Author Topic: Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  (Read 33684 times)

siriuso

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #90 on: March 16, 2020, 10:15:09 AM »
Hi all,

I have just updated my knotting folders and attached herewith the Amendment Lists. The links are :-

"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing

"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing

"My New Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12Z4bBbLrCJw3dEzems9QOvp_G4hgBKJP?usp=sharing

"Bends Classed by Starts" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kGG0h_0QQ2eIxhEquySzNBUC0O9li1dv?usp=sharing


Happy Knotting
yChan
« Last Edit: March 10, 2021, 03:05:34 PM by siriuso »

siriuso

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #91 on: March 27, 2020, 02:47:20 PM »
Hi all,

Some update have been made.

yChan
« Last Edit: March 10, 2021, 03:05:45 PM by siriuso »

siriuso

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #92 on: April 23, 2020, 05:13:47 PM »
Hi all,

The folders are updated and more bends are added. Please enjoy.

yChan
« Last Edit: March 10, 2021, 03:05:58 PM by siriuso »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #93 on: April 24, 2020, 12:00:19 AM »
When claiming a 'new' knot - the normal process is to present it so others can assess its originality.
What you are doing is publishing a range of knots and then claiming (after the fact) they are all your own personal creations.
This is wrong.

To be honest, I have started to simply ignore your work for a range of reasons - the claim of originality being one of the principal drivers for this.
Be that as it may - I thought I'd take a very quick glance at some of your alleged claims of originality...
And my eye spotted your "Riggers Eight Bend".
This is not your original creation.

Xarax and I had been experimenting with this idea a number of years ago.

And this is just one claim of yours that I am refuting with just one quick glance.
I am of the view that several more knots could be found which are being falsely claimed by you as original.

I would also point out that some of the underlying principals you present are incorrect.
You attempt to describe the direction (geometry) of a 'loop' in terms of clockwise and anti-clockwise.
This is wrong...a loop is described by chirality (ie handedness).
Concepts such a clockwise, up, down, left and right require a reference frame - which is only meaningful to the person who is attempting to describe it.

siriuso

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #94 on: April 24, 2020, 07:13:33 AM »
Hi Mark,

Thanks for your comments.

I am not publishing any great work. I am just sharing my work and always revise/refine them to update versions.  Anyone's quick glance and comment will help to refine my work.

I have always making amendments when I found the knots are mentioned/discovered before me. I always appreciate everyone could give me information as I have mentioned before, because we do not have search engine or a knot library.

Thanks to Xarax who has just sent me all/some of his new bends. And I will try to compare mine with his and will include his bends to my lists and revise accordingly.

I agree we should use chirality in describing loop and twist. I will try to fix them in the coming issue.

Happy Knotting
yChan

siriuso

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #95 on: May 23, 2020, 04:42:08 PM »
Hi all,

The folders are updated. Please enjoy and share.

Happy Knotting
yChan
« Last Edit: March 10, 2021, 03:06:09 PM by siriuso »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #96 on: May 24, 2020, 03:19:31 PM »
Hello yChan,
Some comments about your 'TailsTuckingOpOvList(1).pdf' page...

This is for the page marked '1'.

You have listed the Riggers bend underneath an image of 2 superposed loops of the same chirality.
The Riggers bend is created from 2 inter-linked loops of the same chirality (S/S or Z/Z).
Your tail crossing and then tucking through the centre actually forces the initial dressing state to tumble and transform - into the Riggers bend (which is now back to its true form with 2 inter-linked loops).
I think this is a 'trick' manoeuvre - because your photo showing 2 superposed loops is transitory.

Also, the image to the far right (neat and new bend) isn't 'new'. Its the false Zeppelin bend (on page 1).
Unless of course the loops continue to transform over the page (2) - but it isn't clearly stated to the reader if further transforms continue into page 2?

You also have a reference to the "Rigger cross east bend".
The notional concept of 'east' and 'west' is meaningless.
Xarax had already presented 2 tail crossings of the Riggers bend in 2011 (Riggers X1 and Riggers X2 bends).
The Riggers X1 bend is very interesting because it is a different dressing and orientation of #1426.
Of course - there are S/S and Z/Z orientations...

#1426 as shown by Ashley misses the more natural dressing state that results in Riggers X1 bend (per Xarax). Ashley appears to have missed the Xarax (Riggers X1) dressing - which actually is only a simple tail re-orientation away from the #1425A Riggers bend!
Note also that Ashley's bend (#1452) could also be viewed as an axially rotated Riggers bend...

Have a look at my paper on the Riggers bend for details here: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (VER 1.4e).

siriuso

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #97 on: May 24, 2020, 09:14:40 PM »
Hi Mark and dear all,

Thank you very much for your comment.

The pdf ?TailTucking...?are tabulated the bends with the same tying methods and with different paths of tail tuckings to form bends. So there eventually exist transformations. I have explained previously that my tying methods are faster access or the other ways to form the inter-locked, superposed loops etc. In a short time, I will post up some preference lists/tables in the loops forms families for more ease reference for interested parties.

Neat & New Bend - We have discussed before in the forum. Finally we were told it was posted and named Neat & New Bend in early KM. I stick to originality and call it Neat & New Bend. Mark, you may call it any name you wish.

Rigger Cross East Bend - I refer to the book ?A New System of Knotting? by H. Asher, at page 13. You may also find and compare my tying methods of Rigger?s Bend and ABOK#1426.

I suggest you in talking about Rigger?s Bend, you must mention Shake Hands Bend. For both bends have the same chirality and inter-locked/inter-linked loops, but different entry path of the WE of the right loop. Just SS or ZZ is not accurate or clear to describe the loops forms.

I am always appreciate to every one like Xarax, Mark and you all to help me to refine and update my knotting folders. I have limited knowledge and sources in knotting and still in the mist and exploring. Should you find any of my new bends are discovered or posted before, please do inform me. I will update my folders as I do it always.

Happy Knotting
yChan

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #98 on: May 24, 2020, 11:09:25 PM »
Hello yChan,

My comments were specifically in relation to 'page 1' of that pdf document.

If a lay person was reading your document and noticed the words "neat and new bend" - they will apply the ordinary meaning to it.
They wont know anything about the history of that particular structure or anything about Desmond Mandeville.
Thats because you provide absolutely zero context.

So the words "neat and new bend" have no historical context when read in isolation on your 'page 1'.
You should use footnotes to explain what is going on.

You could add a footnote stating that Desmond Mandeville presented 'neat and new bend' + the 'Poors man's pride' in Knotting Matter issue 4 July 1983.
This would provide historical context for the reader of your paper.
As it currently stands, readers of your paper would simply think that you invented a 'neat and new bend'.

In my Riggers bend paper - you will see that I use footnoting and try to give the reader historical background.

Does this make any sense yChan?

Also, your superposed loops is a trick tying method of the Riggers bend.
It belies the true underlying geometry - and I think this will then be confused with the Zeppelin bend (Poor man's pride).
The Zeppelin bend is actually created from 2 superposed loops...

Either your paper is presenting a series of trick tying methods - or its trying to be a technical thesis on various end-to-end joining knots... which is it trying to be?

Also, I note that I am the only person that appears to bother giving you feedback...

Your paper - in its present form - is a confused jumble of information.
Your trick tying methods overwhelm and obfuscate the real underlying geometries and principles of how the bends are created and their inter-relationship to other bends.
The information is hard to find and hard to make sense of - in terms of a concise theory.

With regard to Mandeville, it is possible to reach a conclusion that he was the original discoverer of the Zeppelin bend (if we take his literal word from Knotting Matters #4).
In that issue, he states that he named it poor mans pride in 1961.
We can extract from this that he tied it in 1961.

This pre-dates Bob Thrun - who presented his 'An easily untied bend' in 1966.
The problem is that we have no proof other than Percy's word for it.
In Bob Thrun's case, we have printed evidence dating back to1966 (a caving newsletter).

Quote
Rigger Cross East Bend - I refer to the book ?A New System of Knotting? by H. Asher, at page 13. You may also find and compare my tying methods of Rigger?s Bend and ABOK#1426.
yChan - I have tried to explain that the notional concept of 'east' and 'west' is meaningless.
There is no east and west - and even if you wanted it to be 'east' - I could just as easily make it 'west' via mirror reflection or by holding the knot in an opposite sense.
All of these knot tying notions that people have tried to introduce make no sense...because they can only have meaning to the person who creates it - within their reference frame.
And this is where they all come unstuck... because they fail to consider the concept of a reference frame.

Harry Asher did break new ground in his book - The Alternative Knot Book.
But - it is not the final definitive word on knot tying notation and reference frames.
Asher missed an opportunity to explain and fully demonstrate what is going on with loops and associated bends.
He also confuses and mixes terms such as 'loop' and 'turn'.... there are instances where he trips a little and suddenly speaks in terms of loops - when earlier in his book he uses the term 'turn'.
Anyhow, I think you can cite Asher but I think it unwise to heavily lean on Asher as an authority.

EDIT NOTE:

In a quick glance of your "Legends of loop chart" - I notice a technical error.

RE: Your image at "4" - RB / 1426
You suggest that #1426 is also Riggers bend via the initals "RB".
This is incorrect.
Have a look at my paper on the Riggers bend - and in particular the Riggers X1 bend as tied by Xarax.
Ashley's dressing state is different.
You can say that #1426 is topologically equivalent to Xarax's Riggers X1 bend (which he presented in 2011).
But, you cannot state that #1426 is the Riggers bend (that would mislead the reader).
Xarax's discovery is a natural orientation of the rope segments and is a tails crossed variant of #1425A.
Ashley's illustration is different - and requires some manipulation to achieve that final dressing state.
Furthermore, there are in fact Z/Z and S/S orientations...

yChan, I am spotting these technical errors with only a quick glance of your paper... this leads me to believe that you don't get your papers peer reviewed?
How do you expect to correct all these errors on your own if working in isolation?
I appear to be the only person who bothers to give you feedback... why is this so I wonder?
Part of the problem is that your work constitutes what I call 'BIG data'.
They way in which you present and organize the content is confusing to a casual reader.
You have done a marvelous amount of work - it just needs to be re-organised and presented in a way that the reader can more  easily understand it.
You also need to delete all of your 'trick' tying methods - as it only serves to confuse the true underlying geometry of the bends you present.

2nd EDIT NOTE:
1. In virtually all of your base loop images. the SParts are visually represented too small in length.
The casual reader will find it hard to discern which part is which.
You should re-draw all of the base loop pairs with longer SParts (ie drawn longer in reference to the tails).

2. The page titled "Cruise to bends":
Its good to see that you have started to apply the concept of chirality.
For example, #1425A Riggers bend can be tied as either S/S or Z/Z chirality.
Same goes for most of the other bends - eg Zeppelin can be tied as either S/Z or Z/S.

3. You again identify 'RB" (Riggers bend) as being #1426. It isn't.

4. #1452 Ashley bend and #1425A Riggers bend are both interesting base loop pairs to compare.
Ashley bend can be conceptualized as an axially rotated Riggers bend.
You should show these 2 base pair loops next to each other to draw the readers attention. There is also another axially rotated version of the Riggers bend (shown in my Riggers bend paper).
« Last Edit: May 26, 2020, 08:05:26 AM by agent_smith »

siriuso

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #99 on: May 25, 2020, 09:46:26 PM »
Hi Mark and dear all,

Once again, thanks to Mark who has input more comment.

I do not think I should need to use footnotes to my papers. No historical background notes are required for my readers.

Your question about my paper ?Legends of Loop Chart?. In the text there are two lines read as this:-

3. each end tucking into the centre in opposite direction with crossing,
4. each end tucking into the centre in opposite direction with crossing in elbow twisted.

I have clearly states that the tails tucking are in the manner as such for the bends concern. While #1426 is with tails crossing and Rigger?s Bend is without tails crossing. They both start with the same loops form. So I believe they are the same family. You said I am incorrect in #1426. Please light me up for what you got.

I would guess you are confined to some known methods, and perhaps the tying methods (Overhand Knot Base/Start) presented in ABOK only.

To illustrate the parts of a loop?s standing part is not by having its length longer than the length after crossing to the working end. I have clearly denoted it by two white stripes as a whipping to the working end. It is enough and appropriate. So for your suggestion on this point is of nothing constructive.

I am sure your quick glance leads to some misunderstandings. You may not notice that I have not included the known tying methods in the early notes for I emphasize at "My Other Tying Methods". But currently, seeing that in some known bends are worth to be included with their known methods. All my tying methods are also included with the basic loops forms. I just share my finding for everyone. Then say, leave the tricks to the people who are interested. You are welcome to ignore them, but do not speak for the others.

yChan


agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #100 on: May 26, 2020, 01:06:18 AM »
yChan,

Again - one last time in the hope that you understand!

In point form:

1.
#1426 should not be identified as the Riggers bend.
It is not technically accurate to indicate #1426 as being the Riggers bend.
If a casual reader looks at your paper and sees "#1426 = Riggers bend" and then checks "ABoK" - they will be confused.
Riggers bend is illustrated at #1425A (not #1426).
#1426 as drawn by Ashley has a different dressing state.
Xarax had tied his Riggers X1 bend in 2011 - which is a natural orientation of #1426 - and results in a the form of a tails crossed Riggers bend (X1).

On your paper - there is no context and no footnoting to explain anything.
A casual reader can't glean any of this information from each of your isolated pages.
There is no context for them.
Its all what I refer to as "BIG data" - and for the average person - its an overwhelming amount of information that is presented in a way that is not user friendly.

2. On the page titled "Variations and Features":
You use descriptors such as overhand, underhand, Twist clockwise, twist anti clockwise, cross over and cross under.
All of the descriptors rely on a reference frame.
The notional concept of 'over' and 'under' is dependent on the reference frame of the user. 'Under' can become 'over' depending on your perspective.
This notion also wrongly assumes that a bend can only exist in one orientation - lets say S/S. It can also exist in mirror form as Z/Z.
However, you can make reference to "tails being opposite" and "tails being parallel" as this requires no reference frame (which you have done).
If you absolutely insist on using up/down/left/right etc... you would have to clearly indicate the reference frame from the point-of-view of the knot tyer. I think all these approaches are doomed - and indeed they have all failed in the past (eg Asher's 'new' system never really took hold). Its sort of like being in orbit around the Earth in a space station. They is no 'up', 'down' etc. You would have to specify a clear and unambiguous reference frame for the user.

3. On the page titled "List of my other tying method knots":
On this page you correctly identify Riggers bend as #1425A.
And you identify #1426 as 'twofold overhand bend'.
BUT, in other parts of your paper - you identify #1426 as Riggers bend.
This is confusing to a casual reader.

4. On the page titled "Legends of loop chart":
Here again you indicate #1426 as being Riggers bend.
This contradicts your other page and is confusing to the casual reader.

Here again you identify a "Neat and new" bend (NNB).
On that page, there is zero context or historical acknowledgment.
Its as if you have brushed history aside.
You should attribute that bend to Desmond Mandeville - or at least have a footnote reference.
A casual reader of that page will simply assume that "Neat and new" means that it is your personal discovery (which it isn't).
Also, on that page, you show the RB (Riggers bend) with Z/Z chirality.
It can also exist as S/S chirality - both being valid.
A casual reader will simply assume that the orientation of the loops as you depict them is the only possible dressing state (when it isn't).

5.
I stand by my assertion that all of your images require longer SParts in comparison to the tails.
It gets confusing to the eye...the human eye can only discern so much...and then it gets confusing.
You are not making your paper user friendly.

6. The page titled "Types and sets":
This page is meaningless to a casual reader.
Its BIG data - it needs to be presented in a way that a casual reader to find meaning and understanding.
I have at least a basic understanding of knots...and even I can't glean anything meaningful from that page.

7. On the page titled "Observations and Summary:
You again use terms such as 'over-laid' and 'under-laid' and 'interlocked' and then 'inter-locked the other way'.
These terms can only have meaning within a defined reference frame.
Your term 'interlocked the other way' is meaningless in this context (eg which way?).

You again make reference to 'NNB - Neat and New Bend' but give the reader no historical background and no acknowledgement to Desmond Mandeville.
Because casual readers are given no information - they will apply the literal and ordinary meaning to that phrase.
They will simply assume that you are the original discoverer.

You use terms such as 'inter-locked' without a full and proper explanation.
You state that the Zeppelin bend is a "non interlocked bend".
Depending on your notional view of the structure of a Zeppelin bend - one can view all bends of this 'class' as having an inter-locking mechanism.
I could present a different view - one stating that the Zeppelin bend is built from 'linked' overhand knots of opposite chirality.
In contrast, you state that the Riggers bend is 'interlocked'. One could also argue that the overhand knots are interwoven.

And here again you make a reference to #1426. You state that it is differs from #1425A Riggers bend!
And yet, in other parts of your paper, you confuse the casual reader by indicating that 'RB (Riggers bend) is #1426.
So which is it?

You state that "9 patterns are found from 64 sets of loop formations".
You then refer to "4 types".
Its really hard for the casual reader to extract a meaning from this...
It sounds like you have made a significant discovery - and you need to make it easy for the reader to follow your theory.
Is "64 sets of loop formations" the maximum limit? Can there be more?

8. Some of your "tying methods" are what I refer to as "trick tying methods".
They deliberately induce instability - forcing the structure to rotate and capsize into its final energy stable state.
The starting positions for these trick tying methods obfuscate the true underlying geometry of these bends.
All the rotating, flipping, tumbling and capsizing tells us nothing - its just an illusion.

Is your paper trying to be a serious thesis on bends?
Or is it a paper on trick tying methods?
You should not include all the trick tying methods within the final data set analysis - because it would introduce a 'false positive'.
You should find the simplest energy stable orientation of the 2 working ends - and begin to construct your bends from that starting config.
For example, the Riggers bend is built from 2 inter-linked loops of the same chirality (either S/S or Z/Z).
The Zeppelin bend is built from 2 superposed loops of opposite chirality (either S/Z or Z/S)... and so on.

...

yChan, my intentions can be characterized as being good will.
I am trying to provide constructive critique.

Your paper is BIG data - and it needs to be presented in a way that is meaningful to the reader.
In its current form, the content is confusing and non intuitive.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2020, 08:03:34 AM by agent_smith »

siriuso

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #101 on: May 26, 2020, 09:33:26 PM »
Hi Mark and dear all,

In the page ?Legends of Loop Chart?, the abbreviations are used to denote bends. Two bends RB and 1426 are placed together in order to show they are family members, that is they are of the same loops form. I believe you have mistook them as a single bend. Also you have missed the text just at the left hand side of the graphics of the same page (see attached). All the abbreviations are well defined. Your quick glance does not work right for you. You are totally misleading me and our readers.

#1426 can be tied with the same loops form of RB but with different tails tucking manner as I have described on my last thread. You may find their tying method very much alike in my knotting notes. I wonder why you disagree #1426 is not within the family of RB. Please let us know.

I do not think my readers need to know more about the historical background of bends in my papers. A bends by the name new would lead readers to feel it is new is absurd for me. Octopus Bend does not hunt for fishes.

My papers and folders are posted as they were by that time, just for sharing, nothing more. Knotting is one of my hobbies when I was young. In the old days, you have to publish books/journals in order to get expose. By now, we can post and share in the media. We share, we learn, explore and conduct further digging. As you find something more, you will revise and update and refine it. So, your question: Is "64 sets of loop formations" the maximum limit? Can there be more? My answer is : By that time I found 64. I did not say it is the limit. It may be more. Let us find more. I believe you have always revise/refine your papers, for findings are coming. There is no definite stop.

yChan

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #102 on: May 27, 2020, 02:14:13 AM »
yChan,

There is no misleading and no misunderstanding.
I sometimes wonder why I bother to give you critical feedback - I mean, whats in it for me?

My point is that it is potentially confusing to associate #1426 with the Riggers Bend.
It is easier and less confusing to just indicate #1425A as Riggers bend - and this would tie your paper seamlessly with Ashley.

The dressing state that Ashley shows for #1426 is different to the Riggers bend form.
To be more accurate, you could state that #1426 results in Xarax's Riggers X1 dressing - and acknowledge Xarax in your paper.
Your page does not provide detail or information about the close link between #1426 and Riggers X1 bend as tied by Xarax.
It just shows a loop base pair with "RB" and "1426" as being the same. Clarification should be added...

Another way to conceptualize this is that the Riggers bend tail crossings as presented by Xarax in 2011 (as X1 and X2) are distinct geometries.
You could show the final dressing state next to each loop base pair - and that would remove any doubt as to whats going on.
Or, you can just ignore it... ie, ignore these tail crossing variants and the relationship with Xarax's X1?

Part of the issue with your paper is that the loop base pairs are not immediately associated with their final end-to-end joining knot (ie bend).
We see the base pair loops - but we do not have the ability to correlate them to a final form.
The loops exist in an 'arbitrary' state - with only a number - with no visual reference to see what it results in.

Your paper would certainly benefit if you could associate a loop base pair with its final form - ie side-by-side.

...

As for historical background...

Your options are ignore it - as appears to be your preference.
Or, you could try to clarify that which is your original creation versus someone else's.
The casual reader will simply assume that 'Neat and New bend' is your original creation (when it isn't).
Only seasoned knot geeks would know that 'Neat and new' is linked to Desmond Mandeville. The lay public (casual reader) wouldn't know this...

All of your pages are presenting information to the public - and exist as self-contained pages.
Readers can only go on the content they read and see - one page at a time.

Is your paper also intended for the casual reader who is interested in knots?
Or is it a personal record - only for your your own private research?
Or is it aimed only at existing knot tyers?

It does appear to be in the open public internet space - free for anyone to download and read.
That is, it appears that any casual reader could stumble across your work and see things like 'Neat and new' bend (and assume its your creation) and that #1426 is Riggers bend... and so on.

siriuso

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #103 on: May 29, 2020, 07:21:28 AM »
Hi Mark and dear all,

My paper are not issued singly. Through my Working Notes 1 to 8, readers may find in the folders of
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots", "My New Bends" and ?Bends Classed by Starts?. The so call ?trick?(in your word) are the access to form the basic loops forms of bends. They are well exist in the paper. Anyone can use it to complete the bends. It aims to provide more choices to knot tyers and select their favorites. There are not existing any means of confusion and fooling people.

Attached please find the file which I extract from my notes (not posted before). Try to tie the relevant bends and show their relations. How about your classification in bends, especially the #1426?

I was curious and have had asked you for the tying methods several times, and you ignored me. I think we all want to learn from you. Will you share to us? e.g. #1425, 1425A, 1426, 1452, Neat & New Bend and Zeppelin Bend. Thank you.

Happy Knotting
yChan


« Last Edit: May 29, 2020, 09:17:10 AM by siriuso »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
« Reply #104 on: May 31, 2020, 04:15:10 PM »
yChan,

I believe that there may be language barriers going on here...
Your replies suggest that you are not properly understanding the concepts I have proposed.

For example... when I use the phrase "trick tying methods" - it is NOT intended as an insult and it is NOT implied to mean that you are fooling people or intending to cause confusion.

Quote
I was curious and have had asked you for the tying methods several times, and you ignored me. I think we all want to learn from you. Will you share to us? e.g. #1425, 1425A, 1426, 1452, Neat & New Bend and Zeppelin Bend. Thank you.
yChan, I am not "ignoring" you.
From my point of view, I am simply giving you critical feedback.
My intentions are one of good will.
That is, when I give up some of my personal time to read through your paper and then provide critical feedback - it is from the perspective of making improvements.

I note that nobody else appears to offer you any feedback... and I wonder why?
I can only comment from what I read and see on your paper.
It all appears to be freely available in the public internet space - and anyone could stumble across your work and then try to understand it.

A lot of what I have tried to explain is that your paper is essentially BIG DATA.
It is overwhelming to the casual reader.
There doesn't appear to be a contents page and/or an index - and each page presents information in a self-contained style.
There are a myriad of knot names that you have invented and a multitude of base loop pairs - and its hard to follow and make sense of.

Now, from your own point-of-view, it probably all makes sense.
Put yourself in the shoes of a casual reader who isn't a knot geek..what impression do you think they will form? Do you think they will be overwhelmed? Do you think they will easily understand everything?

I am not a total novice and have a basic grasp of some knots.
With my basic level of understanding, even I find it hard to follow what you have produced.
I am not stating that your work is no good.
I am not stating that you are fooling people.
I am not stating that you don't know your subject material.

The 'trick' tying methods induce instability and cause the base pair loops to tumble, rotate and reorient into the final energy stable state. I have tried to explain that all this tumbling, rotating and re-orientation doesn't help with understanding the real underlying geometry of a knot.
I suggest that you remove all of these 'trick' tying methods and move them to a different section of your paper and explain whats going on.

...

There isn't much you can learn from me yChan.
I don't have much to offer you.

There isn't anything I can share with you or others - that I haven't already offered.

Have a look at my paper on the Riggers bend if you like... you will see that I try to present information in a way that is 'relatively' easy to understand. I get a lot of help from Xarax and 'knotsaver' - both of these guys make me look like a total novice and continuously send me back to the drawing board with my tail between my legs.
My knowledge is pitiful in comparison to theirs...

My comments about #1426 were essentially framed to help you to make your paper clearer.
If people have a copy of Ashley Book of Knots (ABoK) - and then they read your paper - they might start to get a little confused.
I was simply trying to help you to make if easier to follow.
Yes - there is a correlation between #1426 and Riggers X1 bend.
But Riggers bend is illustrated at #1425A.
It be useful to show a few selected actual tied knots - so readers can reference your base pair loops against the actual knot that results from that pairing.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 04:21:41 PM by agent_smith »