Author Topic: #1057 and #1058 likely an error/oversight by Ashley  (Read 305 times)

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
#1057 and #1058 likely an error/oversight by Ashley
« on: August 12, 2019, 01:10:58 AM »
New thread topic started because it was derailing Alan Lee's work.
It follows from this thread: https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6451.msg43386#msg43386

This line of argument is in relation to illustrations #1057 and #1058 in 'ABoK' (published by Clifford Ashley in 1944)...

Quote
Quote from: agent_smith on August 11, 2019, 02:27:45 AM

    The following comments are potentially off-topic but are in direct response to Dan Lehman at reply #10...

    per Dan Lehman at reply #10 in relation to #1057 and #1058:
    Quote

        Hardly such an oversight, IMO.  Rather, he simply wasn't
        playing the game you're so hard at in narrowly/strictly
        per-your-own-definition identifying *bowlines*; and in
        these, he felt some merit.


    An interesting comment that I just noticed... possibly either a cryptic reply or an exercise in obfuscation?
    You might do better to just write in clear and unambiguous language if you believe #1057 and/or #1058 to be deserving of the title 'Bowline'.

The language is perspicuous, but you insist on a perverted reading.
YOU are all gung-ho about YOUR notion of "bowline"; Ashley, I surmise,
was less so --and he offered that these cited knots "had a better claim"
to "bowline" --for which HE does NOT give a set of criteria.  YOU impose
yours, and then call Ashley mistaken : heckuva way to run a contest!   :o   ::)

I do not insist on any 'perverted' reading of ABoK.
And I am not Gung ho about my understanding of what defines a 'Bowline'!
Rather - I have presented a robust theoretical analysis which does withstand close scrutiny.

In terms of Ashley being mistaken... is this such a far-fetched proposition?
Even highly trained pilots can make mistakes.
I note that even NASA managed to destroy two space shuttles - which - when you go back and look at the accident reports, is astonishing in terms of how NASA could have prevented them from occurring.

I would also comment that there are numerous typo errors and other conceptual errors in Ashley's book.
You yourself have attempted to compile a list of all the errors - which are not insignificant.

In theorizing that Ashley either made a simple mistake or that #1057/58 somehow escaped his proof reading - this is in no way denigrating Ashley or declaring him to be deficient.
People make mistakes - and one must also consider that 'ABoK' was published at a time before the digital age and computers.
There are several thousand illustrations and in my mind - it is not a far-fetched concept that errors may have slipped through the proof reading phase.
Even in the digital age - errors still (frequently) occur in published works.

#1057/58 are anomalies - in that they have a geometry that is completely removed from all of the other 'Bowlines' illustrated in his book.
Without exception, all of the primary/first order 'Bowlines' presented in his book have a clear and unambiguous nipping loop and a bight structure (which consists of a collar that performs a U turn around the SPart).

Indeed, all of the nipping loops he illustrates are 'TIB' and take the form of a simple helical loop (or double loop per #1013).
For example, an eye knot based on #46 (simple overhand knot) must be excluded from the title of 'Bowline' on account of the nipping structure being non TIB.
And this is one of the reasons for requiring the characteristic of 'TIB' - it acts as a filter against an entire cohort of eye knots that might otherwise be regarded as being 'Bowlines'.

I am happy to debate the following salient points with you:
1. That Ashley was not infallible - he could conceivably make mistakes.
2. That errors may have slipped through his proof reading - and gone to print without him realizing (until too late).
3. That he published his book in an era where computers did not exist - and everything had to be done tediously by hand and eye.
4. That #1057/58 could have escaped his detection and gone to print before he realized the error.
5. That #1057/58 have a geometry that is completely different to all of the other 'Bowlines' depicted in his book.

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: #1057 and #1058 likely an error/oversight by Ashley
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2019, 05:31:42 PM »
New thread topic started because it was derailing Alan Lee's work.
It follows from this thread: https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6451.msg43386#msg43386

This line of argument is in relation to illustrations #1057 and #1058 in 'ABoK' (published by Clifford Ashley in 1944)...

Quote
Quote from: agent_smith on August 11, 2019, 02:27:45 AM

    The following comments are potentially off-topic but are in direct response to Dan Lehman at reply #10...

    per Dan Lehman at reply #10 in relation to #1057 and #1058:
    Quote

        Hardly such an oversight, IMO.  Rather, he simply wasn't
        playing the game you're so hard at in narrowly/strictly
        per-your-own-definition identifying *bowlines*; and in
        these, he felt some merit.


    An interesting comment that I just noticed... possibly either a cryptic reply or an exercise in obfuscation?
    You might do better to just write in clear and unambiguous language if you believe #1057 and/or #1058 to be deserving of the title 'Bowline'.

The language is perspicuous, but you insist on a perverted reading.
YOU are all gung-ho about YOUR notion of "bowline"; Ashley, I surmise,
was less so --and he offered that these cited knots "had a better claim"
to "bowline" --for which HE does NOT give a set of criteria.  YOU impose
yours, and then call Ashley mistaken : heckuva way to run a contest!   :o   ::)

I do not insist on any 'perverted' reading of ABoK.
And I am not Gung ho about my understanding of what defines a 'Bowline'!
Rather - I have presented a robust theoretical analysis which does withstand close scrutiny.

In terms of Ashley being mistaken... is this such a far-fetched proposition?
Even highly trained pilots can make mistakes.
I note that even NASA managed to destroy two space shuttles - which - when you go back and look at the accident reports, is astonishing in terms of how NASA could have prevented them from occurring.

I would also comment that there are numerous typo errors and other conceptual errors in Ashley's book.
You yourself have attempted to compile a list of all the errors - which are not insignificant.

In theorizing that Ashley either made a simple mistake or that #1057/58 somehow escaped his proof reading - this is in no way denigrating Ashley or declaring him to be deficient.
People make mistakes - and one must also consider that 'ABoK' was published at a time before the digital age and computers.
There are several thousand illustrations and in my mind - it is not a far-fetched concept that errors may have slipped through the proof reading phase.
Even in the digital age - errors still (frequently) occur in published works.

#1057/58 are anomalies - in that they have a geometry that is completely removed from all of the other 'Bowlines' illustrated in his book.
Without exception, all of the primary/first order 'Bowlines' presented in his book have a clear and unambiguous nipping loop and a bight structure (which consists of a collar that performs a U turn around the SPart).

Indeed, all of the nipping loops he illustrates are 'TIB' and take the form of a simple helical loop (or double loop per #1013).
For example, an eye knot based on #46 (simple overhand knot) must be excluded from the title of 'Bowline' on account of the nipping structure being non TIB.
And this is one of the reasons for requiring the characteristic of 'TIB' - it acts as a filter against an entire cohort of eye knots that might otherwise be regarded as being 'Bowlines'.

I am happy to debate the following salient points with you:
1. That Ashley was not infallible - he could conceivably make mistakes.
2. That errors may have slipped through his proof reading - and gone to print without him realizing (until too late).
3. That he published his book in an era where computers did not exist - and everything had to be done tediously by hand and eye.
4. That #1057/58 could have escaped his detection and gone to print before he realized the error.
5. That #1057/58 have a geometry that is completely different to all of the other 'Bowlines' depicted in his book.

You seem to be missing the basic idea that sometimes "bowline" indicates where the knot is used and says little to nothing of knot topology.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bowline
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 05:41:36 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: #1057 and #1058 likely an error/oversight by Ashley
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2019, 11:43:56 PM »
per roo:
Quote
You seem to be missing the basic idea that sometimes "bowline" indicates where the knot is used and says little to nothing of knot topology.

An excellent well crafted reply roo - thank you.
I'm curious - exactly which part do you believe that I missed?

I had a look at the dictionary link you gave - is this an authoritative source about knots? Could you expand on that for me please?
I note that in the definition tendered in the link you provided, it states:
1. a rope used to keep the weather edge of a square sail taut forward; and
2. a knot used to form a loop that neither slips nor jams.

With regard to #2, if I tie a Zeppelin loop (which neither slips nor jams) would this qualify as a 'Bowline'?

And here is a direct question for you roo...Do you believe that #1057/58 are in fact 'Bowlines'?
I would be very interested to find out!

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3744
Re: #1057 and #1058 likely an error/oversight by Ashley
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2019, 10:23:58 PM »
I've wondered how it is that what we now know as
a "bowline" (eye knot) got used/de-rigueur back when
otherwise one was expected to find a "sheet bend" (tied
to a clew, not another line) or some other place the
buntline h. !?

"If I tie a zeppelin e.k. ..." : WE can come up
with a shipload of examples; but back in the day,
the variety looks rather lacking.  (They'd no zep.
to derive an eye knot from, e.g..)  Rock climbers were
(a) tying to their torsos vs. harnesses (!), and
(b) using the fisherman's eye knot or more commonly
the overhand eye knot as TIB mid-line knots
--where I only now realize that Roo's "mid-span sheet bend"
would serve, as also other like-structured knots (e.g. fisherman's).
The original Swiss Alpine Club book of which the one
I have is an English translation of it ... had no bowline,
but the English version inserts the recommendation for
it --interestingly, that being a later idea. !?
(And no fig.8 eye or end-2-end knots in sight!
--not what might have figured more beneficially
(or not so, in hemp ropes?), the Munter hitch.)

Which is to say that what was intended by utterances
of "*bowline*" in some sort of "one of the sort" adjective
could be far less shaped by many considerations such
as have fueled our current thinking on the question.

.:.  There isn't IMO anything *real* to be devined or
otherwise discovered/reasoned 2 B A *bowline*;
but rather there are benefits/effects to defining
the category to include/deny various candidates.
(My generously inclusive definition might make me
weary of the mass, and so I might seek to trim it;
I think that Xarax wants PET quality as a criterion,,
vs. my finding the mere *loop*-constricting/compressing
/nipping aspect to be the sole guardian.)

Which means I don't consider those knots #1057/8
to be *bowlines*.


--dl*
====

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: #1057 and #1058 likely an error/oversight by Ashley
« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2019, 06:04:18 AM »
Quote
Which means I don't consider those knots #1057/8
to be *bowlines*.
Its refreshing to see a clear and unambiguous statement from you on this matter.

I would add that #1057 and #1058 have a geometry that is far removed from the primary Bowlines he illustrated (see attached image for reference).
There is no nipping loop and there is no classical bight structure as we see illustrated in all of the primary Bowlines.

In my view, there is a trail of breadcrumbs to follow - to sniff out his concept of 'Bowline' at that point in time (1944).
The clues are:
[ ] #1016
[ ] #1033

In #1016, it is created from the base structure of #1074 Bowline with a bight.
What happens next is that one of the 'eyes' is collapsed - and this neutralizes the 'nipping loop'.
Ashley did not positively identify #1016 as being a 'Bowline' - only going so far as to say; '...based on a Bowline'.
In my view, this suggests that Ashley did have a concept of a 'nipping loop'.

In #1033, his illustration clearly shows the tying method which is directly based on #1010 simple Bowline.
The nipping loop remains intact and functional.
What differs is the bight structure.
This suggests that Ashley had a concept of a bight structure - and that it was relevant to his understanding of a Bowline.
Because the bight structure in #1033 did not have the classical appearance per #1010, I surmise that Ashley gave weight to the carrick mat appearance - from which he derived its given name (Carrick loop).
But this conflicts with #1439 derived eye knot which would be the true 'Carrick loop'.
This suggests that Ashley did not have a concept of the correspondence between bends and eye knots.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3744
Re: #1057 and #1058 likely an error/oversight by Ashley
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2019, 09:50:28 PM »
In my view, there is a trail of breadcrumbs to follow - to sniff out his concept of 'Bowline' at that point in time (1944).
The clues are:
[ ] #1016
[ ] #1033

In #1016, it is created from the base structure of #1074 Bowline with a bight.
What happens next is that one of the 'eyes' is collapsed - and this neutralizes the 'nipping loop'.
Ashley did not positively identify #1016 as being a 'Bowline' - only going so far as to say; '...based on a Bowline'.
In my view, this suggests that Ashley did have a concept of a 'nipping loop'.
I will reiterate :: there is something noisome in this sniffed
historical *fact* that bears treading carefully.  IMO, I'm leaning
towards believing that Ashely's sources simply have a botched
--done wrong once and then copied (the way of knots lit.!!)--
image.  Ashley gives a rationale for #1074 that seems apt;
there is nothing given from his sources for #1016 (which
deviates from 1074 I think by artist error) but a use that
fits Ashley's 1074 rationale.

Quote
In #1033, his illustration clearly shows the tying method which is directly based on #1010 simple Bowline.
...
Because the bight structure in #1033 did not have the classical appearance per #1010, I surmise that Ashley gave weight to the carrick mat appearance - from which he derived its given name (Carrick loop).
But his image of the set knot is anything but clear;
to the extent it can be discerned, it shows that the
open knotting was drawn up to produce a crossing-knot
base, not quite a "nipping loop".  And natural tying will
tend to do this; it takes *desire* to preserve the nice
loop of early dressing.

--dl*
====

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: #1057 and #1058 likely an error/oversight by Ashley
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2019, 03:29:16 PM »
In my view, the underlying concept with #1016 is that it has undergone transformation to the extent that the nipping loop has been neutralized.
Whilst it is not definitive proof that Ashley had a concept of a nipping loop - it does suggest he had some boundaries.
For instance, he did not go so far as to declare #1016 a Bowline - right.
In my view, the fact that he did not declare #1016 to be a 'Bowline' is proof that he had boundaries.

With regard to #1033, the base image from which to form the structure is very clearly given - and it is unmistakably the form of a Bowline.
What you are having difficulty with is the accompanying final image - which is poorly drawn.
I think you need to take a backward step and remember that this was all done in 1944 - tediously by hand (without the benefit of a computer of digital photography).
One can be forgiving that Ashley (or whoever drew this diagram) attempted to sketch the 'carrick' pattern.
To my eye, the final 'end state' diagram is simply an error.
In my view, Ashley likely did not see the classical bight structure associated with the other primary Bowlines in his book - instead, he was distracted by the carrick like pattern.
In actuality, it really isn't a true carrick mat pattern - this would only be true if he had tied a #1439 derived eye knot (which he didn't).
I can find no evidence of his awareness of the correspondence between bends and eye knots. This concept does not materialize until Harry Asher...

and so with your remark:
Quote
And natural tying will
tend to do this; it takes *desire* to preserve the nice
loop of early dressing.
I disagree - I would not go so far as to state that it takes 'desire' - or I think a more apt phrase would be 'intent' to maintain an obvious Bowline form.
Regardless of intent or desire, it is inescapable that the nipping loop remains preserved - it cannot be extinguished from #1033 - regardless of which dressing state one chooses to achieve.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3744
Re: #1057 and #1058 likely an error/oversight by Ashley
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2019, 08:29:01 PM »
In my view, the underlying concept with #1016 is that it has undergone transformation to the extent that the nipping loop has been neutralized.
But I question the history of this knot
--i.p., the correctness of the image--
and see Ashley merely parroting his sources.
It's a decent enough knot as given, but he really
needs to question their recommendation for THIS
eye knot to be used for tackle : why?!

Quote
With regard to #1033, the base image from which to form the structure is very clearly given - and it is unmistakably the form of a Bowline.
What you are having difficulty with is the accompanying final image - which is poorly drawn.
I think you need to take a backward step and remember that this was all done in 1944 - tediously by hand (without the benefit of a computer of digital photography).
One can be forgiving that Ashley (or whoever drew this diagram) attempted to sketch the 'carrick' pattern.
To my eye, the final 'end state' diagram is simply an error.
Ashley had claims to better illustration as an artist,
and the lousy dressed-&-set image is far from what
he's capable of, but also far from the bowlinesque
knot you & I favor!  IMO, it's too far to dismiss as
mere illustration weakness.

Quote
and so with your remark:
Quote
And natural tying will
tend to do this; it takes *desire* to preserve the nice
loop of early dressing.
I disagree - I would not go so far as to state that it takes 'desire' - or I think a more apt phrase would be 'intent' to maintain an obvious Bowline form.
Regardless of intent or desire, it is inescapable that the nipping loop remains preserved - it cannot be extinguished from #1033 - regardless of which dressing state one chooses to achieve.
???  It most certainly can & is, by pulling the tail tight,
which folds the initial nipping loop's outgoing eye leg
around the loop into the crossing-knot form.  THIS
form *can* be reasoned into Ashley's scribble, albeit
"reasoned" into it more than found in it.

Meanwhile, I could see our desired bowlinesque version
being favored by maritime users; it seems more resistant
to capsizing than #1010, while remaining easily loosened.


--dl*
====
« Last Edit: August 15, 2019, 08:33:19 PM by Dan_Lehman »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: #1057 and #1058 likely an error/oversight by Ashley
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2019, 07:03:48 AM »
Quote
Quote from: agent_smith on August 15, 2019, 03:29:16 PM

    In my view, the underlying concept with #1016 is that it has undergone transformation to the extent that the nipping loop has been neutralized.

per Dan Lehman:
But I question the history of this knot
--i.p., the correctness of the image--
and see Ashley merely parroting his sources.
It's a decent enough knot as given, but he really
needs to question their recommendation for THIS
eye knot to be used for tackle : why?!

You question is (in my view) dealing with a matter that falls outside the scope of my point with #1016. Which is to say that Ashley did not specifically identify it as a 'Bowline'.
The issue of its worthiness for employment as a 'tackle' is beside the point.
Ashley may have been parroting sources for info about this particular knot - but again - he did not identify it as a 'Bowline'.
Now...if he did identify it as a 'Bowline' - that would be another matter which would cast doubt on his notional concept of a nipping loop.
I am not suggesting that he did have a precise concept of a nipping loop - but, I think he did have a concept (at least) of what a loop is.
To progress from a 'loop' to a 'nipping loop' (in my view) - requires the addition of load at both ends of the loop - any any rope segments encircled within that loop are trapped and crushed.

We can see that in #1016 that the tying sequence alters the knot so it undergoes a transformation. This transformative sequence has the effect of neutralizing the nipping loop.
The final (completed) image no longer has a functioning nipping loop.
In my view, this is suggestive that Ashley had boundaries.
As to precisely what those boundaries are - we may never know since he died in 1947 (3 years after publishing his masterpiece).

I note that Ashley also published: "The Sailor and His Knots" in 1925 - and I would like to get my hands on a copy :)
We may find further clues in this work?

In relation to #1033 illustration in ABoK - and that the nipping loop isn't extinguished:
Quote
It most certainly can & is, by pulling the tail tight,
which folds the initial nipping loop's outgoing eye leg
around the loop into the crossing-knot form.  THIS
form *can* be reasoned into Ashley's scribble, albeit
"reasoned" into it more than found in it.

Okay - yes - if you yank hard on the tail it will cause the nipping loop to transform into #206 Crossing hitch (aka Munter hitch).
You need to have an intent to do this - to force the helical nipping loop to transform into #206.
But - this is still a nipping structure because it is TIB, loaded at both ends and fully encircles both legs of the collar.
I would comment that this isn't the 'carrick like' mat per #1439 but is instead the transformed result of the carrick bend after loading (#1439 transforms into 2 interlinked #206 Crossing hitches).
All of this is quite interesting and speculative.

On the one hand - Ashley assigned the name 'Carrick loop' to #1033 on account of the #206 Crossing hitch.
Or, he assigned the name on account of its carrick mat likeness (pre-loading event or hard drawing on the tail to force transformation).

I've had another closer look at Ashleys drawing (#1033)...and it just doesn't make any sense.
It does not match the transformed #206 end state and it doesn't match the carrick like pattern of #1439.

If it turns out that the #206 nipping structure was Ashley's intention - then this would open the way for #1033 to be a virtual Bowline (by my understanding).
I use the term 'virtual' Bowline to identify those eye knots that meet all of the criteria for 'Bowline' with the exception of the nipping structure - which no longer takes the form of a single or double helical loop. And so #206 (Crossing hitch), #559 (Marlinspike hitch) qualify as nipping structures, not nipping loops.

I would say that I always leaned more to the classic carrick mat of #1439 being the reason why Ashley chose the name 'Carrick loop' for #1033.
His drawing of #1439 (as 2 interlinked #206 hitches) after undergoing transformation is not perfect either (see attached imaged).

In any case, we do see a clear drawing of the starting base for tying #1033 - and it is unmistakably based on #1010.

EDIT NOTE:
I have added the written description Ashley gave for #1033.
There is another hint here... he states it "...has the same formation as one of the so-called single Carrick bends."
Does he mean the dressing state without forcing any transformation?
Or, does he mean the dressing state after a forced transformation (ie by drawing hard on the tail to force the nipping loop into #206 Crossing hitch?

I surmise that since he does not specifically write that you need to draw hard on the tail to force a transformation, and that the final drawing is non-sensical, I am inclined to believe that he didn't specifically require the transformed state.
Without a clearer drawing - its difficult to ascertain.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2019, 08:22:24 AM by agent_smith »