lines/ pinched by the lessor, then it is jsut high friction/ some slide of a Crossed Turn mechanics.

Thus, a Clove or Cow to me has 2 operating mechanics to break apart to define how it goes.   1st, a Crossed Turn; that reduces force, then the lock of a Hitch.  For, in the first cross of the lacing, the Standing Part/ greater goes under the Bitters/ lessor for that crossing.  This then feeds that force to the 2nd crossing.  Now, that, which was the Bitters/lessor, is the Standing Part/ greater for this instance of a crossing.   So, greater force pinches lessor, and this is a Hitch.  This is not quite in the true Baby holding a Bus fashion, as what a baby could hold on the final Bitters, is not pinched under the bus pull.  But, a Constrictor fixes that(and stabilizes Bitters between 2 'walls'), as well as a type of snug hitch(es) that does same



So, to me, it is always this thing of raw mechanics.  any type of knot/ lacing must be a working thing that performs when empowered by line tension.  It must also have a host.  If that host is it's own self, it is 'knotted up'...




* i think philosophically, psychologically and socially we might speak more in the older worlde words of knotting; but with more innate understanding/ less confusion.  Then, locked against oneself is a knot, joining with another form is hitched etc.!
« Last Edit: May 27, 2006, 06:20:42 PM by KC »
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon[/color]
East meets West: again and again, cos:sine is the value pair of yin/yang dimensions
>>of benchmark aspect and it's non(e), defining total sum of the whole.
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples

squarerigger

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • IGKTPAB Immediate Past President
    • The Knot Guy
Re: For what is a knot .....
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2006, 09:34:29 PM »
Hi Derek,

I think I did get your point and my levity should have suffered more brevity to bring it to the fore.  Yes, a knot does have to include something with stiffness and, no, it does not exist without that stiff object.  Without the stiff object, it is just a piece of string - with an interesting but non-functional shape.

So, is the stiff part a part of the knot - yes, it is a necessary component, without which the knot ceases to have a function.  As in your motorcycle example, the 'bike ceases to be a functional 'bike if you take away the carburetor (or brakes or wheels or whatever) so, in the knot example,  then the stiff part is a part of the knot.

However... when defining a 'bike (or knot) we simply need to state its function and component parts to know whether or not it is truly a 'bike.  The component parts may or may not include safety features, such as mirrors for rearward viewing and a knot may not include safety features such as a finishing seizing or half hitch for improved performance and/or function.

Back to the marlinespike hitch - it does not have to contain a marlinespike to function as a hitch, just something stiff like a piece of wood or a tire lever or whatever, provided that it will do the job (function) of providing a handle with which to pull on the line in which the hitch has been applied.  In the Myrtle Hitch example, it is not necessary to have the tree, per se, to have the knot function - just as long as you have something that you are holding with the knot.  Its (the knot's) function is to be able to tie around something securely, and that function is not unique to this knot/hitch, it is simply one that was selected because it is a favorite/is tied easily/is something readily remembered/it has always been done that way by that person/etc./etc./etc.  The tree in that case is the reason to have the knot, not its functional part.  The knot is not functional until it performs a function.  The object on which it performs that function could be anything, but it must be there or the function is not performed.  No need for further explanation...?

In your example of the Bowline, Sheet Bend, Becket Bend/Hitch, Marlinespike Hitch, each one performs a different function and is therefore considerate of a different name.  Back to the 'bikes - if I leave out one of the wheels, I have a unicycle, if I leave out the engine, I have a pushbike, if I leave out the handlebars, I have nothing to hold (steering, other than tight corners, can be performed by leaning).  Each of these functions is different, but they have a common function, if you will, of performing transportation.

Does this mean the bwl/SB/BB/H/MH are all providing transportation?  No, but each may have an overall function of providing security. ease of handling, or some other as yet undefined common function.  Our job/focus/interest is to find the common functions and then collect the knots which fit that common function, much like botanists, or any other scientists, group things together for ease of classification and definition.  Maybe we will find each knot fits more than one function, maybe not.  What are the common functions?  Something for another day...

SR

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: For what is a knot .....
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2006, 03:22:46 AM »
Quote
This is because the loop is not part of the knot.  The loop is simply a means of collecting and transferring the forces between the knot and the tree.

Dick Chisholm ("AllAboutKnots") makes a distinction between "knot" and the
"nub" of a knot, to cover this--i.e., he includes the eye (loop).

Quote
The knot does not 'know' that its two loaded legs are connected, nor in fact do they need to be so, so long as they are both loaded reasonably similarly.

This example puts a challenge to my definition for "loop" as a knot type, in that
I define it as "a knot in a single PoFM"; the case of a big such loopknot tied as
a towing bridle for a barge, where the sides of the eye run around, say, cleats,
and then are subsequently TIED (cleat hitch) to these cleats, and then something
falls and severs the eye between the cleats--rendering it into 2 PoFM now--,
all the while the "knot" (or knot "nub") remains w/o change, ... !  So, does this
"loop" definition need a change?  But how?  Does one specify it as just the knot
structure and, what, percentages of loading per "end", or angle?  One can dial
such aspects and raise other (boundary) line-drawing issues (adjusting
angle and percentage ...)!

Quote
To re-focus.  This topic is to consider the anachronistic misconception that component stiffness should influence its perception as being part of the knot.
...
if there is an argument that stiffness negates a component from being part of a knot, then you must address where in that stiffness spectrum you are going to stipulate the breakpoint - one side it is part of the knot - the other side it is not part of the knot.  Most importantly, you have to establish a justification for this breakpoint and I would argue that you would also need to justify its very existence when simple logic directs that it is part of the knot - irrespective of its stiffness - if it performs a function within the knot or the knot does not exist without it.

So - Who has an argument that the Marlin spike is NOT part of the hitch.

I provided a set of defintions in an effort to articulate what a knot is (under that
aptly titled exisiting thread).  In those, objects were entailed by some of the knot
types (i.p., hitch, binder, & stopper); but being entailed for the knot type isn't
the same as being part of the knot.  One would expect the assertion that
knots are made in knottable media (my definition uses "pieces of flexible
material") to be nearly tautologous, undisputed?  But none would see a stack of
spars, tree limbs, carabiners, anchors, hooks, piles as knottable media.

Above, you suggested a continuum of loading ("both loaded reasonably similarly")
for keeping a bowline that really was a joint of one rope to another as unchanged
--there, too, then, is a boundary issue, based on tension instead of stiffness.

In practice, I suspect that such boundaries will not be hard to see--i.e., that
between the stiff & the flexible will be a no-knot's land of no concern.

I sense your concern about having a boundary that one might want to be of
a logical nature be based on a variable aspect; I have this re defining
"noose", and so see it defined by structure rather than behvior, as behavior
will change with material and force.

--dl*
====

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1572
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: For what is a knot .....
« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2006, 05:21:04 PM »
As ever Dan, you see the bigger picture.

Quote

Dick Chisholm ("AllAboutKnots") makes a distinction between "knot" and the
"nub" of a knot, to cover this--i.e., he includes the eye (loop).

--dl*
====

I do not understand your point here Dan - is this an agree or a disagree and if the latter on what grounds other than Dick Chrisholm said so?

Quote

This example puts a challenge to my definition for "loop" as a knot type, in that
I define it as "a knot in a single PoFM"; the case of a big such loopknot tied as
a towing bridle for a barge, where the sides of the eye run around, say, cleats,
and then are subsequently TIED (cleat hitch) to these cleats, and then something
falls and severs the eye between the cleats--rendering it into 2 PoFM now--,
all the while the "knot" (or knot "nub") remains w/o change, ... !  So, does this
"loop" definition need a change?  But how?  Does one specify it as just the knot
structure and, what, percentages of loading per "end", or angle?
--dl*
====


No, I do not think there is any challenge to the loop as a knot type, on the contrary.  The argument clearly stands that the loop is very much a knot in its own right.  It is the first knot.  It is probably the earliest to be made because of its functional simplicity.  It is used extensively both in its own right and in combination with other knots and it is a fundamental sub-component in probably every 'higher' knot.

In fact I believe the loop is a family of two knots - The Open loop {OI-0:0-1} i.e. a single Po[F]M shaped into a U configuration with both ends open, and The Closed Loop {OI-0:0-2} - a single Po[F]M closed into circle.  They both perform the function of holding and I have trusted my life to both when climbing.

I have no problems with a loop as a knot in its own right and that is why I see the Bowline as a compound knot - two knots - The Sheetbend + The Open Loop.  Loading in a loop is a different issue which I hope can be handled later in its own thread in order to keep this one focussed.

Quote

I provided a set of defintions in an effort to articulate what a knot is (under that
aptly titled exisiting thread).  In those, objects were entailed by some of the knot
types (i.p., hitch, binder, & stopper); but being entailed for the knot type isn't
the same as being part of the knot.  One would expect the assertion that
knots are made in knottable media (my definition uses "pieces of flexible
material") to be nearly tautologous, undisputed?  But none would see a stack of
spars, tree limbs, carabiners, anchors, hooks, piles as knottable media.
--dl*
====


And so to the nub.  I will make the presumption that you have a suitably thick hide, so I will put this bluntly to save on words.

You state "But none would see a stack of spars, tree limbs, carabiners, anchors, hooks, piles as knottable media."  Wrong - and perhaps more than a little dismissive of the argument!!

I do see an anchor (eye) as the rigid part of its fixing - its Becket so to speak.  I see spars as the rigid part of a number of hitches for which the spar is an integral part of the knot structure - (as well as - a fixing point).  I see tree limbs as an integral part of one of the many gripping hitches whilst simultaneously being part of the load, and of course hook eyes and 'biners are the grist of the Clove, the Lanyard and the Becket hitches.

I fully accept your implied point that containment within a knot ( and not being a functional part of the knot) does not   imbue that component with any element of being part of the knot.  However, you use the word 'entailed' which implies it as being 'an essential component of' and here I disagree with your definition.  If an 'entailed' component is an essential (i.e. integral) part of the knot, or to paraphrase it, if the knot does not exist in that form without that component, then I postulate that the component is in fact part of the knot, irrespective of its colour, substance , thickness or flexibility.

You say "One would expect the assertion that knots are made in knottable media (my definition uses "pieces of flexible material") to be nearly tautologous[sic], undisputed?"

Of course - but that is simply a circular argument - the other side of which is tautologous, being that "that of which a knot is made is knottable media" ergo rigid components of a knot are knottable media and you arbitrary restriction to "pieces of flexible material" is unfounded.  Simply stating a definition does not, of itself, make that statement fact.  It is necessary to be able to substantiate that definition, and I believe that in this case a credible argument has been made against the exclusion of material from the structure of a knot based solely on its rigidity.

But of course the purpose of this forum is to consider other viewpoints - hopefully this will lead us to a firm basis for a resolution to this issue based on logic rather than lore.

Jimbo_The_Kinky

  • Guest
Re: For what is a knot .....
« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2006, 07:38:02 PM »
Thank you, DerekSmith!  I am grateful & pleased (and honored beyond measure) that someone took up my .SIG challenge!

Quote
surely a coil is not a knot.

Ummm...  Depends on your reverence.

Per CWA, as ABOK# 1313 (interpreted), a coil is a knot: a 1B * 1L THK doubled "a whole buncha" times.  (Ain't I a stinker?)  ;D  But if you coiled your cord around a post, would it become a hitch?

Quote
A knot may well be nothing but "a clever kink in cord" but equally - not all clever kinks are knots !!

So what then is(are) the accepted function(s) that transform a kink into a knot?


Ah!  I promised I'd abuse you over ill-logic.  It seems you are joking, so we'll all please smile as we note the subtle change in the two sentences of that statement.  The "clever" bit in my .SIG took some work.  It gives the sense of "mental activity" involved in the kinking of the cord.

IOW, in Jimboville, "a kink" is different from "a clever kink"...

However...

Has anyone made large (lots of B & L) Turk's Heads?  (Yes, I know that's a stupid (albeit rhetorical) question in here!)  How many times have you been reeving (feeding, pulling, guiding, lea... no-no, not the "L word") your cord through the "next" gozunder, only to have a nice, friendly little Thumb Knot run up the string to meet you?  (An Overhand Knot makes a dandy Stopper, by the second doubling!)  Am I the only one that happens to??  That's hardly a "clever kink", as no mind guided any hand to cause it to happen!!  And yet, in its form it is exactly an ordinary "Thumb Knot", made by accident.  I get the odd "Figure 8" too, but mostly it's just les Noeuds Simple...

Are they less of knots because they were coincidental??  Ol' Cliff would seem to think so, at least because they were "accidental ... snarls and kinks (p12)".  I'd have to ask, because they look[/b] just like the ones I put in on purpose...  ???

Quote
Whilst cord in its many guises can have many functions - [...] the function of the knot is simply one of holding.

Good point!  (This is why is is vital to not exclude anyone, no matter their choice of words!  (Yes, even advocates of censorship must be allowed to speak freely.))


The knot holds the cordage to its task.


Quote
Is this then the essence which defines a 'clever kink' as a knot?

I had the notion of "intent" in mind when I coined that .SIG, but any kink certainly catches the cord in its own way, so...

Quote
If this is indeed the case, then the Clove Hitch is a knot

Okay, one more logic lesson ("Through Logic, you will find the Truth" ~Jimbo) & I'll get off your back.  The fallacy expressed here is called "Four Terms".  You've used it cleverly, so the "intent" is appreciated, but the "Clove Hitch" is a "Hitch", not a "Knot".  What is a knot?  A hitch is, as of now, but a Hitch is not a Knot.  (FYI, I love word games like this!!!)  But if you're the IGKT, it's your job (duty, responsibility, mission, whatever) to cleave (or Clove) this particular Gordian Knot (which was also a Hitch -- no disrespect to our Fairlead) and put the pieces in their proper places.

[snipped for YABBc]...

Jimbo_The_Kinky

  • Guest
Re: For what is a knot .....
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2006, 07:48:38 PM »
[YABBc snippage ends, post resumes...]

Quote
This brings me to the root of my post.

Is the object around which the hitch is made in fact part of the knot?  I believe that there is good reason to argue that it is indeed part of the knot and that this has significant implications in Defining and Indexing Knots.

I disagree, but not really. I can't argue that either way, as each side makes as much sense as the other side would.

I suspect there may be a subtle "Fallacy of Four Terms" going on here too...  But not really...  Knot.  Really!

But a Hitch, OTOH, is naught but a pile of cord without its "hitchee"...

Quote
Take the Sheet Bend.

Please!

Parenthetically, I'm not able to use the Sheet Bend except to teach it -- which is only when someone asks for it specifically.  It may be the bee's knees on Hemp, but on the Nylon & Dacron Kernmantels I use, it's only "not scary" for light duty.  Even doubled (ABOK#488 &/or #1434), the Sheet Bend will unreeve itself long before the rest of the rig fails, and when the end goes through the "nips", it strips the whips...  I have left several bits of tangled, dayglo-yellow brickmason's cord in the woods to prove that.  Plus, this unbalances the "Kern" and the "Mantel", rendering the rest of the rope "suspect" until I can get it back in order again.  The stopping on ABOK# 1434 wouldn't help, as it's the "wrapped" part (when I pull on it) that fails.  Okay, it takes a lot to get there, but it happens to me regularly enough to make the Zeppelin (thanks, roo) the bend that "just comes out of my fingers" when I need such.

Quote
One side of the knot is the simple loop OI-0:0

By Ashley, that's an Open Loop or a Closed Loop (ABOK#31 or 32).  Thanks Cliff?   :-/

Quote
while the other side is the slightly more complex crossing loop OI-1:2

Ummm...  "Single Turn" (ABOK# 40).

And yes, I hope that was just a strong reinforcement of several of your points!

Quote
hitch the crossing loop to a cord bight and you have the universal Sheet Bend (OI-7:10), hitch it to itself and you have the Bowline (OI-7:10) rearrange it and hitch it to a static bar and you have the Marlinspike Hitch (OI-3:3-H)??


That was worth repeating, "four terms" notwithstanding.  I see the knotted cordage somewhat essentially, so to me the knot is the same in all these...  And more, as I notice you forgot the Noose...

Quote
if what you are hitching to is flexible, it is accepted as part of the knot.  Same thickness, same shape but rigid and suddenly it is NOT part of the knot
...
But at this point I have argued myself into a corner.
Myrtle Hitch around a tree - clearly the tree is not part of the knot
Clove Hitch around the tree and by my reasoning the tree is then part of the knot !!!!

Ummm...  Looks like another "Four Terms" problem.  Firstly, Granny Myrtle's Loopknot is not a hitch!  The tree only serves to keep rodents from hauling your cordage away.

But the Clove Hitch is not even a kink without the "Hitchee" (Brion Toss' term for pile, post, rail, tree, body part, whatever).  The "nip" can't hold against air.  IOW, in a Hitch the "nip" occurs between the cordage and the Hitchee. Knots are "self-nipping" -- I had a dog like that once...

Quote
So - Who has an argument that the Marlin spike is NOT part of the hitch.  And I don't just mean 'but its always been that way' sort of argument.

My Marlingspike has never been such a co-conspirator!  See, if I put my finger in there it's still a ... a ... ("...Every finger a Marlingspike...") NOoOOOoOoOo!  ;D

Seriously, "this" cord in "that" configuration doesn't care whether my spike is in there, my finger, or any other protruding "thingy" (not a YABBC corruption, but a humorous homage thereto).  And yet, "that" configuration (with the "Hitchee") makes a Marlingspike Hitch every time.  

Now, drop the Hitchee, set & tighten & you have a Noose.  So the Hitch becomes a Knot, and the Magick just keeps getting weirder.  Why is it always the same, with different "integral parts", and why is a Noose always hiding in there too?

Thank you for using my .SIG quips as they were intended.  It seems my business here is almost concluded...

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: For what is a knot .....
« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2006, 12:55:57 AM »
Quote
As ever Dan, you see the bigger picture.

I do not understand your point here Dan - is this an agree or a disagree and if the latter on what grounds other than Dick Chrisholm said so?

You have a way of taking seeing everything as mortal combat:  Chisholm has
made the conceptualization I described--his way of dealing with things.
That is not some "grounds" for determining realilty; it is a way to see it.
We differ in seeing the point of having definitions--to wit:
Quote
Simply stating a definition does not, of itself, make that statement fact.

It's not a case of "fact" and not--some Correspondence Theory of Truth--, but of
consistency and usefulness--more a Coherence ToT.  To use a Wittgenstein example,
"It would also be possible to speak of an activity of butter when it rises in price,
and if no problems are produced by this it is harmless."  How do we want to
speak about knots & related things?  For "knottable material" I favor "pieces
of flexible material" because I see friction as essential to knots--what makes
them work, their means of "holding".  You, no matter your philosophy, will not
knot any of those supposed knottable media of spar & anchor rings together,
and I find that consistent with my definitions & conception of reality.  (Hooking
two hooks together, or hanging something by a ring or shackle from a spar or limb,
is not knotting to me--nor to common use of "tie"/"knot".  --friction isn't
relevant, there, only rigidity (as opposed to flexibility).  And for similar reasons
I specified "of uniform cross section" to remove e.g. chain from consideration,
at least in some case where a link inserted within another could hold by virture
of its (rigid) shape (and unlike more knotty holding of a turn/HH in chain around
a log, say, tied off with a Timber Hitch (and mis-named, I surmise, to "Killeg H.")).

Quote
No, I do not think there is any challenge to the loop as a knot type, on the contrary.  ... it is a fundamental sub-component in probably every 'higher' knot.

Uhm, you're clearly not using "loop" as I intended:  "loop" ::= "a knot ...",
e.g., a Bowline, an Overhand loop, a Perfection Loop.  "loop" is such an overloaded
word that I want to get something else--e.g., "eye knot" or something.
Quote

I have no problems with a loop as a knot in its own right and that is why I see the Bowline as a compound knot - two knots - The Sheetbend + The Open Loop.  Loading in a loop is a different issue which I hope can be handled later in its own thread in order to keep this one focussed.

Hmmm, interesting, but I resist this.  I prefer to not take this view, though
admitting the case of the "loop"-shape to belaying-pin/tree-&-ground minimal
hitch as that, but in my terms a knot involving an object, dependent upon the
object, but still distinct from it.  But bring PoFM into the object's role here and
I find it something being knotted and the compound to you as a primary,
single "knot".

Quote
You state "But none would see a stack of spars, tree limbs, carabiners, anchors, hooks, piles as knottable media."  Wrong - and perhaps more than a little dismissive of the argument!!

Well, maybe ONE person will assert this (but will have no better luck at knotting
such things than any other).  It's not dismissive, it illustrates my point.

Quote
I fully accept your implied point that containment within a knot ( and not being a functional part of the knot) does not imbue that component with any element of being part of the knot.  However, you use the word 'entailed' which implies it as being 'an essential component of' and here I disagree with your definition.  If an 'entailed' component is an essential (i.e. integral) part of the knot, or to paraphrase it, if the knot does not exist in that form without that component, then I postulate that the component is in fact part of the knot, irrespective of its colour, substance , thickness or flexibility.

Simply, one can define things otherwise, and I think that my definitions lead
to better dealing with "knots" than what you imply.  Yes, sometimes a knot such
as a stopper or binder or hitch will involve an object, maybe depending on it for
structural integrity; but I prefer to see the knot part of this being in the
material that is knottable, that is flexible, that holds by friction.

--dl*
====

squarerigger

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • IGKTPAB Immediate Past President
    • The Knot Guy
Re: For what is a knot .....
« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2006, 02:37:51 AM »
Hi Dan, Derek and Jimbo,

Sooooo:

Given all that, what is now your definition of the word "knot"?  Are there different definitions, like adverb, noun, adjective, verb, function, purpose, etc., with which we are messing?

Do you allow that there may also be hitches (which do not include knots as defined above)?
Do you allow that there may also be bends (which do not include knots or hitches as described above)?
Do you allow that there may also be loops (which do not include knots, hitches or bends a.d.a)?
Do you allow that there may also be bindings/lashings (which do not include knots, hitches, bends, loops a.d.a)?

What are your words of wisdom?  I have to admit that I am getting lost in Wittengenstein, non-bendy spars (is that always true or only at STP and moisture content and humidity and, and, and) and SParts that may or may not include loops which are or are not knots or loops and whether or not something has to be a PoFM under a ToT or not.  What is the utlimate word that you all can come up with, or is this to and fro just for the sake of it?

Intrigued in SoCal, where the sun shines daily on the mountain-top,

SR

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: For what is a knot .....
« Reply #13 on: May 29, 2006, 03:43:01 AM »
Quote
Hi Dan, Derek and Jimbo,
Sooooo:
Given all that, what is now your definition of the word "knot"?

Do you allow that there may also be hitches, bends, ...


Mine was given in detail on the so-named thread to which you didn't want to
renew--cf. "Tentative Definition of Knot", last page (and also 1st/2nd).
"knot" is the general noun (also verb, undefined), and then my six classes build
upon that.  (And others are left to further formulation/struggle.)

Further to Dereck's position opposing the relevance of flexibility, I hold that
knottable media is one in which one can tie a knot (alone / to itself).  Now,
this still has the defining-by-using-defined-term aroma, but the sense is clear
enough:  one cannot take something rigid alone and make anything that heretofore
has been considered to be a knot; rather, knottable media must be flexible enough
to form the sort of structures generally regarded as knots.  Now, in certain cases,
a rigid material (even of a particular shape) is necessary for enabling the PoFM
to make some particular knot (or a class of knots--e.g., ring or spar or pile hitches
require a ring/spar/pile).  (The soil necessary to support the tree isn't part
of the tree.)

--dl*
====

squarerigger

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • IGKTPAB Immediate Past President
    • The Knot Guy
Re: For what is a knot .....
« Reply #14 on: May 29, 2006, 09:43:03 AM »
Hi Dan,

Thanks - so a PoFM amounts to something that can be formed into a non-linear shape?  Something like a piece of rebar for instance, or wire rope, or a tree or a thingy or a tail on an animal?  Did you see the knots, if that is what we call them, that were formed in cast bronze in a recent (within the last two years) issue of KM?  Was the shape, the function or the PoFM the important part?  I am beginning to think that the PoFM is not that important, or maybe the function (is art a function?) has to exist for it to be a knot?  Maybe that is not important either...?

I wanted to point out, and maybe I should have just flat out said it, that it is not possible to define a knot, or when a knot is not, unless we first can admit that there may not be something that we can define when it has been around for so many thousands of years that we all know it when we see it (like pornograph-y perhaps?) but, like water, it can be solid, liquid or gas (OK - it is a solid, usually, I do not mean that literally, for all the literalists reaching for their keyboard) and it depends on what form or function it takes for us to know whether or not it exists.  Is this whole puzzle a knot in itself?  My mind is not strong enough to be able to work on this weirdness, so I'm outta here - enjoy!

SR