Author Topic: Bowline Family Tree  (Read 14515 times)

75RR

  • Guest
Bowline Family Tree
« on: July 15, 2013, 04:22:30 PM »
.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 11:53:41 PM by 75RR »

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
Re: Bowline Family Tree
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2013, 12:04:46 AM »
Nice work 75RR.
Do you plan to fill in the blanks?

SS

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Bowline Family Tree
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2013, 02:32:47 AM »
A lot of interest from me! Nice work 75RR.

May I suggest that your post be moved to 'knotting concepts and explorations' - specifically to the 'What defines a bowline' thread. That will breathe new life into that post and I think that is the proper place for this post.

...

Anyhow, may I also suggest that such a system be based somewhat on the classification of living things be used (kingdom, phyla, class, order, family, genus, species :) )

If this idea is accepted, what would the top level domains be?  (that is instead of the word 'kingdom' - maybe 'top-level domain'?)

Top level domains could be:
 'Tiable-in-the-bight' (TIB)     |      non TIB      |   ?           |         ?

For example, a TIB Bowline is "#1080".
(note that not all Bowlines can be TIB).

Then, we have the following structures to classify:
[ ] Single nipping loop
[ ] Double nipping loops (this would include the so called 'Water' bowline and also "#1013")
[ ] Anti-bowlines (where the each leg of the bight enters the nipping turn from opposite sides)
[ ] Off-set bowline (eg 'Eskimo/Inuit' bowline with its offset bight)
[ ] Crossing hitch based bowlines (eg Mike Karash)
[ ] Single collar bowlines
[ ] Double collar bowlines (eg the Heinz Prohaska Double collar bowline aka 'Janus' bowline)
[ ] Single eye bowlines
[ ] Double eye bowlines (like the 'Portugese' bowline and also Bowline on-a-bight "ABoK # 1080 " and "#1080" is also TIB)

Mark

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Bowline Family Tree
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2013, 03:58:06 AM »
    I would like to be the odd man out here, and claim that the bowline taxonomy - if there can be such a thing - should only come at the end of collecting all the interesting specimens, not at the beginning !  :)  And we can not know, in advance, if it would have a hierarchical (tree) structure, or not.
   As we had discussed in this Forum some time ago, the most probable scheme would be a directed graph, with points (representing the different bowlines ) and arrows, that connect those points ( representing the relations between those different bowlines - and with "relations" we can mean structural or formal similarities, or even transformations : for example, re-tuckings or un-tuckings that can lead from the one to the other). Two bowlines can be connected with an arrow because they are both TIB, or because they both have two collars, or because they have the same nipping structure or the same collar structure, etc. Also, there may be some bowlines that are lone wolves - like the braided bowline, or the Tweedledee bowline, for example.
   Trying to remain close to the initial taxonomy of Mark Gommers, I would distinguish the following clusters of bowlines :
   
   First cluster :
   
   1.  Locked bowlines ( formed by retucking(s) of the tail of a standard bowline). A notable locked bowline is the Yosemite bowline, and a notable re-tucked Yosemite bowline is the Lee s locked bowline.
   2. "Eskimo" bowlines ( bowlines where the eye leg of the Tail side enters the nipping turn from the "polar" side  :) )
   3.  Bowlines where the Tail enters the nipping loop from the non-proper side.
   4.  Crossing knot/hitch based bowlines
   5.  Linked bowlines ( where the eye leg of the Tail side encircles the crossing point of the nipping turn, before it forms the collar ). A notable linked bowline is the Lee Zep X bowline.
   
   Second cluster   
   
   According to the form of the double nipping structure :
   
   1.  Double bowline
   2   Clove hitch bowline
   3   Constrictor bowline
   4   Girth hitch bowline
   
   Notice that most of them can be also
   
   A. tied in the reverse,
   B  tied as a common or as an" Eskimo" bowline, depending upon the side the eye leg of the Tail side enters into the two nipping turns.
 
   Third cluster
 
    According to the form of the single or double bight component / collar structure.
 
   1. Clove hitch ( dfred s solution )
   2. Constrictor hitch.
   3. Shape "8" overhand knot hitch ( the form of the bight component / collar structure in the case of the Girth hitch "Eskimo" bowline, for example )
   4. Fig.8 hitch ( the form of the bihght component / collar structure in the case of the Luca s TIB bowline, for example )

   Fourth cluster
   
   The Janus bowlines, where there is a collar around the standing end, and a collar around the eye leg of the standing part side.
   
    1.  "Common" Janus bowlines ( the eye leg of the Tail collars first the standing end, then the eye leg of the standing part side )
    2.  "Eskimo" Janus bowlines ( the eye leg of the Tail collars first the eye leg of the standing part side, then the standing end )

 
   That's all, folks ! :)
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 06:10:43 PM by X1 »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Bowline Family Tree
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2013, 02:54:46 PM »
Something like this?
   In this graph, every point may be connected to another point, but only with one arrow. Now, one arrow is representing one relation : the fact that one bowline is an "Eskimo" version of another, for example. However, there may well be other relations between them : those bowlines can both use the same form of collar structure, an "8" shaped overhand knot, for example. So, in general, bowlines are "pointing" in more than one other bowlines, in more than one ways - and this is what keeps the whole graph interconnected.
   I wish to emphasize one thing : All bowlines are but variations on the same theme, so anybody can figure out how they are tied, how they work, and why they are so good eyeknots as they are. Once one has seen the landscape, the forest, from above, he can easily distinguish each tree : nothing would seem mysterious to him. Something like the multiplication table : Once you understand what multiplication is, and you learn the name of each individual "cell", you will never forget it.
    Of course, there may be some surprizes, some extreme points that do not seem to be related to many others - the braised bowline, for example was such a surprize for me, as the Tweedledee bowline might be for others, but this does not change the general picture.
   Some people have some difficulty to memorize a map or a chart, because the human brain is not evolved for this ! I live in the centre of an old city, full of tourists, and I always smile when I see somebody who rotates the map he holds in his hands, to understand where he is - or even he keeps the map horizontal, on a particular orientation, and he himself goes around it, in circles !  :)  That means nothing. The poor tourist can well be the smartest human in the world, but his brain does not help him in this particular point. Most of the difficulties the man on the street encounters with knots stems from the fact that human brain can remember a thousand faces, for example, easily, but not ten knots ! What should we do ? We can not change the DNA of people who can not read and remember a map, of course, but we can simplify the map as much as possible.
   It turns out that there are many ways one can draw a simplified map. There is no unique map that is easily memorized by all people. There was a contest for map designers to draw the map of the Paris Metro two years ago, and the results, of ways of representing this relatively easy "landscape", were eye opening : Many different options, to the point it was really hard to decide which would suit to the largest number of metro users. 
   Maps may be easy, but drawing them is not easy at all !  :)  That is why one needs a deep knowledge of the field, he needs to understand why the points are where they are and not somewhere else, and why the relations between them are these and not others - BEFORE he can draw a simple, revealing, useful map. That is why I said say that the bowline taxonomy should only come at the end of collecting all the interesting specimens, not at the beginning . I am not sure that the exploration of the Land of the bowlines has ended, that anything that could have been found is found already, and so we can now devote ourselves in drawing the map of this Land. I see the brave talented explorer Alan Lee to present the one secure bowline after the other with an astonishing pace - I am sure that any map would do more harm than good to him, because it will solidify a vivid stream of ideas, before it reaches its final destination.
   In short : Show me the bowlines - all of them, persuade me that there will be no others, never, that there can be no others, and then I will draw you a nice, good looking map !  :)  Until then, we can only collect the specimina, put them into glass tubes, label them with provisional descriptive names, and wait.
   
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 03:03:59 PM by X1 »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Bowline Family Tree
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2013, 03:31:35 PM »
   So that's a no, is it ?
To which question ? I believe that if you collect all the possible questions you could address, there are many more "yes" than "no" in my reply.

You could always add a cautionary label: Here be Dragons as yet unsighted! ;)
   My effort was / always is to remove any looming shadows, so that there will be no room left for the dragons to hide. I claim that knots are simple things, provided we understand how they work, and do not just parrot their names and tying methods. Like the multiplication table : Imagine that we used a numerical system with 60 as a base, like the ancient Babylonians, with different names from the 1 to 60...Then, imagine that, for each particular multiplication of two numbers, we were denoting the ordered result also by a different label / name. Would there be anybody, alive or dead, those 5000 years, that would have learned 3600 numbers by heart ? Well, there would have been some, but I would nt be one of them, that is for sure !  :)
   I made a quick but most-inclusive, to my present knowledge, clustering of the known secure bowlines, in Reply#4 - a, say, first road map. I hope it might help, but, nevertheless, I can not see the harm it might cause ?
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 03:33:53 PM by X1 »

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Bowline Family Tree
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2013, 04:32:44 PM »
My effort was / always is to remove any looming shadows, so that there will be no room left for the dragons to hide.
I'm sure you mean well, but after all 23.1 billion loop knots are shown, I think you'll find plenty of hiding room.   ;)


Quote
I claim that knots are simple things, provided we understand how they work, and do not just parrot their names and tying methods. Like the multiplication table
I don't think it's that easy.  Knots cannot even be added like numbers, nor can one knot be multiplied by another knot.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2017, 11:33:43 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Bowline Family Tree
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2013, 04:43:34 PM »
Will you draw the map you outlined in Reply #4 and then backtracked in Reply #6?
  There is no map drawn in Reply#4 ! There are only a few clusters / neighbourhoods, like the areas with labels written with different colours in the map you have shown. Even those clusters are not so homogenous as I would like them to be : For example, the First Cluster seems more than a compilation of words, than a category - which is the relation between, say, an "Eskimo" bowline, and a bowline where " the Tail enters the nipping loop from the non-proper side" ( as it happens in the Carrick loop ) ? .
   So it is but a simple collection with the specimens I am aware of, grouped in 4 ad hoc categories. At the end of each cluster, I each sub-clustering : For example, we can have a secure double collar bowline based on a Girth hitch as its nipping structure / its double nipping loop, in a "common" bowline version ( the well known "Mirrored" bowline ), OR in a "Eskimo" version ( the unknown  :)  double Girth hitch "Eskimo" bowline, a beautiful knot - here, "double" denotes the existence of two collars, because the Girth hitch is already a "doubled", re. nipping loop, bowline ).
   So, I have only marked some points, but I have not connected the dots:)  Because I do not know how !  There are no arrows there, no braches, no hierarchy (1). You have placed the Janus bowline in the branch of the single bowline, under Scot s lock, and over what you call as "Cowboy" Janus",  but me, for one, I just can not "see" why... Are those three bowlines just different leaves of the same branch ? Are there any relations between them, or not ?(  Of course there are : the two Janus bowlines are just two of the many variations of the same knot, which you omit, while the Scot s bowline is not related to them whatsoever. )
   If you mean that I question the need for such a scheme, no, I do not, not at all !  If you mean that I question this specific hierarchical tree-like scheme, yes, I do. I do not see how the whole graph is articulated, what each arrow means, which are the neighbourhoods and which are the isolated houses, how I can go from the one to the other. In sort. I am lost !  :)  The more circles I make around this map, the more I get dizzy...

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3709.msg21947#msg21947
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 05:37:08 PM by X1 »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Bowline Family Tree
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2013, 04:50:53 PM »
I'm sure you mean well, but after all 23.1 billion loops knots are shown, I think you'll find plenty of hiding room.   ;)
  That is dragon humour...They like to drink the χυμους of their victims.
  ( Search at the Google dictionary, for the word χυμος, from which χυμορ = humour is derived. The verb χεω, from which χυσις, χυμος is derived, is used many times by Homer. In the dialect of Evoia, in ancient Greece, the final ς = s was pronounced as ρ = r, as mentioned by Plato, in Cratylus  (1)).

  X1 : "I claim that knots are simple things, provided we understand how they work, and do not just parrot their names and tying methods. Like the multiplication table ".
   I don't think it's that easy.  Knots cannot even be added like numbers, nor can one knot be multiplied by another knot.
   And that is dragon brains, in full work. I am speaking of "Like", similarity, and he understands sameness ...that is, nothing.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cratylus_(dialogue)
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 05:16:41 PM by X1 »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: Bowline Family Tree
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2013, 05:16:20 PM »
    I would like to be the odd man out here,
I'm sure we'll all concur in this judgement --quite the "odd" one!  :D
But I'll put in some of my own oddness in concurring
at least to some degree in your objection ...
Quote
that the bowline taxonomy - if there can be such a thing -
 should only come at the end of collecting all the interesting specimens,
 not at the beginning !  :)  And we can not know, in advance,
if it would have a hierarchical (tree) structure, or not.
Indeed, such things as hierarchies are human-imputed
(well, this is a philosophical matter).  By "some degree"
I suggest that there will be a iterative process of formulation
from evidence and then some re-formulation after trials of
fitting the facts into the theory.  At least, the number of
levels of the classical biological classification cannot be
presumed to obtain for knotting; whether its hierarchical
structure is apt is a question to be tested.

I think that progress can be made in a structure that
sets out the knot base and then enumerates various
ways of completion.  There are curious cases such as
the pairs of "Janus" & non-Janus bowlines related by
the simple aspect of whether the tail-side of the eye
connects to one or the other possible unconnected part
--thereby determining the knot.  I should think that
we would be best off making the Eskimo/regular
distinction here; elsewhere, some *tangle* can be
remarked as leading to either of the pair dependent
upon the loading.

In any case, though, we should be able to make the best
traction --maybe to show us with an intractable muddle(!)--
if we generate a good-sized collection of knots-to-be-grouped,
and see how various plans work.  As for those unfound
"dragons" --would a certain former USA minister call them
"unknown unknowns"?--, we can envision much by some
circumspection & projection; but perhaps it should even
be a hope that we encounter surprises --something new!


As for "adding knots", I can weakly conceive that some
function of addition-of-knots could be defined --esp. re
eyeknots, thinking of my recent efforts at finding secure
"bowlines" by tying some base knot and swinging its
tail up into a (PET, recall!) *guard* bowline, with often
then reeving THAT knot's tail back through the original
(getting a structure reminiscent of the mirrored bowline
et cetera; and --importantly-- probably no real different
effect : i.e., there simply can't be any stepwise loosening
that loses the guard to be secured by the base knot;
they will succeed as a whole vs. loosening).


--dl*
====

Luca

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Bowline Family Tree
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2013, 05:53:03 PM »
Hi 75RR,(Please,do not take it bad for this little note!)

You could always add a cautionary label: Here be Dragons as yet unsighted! ;)

I do not think someone here needs to be defended by a dude like me, but I want to point out that,for a couple of old dragons that someone was not aware, however, for example, this someone did make me aware of these four cute puppies..(I think they are still small: should have about three months of age, at least as far as I know .. ;))

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4354.msg27284#msg27284

                                                                                                   Bye!

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Bowline Family Tree
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2013, 06:10:12 PM »
The vertical structure might have misled you into thinking that a relationship between the "new knots" is indicated.
  Indeed, it had - because I was asking for it !  :)  Connections that represent relations, and relations that mean some kind of grouping, categorization, according to some well-defined, measurable criteria. That is the real challenge, is nt it ? Connect the dots, get out of the maze, by using our minds, not blindly following Ariadne s thread ! If we can not "see" why two bowlines are related, we can not place them in a map, and we will not be able to go from the one to the next - whatever this "next" might means...Now, the Dragon, the Minotaur (1), will eat as alive, if we do not have a plan, and do not understand why one dot / cell of the labyrinth is connected to another.
   So, the unsighted Dragons are the things we do not understand - not the poor "odd" member that tries to get his ass the hell out of the maze !  :)  A road map, indicating only "clusters" of knots, like the ones I had mentioned ( instead of a real map, a faithful yet simple representation of the Land of the Bowline ) is the only thing we can do right now, I believe.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 12:27:20 AM by X1 »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Bowline Family Tree
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2013, 02:23:50 PM »
  Nice !  :)  Do you want to include only the bowlines shown in Mike Gommer s paper, only all the known, or even all the possible bowlines ? If you wish an all-inclusive method, you will have to search in the Forum, find every bowline that is presented, and then try to incorporate it in your map.
  With "Double bowline" you mean bowlines that are based on two nipping turns, tied the one next to the other on the Standing Part. What will happen with bowlines that also use two Collars ( as the "Mirrored" bowline ?)
  How will you distinguish the "Common"/"Standard" bowlines, from the "Eskimo" bowlines ? And then the crossing knot -based bowlines, from their subset, the "Eskimo" bowlines ?
   With Venn diagrams you can not represent ordered relations between elements of sets, as you can do with graphs. However, I am not sure ordered relations will be important in this case.

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Bowline Family Tree
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2013, 10:22:52 PM »
Most of the "New Bowlines" are first generation, that is, a single variation on ABoK Bowlines.
What do you mean by "a single variation".
The bowlines shown at fig 9, 11, 15, 19, 25, 29, 31, 33, 35 are "single variations" ? Of which ABoK bowlines ?

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Bowline Family Tree
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2013, 12:13:35 AM »
I am calling each knot a variation from the ABoK 1010 and 1013.
ABoK#1010 is the bowline based on a single turn as its nipping structure.  ABoK#1013 is a bowline based on a double turn as its nipping strucrure. However, we have also bowlines based on a Clove hitch, on a Girth hitch, or on a Constrictor hitch . I can not see how they can be considered as variations of the ABoK#1010 or the ABoK#1013.