A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum

[alpineer]

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

LOL

[xarax]

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.

  

  So, I was really ahead of the time when I suspected that the "intrinsic" "front-ness" of all things is Universal, literally ! Anything in the Universe has an inherent, intrinsic, per se "front" view, and, of course, bowlines or black holes are no exception ! 
  The discussion transverses the event horizon of my "experiences" and, most importantly, my patience - moreover, my tuxedo has been worn out !  This "accretion disk of a black hole" was such a bright thing, I better protect my eyes for a while...

[DDK]

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.

  

  So, I was really ahead of the time when I suspected that the "intrinsic" "front-ness" of all things is Universal, literally ! Anything in the Universe has an inherent, intrinsic, per se "front" view, and, of course, bowlines or black holes are no exception ! 
  The discussion transverses the event horizon of my "experiences" and, most importantly, my patience - moreover, my tuxedo has been worn out !  This "accretion disk of a black hole" was such a bright thing, I better protect my eyes for a while...

Yes, granted, few have had the chance to co-author scientific papers with a current leading astro-physicist¹ as I have.  Nonetheless, the example of a black hole did give a feel for the scale and scope of the technical presentations that I mentioned.   

DDK

¹   Paul J. Steinhardt is the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University.   

[xarax]

Yes, granted, few have had the chance to co-author scientific papers with a current leading astro-physicist as I have.  Nonetheless, the example of a black hole did give a feel for the scale and scope of the technical presentations that I mentioned.   

      

P.S. If Albert Einstein himself, returns now and here by some wormhole stable solution offered to him by its friend Godel, and tells me that 1 + 1 does not make 2, will I believe Him ? Nooope !  Because I know how to add 1 and 1 at least as well as Einstein, and, for the real or imaginary time being, my hair has not been whitened so much...   If Paul J. Steinhardt tells me that the bowline has an "intrinsic" front view, common to humans, octopuses, aliens and angels in all over this Universe and beyond, will I believe him ? Nooope ! Because I know how to tie a bowline at least as well as Professor Steinhart - and perhaps just a little bid more, I would dare to claim... So, what will I do ? I will tell him to take a quasi-aspirin, and have some sleep, because evidently he has been working too much lately...

[DDK]

. . . Because I know how to tie a bowline at least as well as Professor Steinhart - and perhaps just a little bid more, I would dare to claim...   . . .

I would put it differently, his string "theory" can't touch your string "practice".         -- DDK

[SS369]

  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 ?
   

I personally have no fear of words/names, but I was offering a chance to consider other descriptors in this discussion. Overhand and underhand are used in knot tying descriptions to date, but perhaps in this specific discussion something new can be contemplated.

SS

[xarax]

I would put it differently, his string "theory" can't touch your string "practice".

   The opposite is also true, I am afraid - either for Steinhardt or for you... A stein can be ein or more, soft or hard, but it has no "intrinsic" "front" view !

[alpineer]

I must be missing something, because I don't see any "common/right-handed" bowlines. The blue ones look to me like left-handed bowlines.

Hi James,
Right/left-handedness and over/under-handedness are two different animals. Over/under-handedness refers to the "central nipping loop", specifically the side presented to the viewer, either the underhand side or the overhand side. So, now we can apply the sideness/handedness of the nipping loop to indicate one specific side (or view) of the whole knot. 
The terms "overhand loop view" and "underhand loop view" were shortened to "overhand" view and "underhand view".

So, now we have a set of unambiguous terms based on the long established definitions of underhand loop and overhand loop to describe both the traditional front/rear views and D.L.'s preferred front/rear views. The conundrum of which of the two particular Bowline views is the "front" and which is the "rear" and whether the traditional accepted "views" should be reversed, or not, is resolved by sidestepping the issue altogether.

     

[xarax]

   I was offering a chance to consider other descriptors in this discussion. Overhand and underhand are used in knot tying descriptions to date, but perhaps in this specific discussion something new can be contemplated.

   But why to multiply the "technical" jargon, when we can use an already existing one ? "Overhand" means to pass the end which is held by the hand, the working end, over itself. This applies for the simplest knot which is not topologically equivalent to the unknot, the "overhand knot" ( topology is denoted by the noun "knot", as in fig.8 knot, not by the adjective "overhand" ), and can very well apply to the case of the view of nipping turn (the adjective "overhand" denotes the aspect of it, in relation to the viewer, not the topology, which is denoted, again, by the noun "turn" ).
   I find as a great advantage, which enhances any odds there are this nomenclature be established some day, the fact that the terms are familiar knotting terms.
   

[SS369]

   I was offering a chance to consider other descriptors in this discussion. Overhand and underhand are used in knot tying descriptions to date, but perhaps in this specific discussion something new can be contemplated.

   But why to multiply the "technical" jargon, when we can use an already existing one ? "Overhand" means to pass the end which is held by the hand, the working end, over itself. This applies for the simplest knot which is not topologically equivalent to the unknot, the "overhand knot" ( topology is denoted by the noun "knot", as in fig.8 knot, not by the adjective "overhand" ), and can very well apply to the case of the view of nipping turn (the adjective "overhand" denotes the aspect of it, in relation to the viewer, not the topology, which is denoted, again, by the noun "turn" ).
   I find as a great advantage, which enhances any odds there are this nomenclature be established some day, the fact that the terms are familiar knotting terms.
   

Adding technical jargon is OK with me as long as it works and does not overly complicate things (anymore than it is already). We are trying to learn new tricks as old dogs right?   

So you are going to tie an overhand overhand knot, not an underhand overhand, right?
Or is that left? 

SS

[xarax]

So you are going to tie an overhand overhand knot, not an underhand overhand, right?
Or is that left? 

 

[alpineer]

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.

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.

 

That's fine DDK, but D.L. wants that front/back relationship changed (reversed). The conundrum here is how, in the process of attempting to do such, would you avoid the logical conflict and the attendant consequences of having two sets of the same terms with opposite meanings at large. Who would be helped by doing this? 

[alpineer]

Yes, granted, few have had the chance to co-author scientific papers with a current leading astro-physicist¹ as I have.  Nonetheless, the example of a black hole did give a feel for the scale and scope of the technical presentations that I mentioned.   

DDK

¹   Paul J. Steinhardt is the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University.

Wow! Cool.

[DDK]

That's fine DDK, but D.L. wants that front/back relationship changed (reversed). The conundrum here is how, in the process of attempting to do such, would you avoid the logical conflict and the attendant consequences of having two sets of the same terms with opposite meanings at large. Who would be helped by doing this?

I would agree that new labels should not be transpositions of old labels.  I can also see dl's point, if only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side which is more interesting.  The question, then, is how can the majority of authors be encouraged to show the back of the bowline?

I think that the label "Detailed" does provide some encouragement.  Many authors, however, are presenting to a general audience and will present that view which is more useful for the identifying and tying of the bowline - at the moment, likely the "Regular" view.  That is, most authors are likely to stick with the status quo.   

The labels "Overhand" and "Underhand" are more balanced and would have been more suitable from the beginning.  In addition, they do not reinforce the current status quo.  Those looking for a compelling rapid reversal of which view is shown, however, will not be satisfied with these labels.  I tend to think that the reuse of terminology associated with two distinct knots for the labeling of two views of a singular knot is a little confusing, but, I don't have a significant issue with it.

How about "Novice/Tier" view vs. "Expert/User" view?  Granted, that probably reinforces the status quo.  Here we go, "Old" view vs. "New" view!

DDK

[roo]

I would agree that new labels should not be transpositions of old labels.  I can also see dl's point, if only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side which is more interesting. 

If only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side which most clearly shows the way the knot is finished (which is also the ergonomically-tied, traditional side which conforms to human wrist motion ranges in forcing the coil into being*)?  After all, who doesn't tie a knot to inspect it?  It's far more important to communicate correct tying.

I don't think the rear view of the simple bowline is interesting.  The rear view of the Water Bowline is downright messy and confusing.  Behind this whole controversy is the false premise that you can gain secret knowledge by staring a knot diagram or image long enough.  Real knowledge comes through tying and testing the physical specimen.

This discussion probably is better placed in the Chit Chat forum.  It'll still be a duly ignored tempest in a duly ignored teapot.   

*

(Edited due to sister thread being inexplicably and entirely removed)