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:
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.")).
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.
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".
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
knottingsuch things than any other). It's not dismissive, it illustrates my point.
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*
====