Author Topic: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum  (Read 18854 times)

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 507
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2013, 08:35:47 AM »

Oh I see.  When the round turn is oriented such that one is looking at the front view, the SPart at the crossing point is in the background.  If one turns the knot to its back view, then the SPart at the crossing point is in the foreground.  So by rotating the knot 180 degrees that which was in the background comes to the foreground and vice versa and things look different (fore vs. back).  What I'm missing is that this sounds rather similar to the situation prior to the proposal of the new labels (under vs. over).  I'll be interested to hear what the conundrum is and how this solves it. 


Hi DDK,
You haven't quite grasped the simplicity of this idea yet. You need refer only to the Loop that makes up the Nipping Turn to differentiate the two particular aspects of the Bowline (any bowline) being considered. A Loop is both underhand and overhand simultaneously, but because in our special case the viewer sees only one side of that Loop at a time, it presents itself as either underhand or overhand. Once this has been established that's all the information you need to determine which side/view of the Bowline you are looking at. No further references of any sort are necessary.
Note also that here the terms underhand and overhand are applied specifically to describe a particular view of the knot and not the knot itself.
     
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 07:03:11 AM by alpineer »

James Petersen

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 183
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2013, 09:05:59 AM »
...
  If/when the python coils itself so its head and the part of its body after the head which forms the first wrap is placed "over"  / on top of the other wraps, the python is an "overhand" python !  :) ( We should mention that, evidently, an "overhand" python catches the mouse more easily, because it is easier for the snake to un-coil, straighten and extend this first wrap at an instance, and swallow the mouse - if the wrap with the head was lying "under" the other wraps of its body, i.e. if it was adjacent to the ground, it would be more difficult, because moving the head and the first wrap which would have been squeezed under the weight of the other wraps, would be more difficult, too ...)
...
But aren't we talking about the tail end that is going over or under. Your python must be very talented indeed to catch the mouse (or rabbit) with its tail!  :o ::)

-- J:P

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2013, 10:14:52 AM »
When the round turn is oriented such that one is looking at the front view, the SPart at the crossing point is in the background.

No.
When the nipping turn ( not the "round turn : a nipping turn is a round turn which compresses the segments of rope that penetrate it - we do not call nipping turn the turn around a pole, or a bight where the two legs meet each other at a 180 degrees angle ) is oriented in a particular way, AND the viewer is looking at it from a particular side, the SPart at the crossing point is in the foreground.
No "front" view ! There is no "front" view !
No orientation such that one is looking at the "front": view ! The orientation of the nipping turn can not dictate the side from which the viewer views it, or vice versa ! 

If one turns the knot to its back view

No "back" view ! There is no "back" view ! Moreover, THERE IS NO BACK VIEW THAT IS INTRINSIC / BELONGS TO THE KNOT, as it is implied by this "to its back view"(sic).

« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 10:27:05 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2013, 10:21:37 AM »
A Loop is both underhand and overhand simultaneously, but because in our special case the viewer sees only one side of that Loop at a time, it presents itself as either underhand or overhand.
Note also that here the terms underhand and overhand are applied specifically to describe a particular view of the knot and not the knot itself.

Well said. However, I can say it even better !  :) :)
A Loop per se is both underhand and overhand simultaneously:)
The terms underhand and overhand are applied specifically to describe a particular view of the knot by the knot tyer and not the knot per se. :)
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 10:22:10 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1877
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2013, 01:00:25 PM »
In regards to the nipping turn, the central component of the bowlines, perhaps here the use of overlay and underlay can be more appropriate than a handedness, which can be then used for the complete knot's descriptor.
Example: Right hand bowline using an overlay nipping turn.

SS

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2013, 01:33:30 PM »
  JP and SS369, do not be afraid of the "overhand" / underhand" names. They do NOT denote handedness ( chirality , from Greek cheir ( χειρ ) = chir = hand ) ! Overpass/underpass and overlay/underlay are fine terms, but the overhand/underhand are knotting terms  :), and they are very well known and understood by knot tyers.
   Do not confuse them with the topology of the "overhand knot" or the "underhand" knot ! Topology is not described in knotting : does the name "fig. 8 knot" tells anything about the topology of this knot ? Or the name fFig. 9 knot" ? The adjectives do not denote the topology of the knots, never, so why knot tyers would understand something different in this case ?
   The hugfish ties and unties its body into overhand knots ( or underhand knots, depending on the side you look at this thing:) ), but I am not aware of cases where snakes, in general, or pythons, in particular, are coiled like this...Still, they do coil themselves, so there are overhand and underhand pythons coiled on the ground, topologically equivalent to the unknot. :)
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 01:34:44 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2013, 01:41:51 PM »
But aren't we talking about the tail end that is going over or under. Your python must be very talented indeed to catch the mouse (or rabbit) with its tail!  :o ::)

The Tail of the eye-knot is the head of the python ( the front part of the working end / of the body, as it moves through space to form the knot / to eat the mouse ). The far end of the rope / the tail of the python is not accessible to the knot tyer / mouse, the near end / mouth on the head is...
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 02:15:16 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

James Petersen

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 183
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2013, 02:46:08 PM »
But aren't we talking about the tail end that is going over or under. Your python must be very talented indeed to catch the mouse (or rabbit) with its tail!  :o ::)

The Tail of the eye-knot is the head of the python ( the front part of the working end / of the body, as it moves through space to form the knot / to eat the mouse ). The far end of the rope / the tail of the python is not accessible to the knot tyer / mouse, the near end / mouth on the head is...
not head
tail
python catch mouse with tail
talented python
grog have two left hands
left hand from front
left hand from back
grog eat rabbit with left hand
grog afraid of python
talented python
catch mouse with tail

(brain hurt yet?) :) ;)

-- J:P
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 02:49:36 PM by James Petersen »

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #23 on: August 17, 2013, 02:50:50 PM »
Hi DDK,
You haven't quite grasped the simplicity of this idea yet. You need refer only to the Loop that makes up the Nipping Turn to differentiate the two particular aspects of the Bowline (any bowline) being considered. A Loop is both underhand and overhand simultaneously, but because in our special case the viewer sees only one side of that Loop at a time, it presents itself as either underhand or overhand. Once this has been established it is all the information you need to determine which side/view of the Bowline you are looking at. No further references of any sort are necessary.
Note also that here the terms underhand and overhand are applied specifically to describe a particular view of the knot and not the knot itself.

The process you have described has already been used, that is, referring to only one part of the knot.  Historically, and correct me if I'm wrong, the crossing point of the rope (irregardless of the section of rope which is entering the collar, but, usually the SPart) with the collar has been used to specify the view.  That is, if the collar is in the background, then the view has been called "Front", etc.   

As far as I can tell, no further references are necessary for the historical process and I think it is easy to understand and remember.  In other words, when one says he is looking at the front of a bowline, the view one is discussing is completely understood.  I'm anticipating the explanation of the conundrum here.  Since we are discussing views, I'm guessing that communicating to others what view is being discussed is part of the conundrum.  The historical process seems more straightforward to me.

DDK

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #24 on: August 17, 2013, 03:11:50 PM »
I feel that much is being made of the fact that left-handed and right-handed configurations can be described in such a way that one is referring to the "same" side.  Consider that mirror images have such a property.  This property can readily be described as and is identical to: that which is in the foreground, stays in the foreground for its mirror image.  Some like to refer to this as "Front" or "Back".

DDK

edit:  at the risk of pointing out the obvious, the symmetry of a mirror plane has implications for the exact relationship of the structure of mirror images as well as the exact relationship of the directionality of their performance. 
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 03:27:52 PM by DDK »

James Petersen

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 183
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2013, 03:24:14 PM »
...
The process you have described has already been used, that is, referring to only one part of the knot.  Historically, and correct me if I'm wrong, the crossing point of the rope (irregardless of the section of rope which is entering the collar, but, usually the SPart) with the collar has been used to specify the view.  That is, if the collar is in the background, then the view has been called "Front", etc.   
...
The issue is/was: Why "front". Whose front. The front of what. In its proposed use, overhand/underhand clearly denote what you are viewing based on the knot itself, not a view that someone at some time arbitrarily decided to call "the front view". Using a set of terms such as "collar view" and "throat view" might be just as valid, in which case, all the pictures that xarax posted in reply #5 would be "collar views".

-- J:P

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2013, 03:31:43 PM »
That is, if the collar is in the background, then the view has been called "Front", etc. 

Wrong. In many secure bowline variations, the collar can be twisted in relation to the plane of the nipping turn. If it is twisted 90 degrees, it will not be in the background, it will be on the "left" or the "right" side of the Standing end.
The bight component, and especially its collar, is not the main component of the bowline. It makes sense, indeed, to have a distinction of the different views based on the orientation of the main component of the bowline, the nipping turn, in relation to the viewer.

...when one says he is looking at the front of a bowline, the view one is discussing is completely understood.

...and ALL the rest, all the workings of the bowline, are completely misunderstood ! So, people reached the point to believe the so-called "front" view of the bowline is "intrinsic" to it, i.e., that it is a characteristic of the bowline per se. It is a small step to reach the second misconception, that there is ONE God-given tying method ( or group of tying methods ), which are connected to only ONE view of the bowline, and which view, by God s will, is this God-given so-called "front" view.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 03:32:44 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2013, 04:04:09 PM »
...
The process you have described has already been used, that is, referring to only one part of the knot.  Historically, and correct me if I'm wrong, the crossing point of the rope (irregardless of the section of rope which is entering the collar, but, usually the SPart) with the collar has been used to specify the view.  That is, if the collar is in the background, then the view has been called "Front", etc.   
...
The issue is/was: Why "front". Whose front. The front of what. In its proposed use, overhand/underhand clearly denote what you are viewing based on the knot itself, not a view that someone at some time arbitrarily decided to call "the front view". Using a set of terms such as "collar view" and "throat view" might be just as valid, in which case, all the pictures that xarax posted in reply #5 would be "collar views".

-- J:P

I don't see how the historical method is not based on the knot itself.

Also, as described in the previous dead thread, the term "front" is not necessarily arbitrary.  Sorry that I find I need to repeat this.  For example, "back" can mean "that side which is not normally seen" as in "the clothes were hung on the back of the door".  That does not in any way seem arbitrary to me.  I had nothing to do with which view was predominantly shown over the years, so, don't shoot the messenger.  Nonetheless, "front" is an accurate label of the view commonly shown.

Again, in almost all other technical presentations that I have seen, read, given or written, the labels were irrelevant and in no way dictated the view that the author chose to present.  Apparently, we "knotters" are insecure and feel uncomfortable presenting the back of a knot?

DDK
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 04:09:45 PM by DDK »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2013, 05:43:46 PM »
   I don't see how the historical method is not based on the knot itself.

   How "THE" historical method could be based on the knot itself, when all knots have many sides and can be seen from many views and can be tied by many methods ? How the "one" can be a consequence of "many" ?
   The "historical" method of showing the knot in ONE only of the two most obvious views, and of tying it in ONE only in the many easy tying methods that use other views, is :
   1. either a historic accident, multiplied by books and teachers as readers of old books, and teachers as writers of new books.
   2. or something dictated by a subtle way the human brain and hand/eye coordination works in this particular knot, which nobody has yet understood or explained - and you, in particular, had not even understood that it should be understood.

   
the term "front" is not necessarily arbitrary. For example, "back" can mean "that side which is not normally seen". That does not in any way seem arbitrary to me.

  So, you say that "front" is named "front" because that is the side which, historically, was seen / is seen more often. However, you can not explain why this has been happening / why this happens - so you can not say if what happens is due to a historical accident, which is reproduced as a myth, or not ! I will not ponder into the relation between an accidental and an arbitrary event here, but it is clear that a historical accident could well had happened otherwise, or had not happened at all, ever - while the existence of the knot itself is not an accident !
   There is nothing in the knot per se that dictates that the one view will be seen more often ( "normally" ) than the other, and so it will be called "front" view. "Front-ness" does not belong to the knot, it is a convention established by the fact that this particular view is more oten seen - but why it is more often seen, has no relation to the knot itself. The same knot could well be seen from the other side, and the "other" view could have been seen more often, so this "other" side could have been labelled "front" view, and not "rear" view, as it had happened to it to be labelled. 
  You have been caught into a vicious circle of believing that the "front-ness" of the bowline is not arbitrary, because "it is the view which is normally seen", and it is "normally seen" for no other reason than that it is the "front" view...  :) It might take you a while to understand the trap you have fallen into - accidentally !  :)

Again, in almost all other technical presentations that I have seen, read, given or written, the labels were irrelevant and in no way dictated the view that the author chose to present.

...but, miraculously, almost all the technical presentations that you have seen, read, given or written, show the ONE only side, is nt it that so ? And it had never crossed your mind to ask yourself : "WHY on earth is that so ? " All you have thought is that it is so, because this is the "front" view, and it is natural to people to show the "front" view more than the "back" view !  :)
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 05:49:42 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
Re: A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum
« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2013, 06:17:33 PM »
   I don't see how the historical method is not based on the knot itself.

   How "THE" historical method could be based on the knot itself, when all knots have many sides and can be seen from many views and can be tied by many methods ? How the "one" can be a consequence of "many" ?
   The "historical" method of showing the knot in ONE only of the two most obvious views, and of tying it in ONE only in the many easy tying methods that use other views, is either
   1. a historic accident, multiplied by books and teachers as readers of old books, and teachers as writers of new books.
   2, or something dictated by a subtle way the human brain and hand/eye coordination works in this particular knot, which nobody has yet understood or explained - and you, in particular, had not even understood that it should be understood.

   
the term "front" is not necessarily arbitrary. For example, "back" can mean "that side which is not normally seen". That does not in any way seem arbitrary to me.

  So, you say that "front" is named "front" because that is the side which, historically, was seen / is seen more often. However, you can not explain why this has been happening / why this happens - so you can not say if what happens is due to a historical accident, which is reproduced as a myth, or not ! I will not ponder into the relation between an accidental and an arbitrary event here, but it is clear that a historical accident could well had happened otherwise, or had not happened at all, ever - while the existence of the knot itself is not an accident !
   There is nothing in the knot per se that dictates the one view will be seen more often ( "normally" ) than the other, and so will be called "front" view. "Front=ness" does not belong to the knot, it is a convention established by the fact that this particular view is more oten seen - but why it is more often seen, has no relation to the knot. The same knot could well be seen from the other side, and the "other" view could have been seen more often, so it could have been labelled "front" view, and not "rear" view, as it had happened to it to be labelled. 
  You have been caught into a vicious circle of believing that the "front-ness" of the bowline is not arbitrary, because "it is the view which is normally seen", and it is "normally seen" for no other reason than that it is the "front" view...It might take you a while to understand the trap you have fallen into - accidentally !  :)

Again, in almost all other technical presentations that I have seen, read, given or written, the labels were irrelevant and in no way dictated the view that the author chose to present.

...but, miraculously, all the technical presentations that you have seen, read, given or written, shoe the ONE only side, is nt it that so ? And it had never crossed your mind to ask yourself : "WHY on earth is that so ? " All you have thought is that it is so, because this is the "front" view, and it is natural to people to show the "front" view more than the "back" view !  :)

I can speculate as to why a particular side has been predominantly shown, but, it is irrelevant to whether that side can be accurately called the front.  Either front is an accurate description at this moment or it is not.  I do not see how it could be argued in this particular case that it is not.

As far as the technical presentations to which I have referred, I am speaking mainly of those by scientists, engineers, etc. covering a huge range of topics.  For example, a side view of the accretion disk of a black hole may be more pertinent to the presentation than the top view.  If the author's modeling of that disk was better illustrated by the side view, why would the author choose the top view?  Because of the name of the label?  I have not seen that in my experience.

I just have never run into the concept before that the label of the view dictates whether an author should show it.  In my experience, the presentation of a particular view has a purpose which is to portray the information that the author would like to share.

DDK
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 06:33:40 PM by DDK »