Variant Knot Vs. New Knot - who cares?

[Paco]

So, do we have any lawyers in this group?  Is there anything that would prohibit someone from writing a new book called "Beyond Ashley" that continues the numbering tradition?  Then we could use the ABOK system and create a new set of numbers.

And, as has been mentioned, Ashley numbered everything.  Would it be imperative to decide what was a knot and what was a variation?  You could just say, when carrying on a discussion, "That looks like ABOK #4502, or because of the way you formed the loop, more like ABOK #4518."  Remember that the original, while being called the knotter's Bible, still contains flaws and inaccuracies, and so a new book that assigns numbers to variations wouldn't be the end of the world.

I'd say that if a variation already has a name, give it a number.  If not, then we (meaning whoever writes the new book, preferably someone involved with the IGKT) can decide what to do with it.

[squarerigger]

Hi Barry, Paco and especially Derek,

You have all hit the button right on the head - no names, no numbers just descriptions WHEN maknig comparisons (for the purpose of deciding whether it is NEW, EXISTING, or VARIANT).  Let's start thinking about some other crafts that use flexible forms to make objects - basket-weaving, knitting, crochet and so on.  Not necessarily a sub-set of knotting, perhaps a superset, but nevertheless a related area of interest.  Their standard descriptions look at structure much more so than we do.  We, as knotters, try to name everything and it simply is not working effectively to decide whether a knot is new, variant or existing.  Naming or numbering are a dead end methinks - they do not translate across languages, particularly if you do not know the key beforehand.

That brings me round to what I was thinking in the shower this morning - why not relate to everything by the structures it incorporates?  In music we learn how to play by following the notes at first, but pretty soon we understand the individual notes and can "get" a tune without even having to know the key in which it is played.  As humans we understand that a particular key has sharps and flats and, when you know the minims and crochets and rests that are in the sheet music, you get a better understanding of its sound and feel - it's final appearance and structure if you will.  We can do the same thing with knotting.  Derek, you said in another post that you have just realized that structure in a knot is important, so much so that you cannot describe a knot simply by looking at one elevation or view of the knot, but that you need to look at all sides.  This is why Ashley's work was so seminal - he realized that people recognize structures and he uses people's innate abilities in that regard to explain the knot with drawings of structures.  We can do the same.

Here are several structures that can be thought of as building blocks - the crossing (over, under or right to left or left to right if necessary), the wrap (needs a direction that is unambiguous), the bight, the loop (crossing itself but not necessarily crossing another cord), the twist (wrapping the line to and fro over some core line).  How about it?  Can we then determine that, if a knot has THIS structure it can be described as EXISTING, if a knot has THAT structure not THIS, it may be new or it may be a variant.  If a knot combines THIS with THAT maybe it is a variant?  I am struggling with a new concept here and I need to know if I am off altogether or not.  Does anyone understand this or do you have a better idea or do you think that two existing knots have exactly the same structure?  Maybe the loading has to be included into the description as well e.g. the knot is a temporary eye comprising a bight trapped in a loop with the loop end and the bight end continuing one to the other, the resistance being from the other end of the loop and the load being taken by the eye.  Okay, long description but you get the idea - loop around a bight, two loop ends resisting and loaded, one bight end loaded, bight continuous to loop end, bight around standing part.  Which other knot matches that description?

Each structure can be described and drawn to make the whole thing clear (decorative knots will definitely have their challenges here!) to any language (OK - unsighted people may have some difficulties) and age.  Whaddya say - huh?   

SR

[DerekSmith]

So, do we have any lawyers in this group?  Is there anything that would prohibit someone from writing a new book called "Beyond Ashley" that continues the numbering tradition?  Then we could use the ABOK system and create a new set of numbers.

And, as has been mentioned, Ashley numbered everything.  Would it be imperative to decide what was a knot and what was a variation?  You could just say, when carrying on a discussion, "That looks like ABOK #4502, or because of the way you formed the loop, more like ABOK #4518."  Remember that the original, while being called the knotter's Bible, still contains flaws and inaccuracies, and so a new book that assigns numbers to variations wouldn't be the end of the world.

I'd say that if a variation already has a name, give it a number.  If not, then we (meaning whoever writes the new book, preferably someone involved with the IGKT) can decide what to do with it.

Hi Paco, I totally agree, but I don't think we need any lawyers to get involved.

The IGKT can simply decide to start its own knot numbering system i.e. IGKT nnnn or for short #nnnn.  Out of respect to the great man, it can then designate the first 3850 to those already assigned by Ashley so that ABoK xxxx = IGKT xxxx.  Then the assigning group can start to assign knots from say #4000 upwards.

But you are jumping ahead to when we have solved the problem you previously set us - how do we decide if a knot is simply a variant of an existing knot or a new knot?  However, yes, if such a system is set up then when the problem is resolved, then we will at least have a place to record the new knots and their variations.

Q.  Have you contacted our new Chairman yet and asked him if the IGKT has a Knot Review Panel, and if they have could they give you an answer re your 'new' knot?

Derek

[Sweeney]

Derek

You're right - the IGKT can - and I think should - start its own numbering system but there are already a number of knots that are not in Ashley which fall to be recorded so a piece of work on this does not need to await the outcome of the variant vs new discussion. In fact by getting going before the current issue is resolved pushes the discussion to the fore as decisions will have to be made about actual knots. Once a knot is accepted as "new" there is nothing to stop this being amended later when an early reference is found (eg Hunter's Bend as a case in point).

Barry

[DerekSmith]

That brings me round to what I was thinking in the shower this morning - why not relate to everything by the structures it incorporates? 

SR

So close you can taste it - or is it the soap?

We humans have a fundamental problem with perspective - we are knot tyers and perceive a knot from that very fixed perspective.  When we are given a knot, we even have to orient it into our fixed tying frame of reference in order to be able to just recognise it.

Take these three knots for example.  Do you recognise them?  Can we describe then in terms of twists turns and bights?



Those who have done Technical Drawing might immediately spot that it is simply three perspectives of the same structure, that being the OH knot from the side, from the top and 'end on' i.e. looking down the cord (with a little latitude please for the limitations of my drawing utility).

Which perspective is right?  Are any of them 'right' considering they are all tyer-centric rather than being knot-centric.

So long as we stand outside of the knot and view it from the myriad of possible tyer perspectives, then I think we are going to be 'tasting the soap' rather than tasting the 'essence of the knot'.

From a knot-centric perspective the OH knot might be described as :-

Opposing fully loaded parts enmeshed in a full turn 'S' twist, self counter-wrapped by a partially loaded 'Z' twist clamp.

Now I am a chemist and I can cope with the likes of '2,4-D orthodianisidine' yet even I find this description of the OH mind numbing, and it is not even a full description (it lacks inclusion of the turn connections between the 'S' and the 'Z' components).

I have no doubt that at some time a fresh minded savant will hold in their minds eye the full understanding of the vectors and forces which are a knot, and be able to describe these uniquely in some language that makes it possible to record each knot in all its functionality.  But until that day, I have to conclude that we simply cannot 'say' the essence of a knot such that we may compare essences to declare if one is different from the other.

Minded of this, could I propose an alternative approach - That of the fictional Sherlock Holmes - "Eliminate everything which is impossible and that which is left must be the truth" -- or at least a version of it (or was it Hercule Poirot?).



For Real Working Knots (obviously not relevant to decorative knots where appearance is essence)

Mirrors and 'handed versions' are simply variants of the same knot.

Additions which do not change any functionality are variants.

...  any other exceptions we arrive at ...

Everything left is a different knot, and if we can find no reference to it then it is a 'New Knot' (i.e. new to us).



Then of course, we need to formally record it, so Barry's proposal to formalise the IGKT numbering and recording system becomes highly important.

Derek

[Sweeney]

Derek

I'm with you on the description issue. The problem to me is that if I say "here's a new fixed loop" it can be described technically but finding the "original" knot which I have inadvertantly rediscovered cannot be done by searching for a description in similar language because there isn't one. I would like to look for one or more key differences (a bit like fingerprint comparison but actually the reverse of that process) and then decide - on a case by case basis - whether "new" or "variant" or neither were appropriate. There must be dozens if not more knots in the public domain which are without ABOK so could we not use an empirical approach - try some of the simpler ones and gradually learn what to look for? Two examples - the Beer knot, distinguished by the material it's tied in and method of aligning the material before tying (otherwise it's just an overhand knot) and an eye splice in kernmantel rope which is completely different from spliced laid rope, described in text would probably be quite lengthy but at a glance they are only similar at a very superficial level. Over time we build a knowledge base of experience (and there are threads here which go into some detail comparing knots)- as long as you can find something to compare the "new" knot with!

Unfortunately we are not starting from scratch with ABOK on the shelf, just published, and sitting back awaiting "new" knots to appear - they are out there already so the job of recording progess has a lot of catching up to do.

Barry

Barry

[squarerigger]

I thought we were looking for a way to distinguish between knots, not for a way to describe all knots.  Even if we have all knots in front of us in description we could only make the comparison by having somebody who has tied the knot before and knows its turns and twists be able to look at the knot and say "yes, but if you do this it is exactly the same, so this may be a variant"  How many of us when looking at a knot look at it from only one perspective?  That simply does not ring true - we twist and turn it, we try to undo or relieve it a little and we examine it from all sides.  With a drawing we do this mentally as we seek out the pattern.  I remain unconvinced that drawings alone will help determine the newness, and certainly not that a number will decide the newness - it is when we have someone who has tied that knot (or something like it) before that we have the beginning of pattern recognition.  Computers are WAY behind - they can barely recognize faces yet and that only from a single perspective.

SR

[Sweeney]

Absolutely right - but you still need to find the known knot or knots which may have been rediscovered or varied before you can begin to establish similarities to and differences from the proposed knot. Drawings and photos are not enough to draw a firm conclusion but they are enough to establish that a knot or knots are worth shortlisting as possibles among the already known knots thus leading to a more detailed comparison by whatever method seems appropriate to the case in point. And then the difficulty starts but I am afraid I don't see an abstract discussion of how this might be done getting us very much further although it has served to stimulate a useful discussion. Until there is somewhere where known knots can be reliably found to provide the starting point in locating a comparator I am not sure how far one can get - at the risk of being repetitive ABOK is simply not sufficiently up to date to be the only reference work.

Numbering has nothing to do with newness per se - it is simply an unambiguous (and language independent) way to communicate the identity of a particular knot from a numbered collection of knots thus I can suggest that my new loop knot is derived from knot #5678 but in my opinion qualifies as new because.... Then the experts examine ponder and decide. Whether minor variations are included and given a distinguishing number is really up to the people managing the collection - in the short term this is probably more trouble than it's worth.

Barry

[squarerigger]

Thanks Barry,

Effectively that puts this topic to bed I think.  I like your thinking - I was going to suggest having a new "Encyclopedia" of knots as a referent point made up of actual tied knots each (or more likely several) mounted on boards that were then kept in some repository such as the British Library or the Smithsonian Museum.  That could then be used as a deposit of useful knowledge - quite a task!

SR

[Dan_Lehman]

When the good people who make up the requisite committee of the IGKT
 get together to discuss a purported "new" knot, just what is it they seek and how
 do they make the differentiation?  Maybe one of them will be kind enough to respond ...

One of them will.  I've been a bit slow in so doing, looking back over some old notes
et cetera.  --and over a now aged draft of an article "On *New* Knots" I'd begun for
Knotting Matters , which has languished unfinished; I'll excerpt from it here.  But
I can present some of the history and the rationale of the committee, here.

My motivation for establishing the New-Knot Claims Assessment Committee
(back in 1999-November, pub'd in km67:03-6, June 2000) was, as stated:

In response to the issue raised in km57:57 and in various KM Letters,
most notably that from Roger Miles [km58:12], the Council has approved
the formation of a committee of the IGKT to handle the initial validation
of new knot claims.  Guild Member Dan Lehman, who made the proposal
to the Council, has been appointed as its chairman. This committee is
named "New Knots Claims Assessment Committee (NKCAC)";
its purpose is to receive, review, and give technical opinion on claims
by members and others:  that a knot is unknown in knot literature and is
valid in terms of performance.

One obvious relief as I saw it was the removal of such Is-it-New? queries
from KM when in many cases the answer was clear.  (E.g., one fellow,
as did I ca. '73, "invented" the Marlinespike hitch -- no benefit to having
KM pages carry such a claim or question, and then the answer(s).  The
Perfection/Anglers Loop has appeared more than once there; and some
other, single bowline-in-the-bights have been repeatedly presented.)
Beyond that, our "assessment" was hoped to put a candidate novelty
through some pulling & testing and various-materials checking.

That was the glorious if naive intent of the committee.  Over time,
various of the members lost interest or failed to find it, and this
poor manager left some matters idle, even.  (Roger, e.g., decided
he only liked symmetric bends--no loops or hitches for him!  (Hence
my remark re the Hobart meeting.)  Brion only added to our work:
he forwarded some claims!)  And in most instances, frankly, the
candidate knots were well shy of inspiring, IMHO.  Our one published
report addressed a set of knots whose claim to novelty came sort of
second-hand--relayed of an Italian book read by Swede Sten Johansson;
most of the "new" knots were found, largely in EKFR, and some
more likely novelties were deemed the sort of things about which a
good inventor would want to keep quiet!      (Frankly, I think that much
of EKFRopework is invention, & dubious.)

I decided that "new" would be manifest as "new to us" and that meaning
that we'd not found it in our collective resources--though there is only so
much not in Ashley (ample, but not well put anywhere else --well, of
course "ample":  infinity minus a few hundred equals . . . infinity).  Imagine
the application of this criterion to what I subsequently found in considerable
usage on both sides of the Atlantic, and call "Reverse Groundline Hitch"
--a seizing hitch  (also my term) used by commercial fishermen to bind
together netting & ground-/head-lines!  --haven't seen it in a book, as I
distinguish it from the Groundline H. in loading & purpose (& materials!).
But it's hardly "new"; and probably some small publication DOES show
it, but that is so far unknown to me.

   This leads me to some strong assertions:  (1) it?s easy to invent new knots;
(2) novelty, per se, is a small  (and, of course, fleeting!) value for a knot.
If you accept my views on new, you should surely come to agree with (1):  even
Ashley hasn?t all so vast a collection of structures in ABOK*, and other books
add little more; it?s simple to step outside of these published knots with a
slight alteration to them--presto, ?new knot?. (*Simplistic claims for ABOK
having ?over 3500 knots? are based on the illustration ID #s, many of which
don?t identify knots, and many knots are illustrated more than once; the number
of actual knots, esp. practical ones, is far smaller:  e.g., only about 50 each
of bends & single-loop knots, and 100 hitches are given.)
     I should also remark that I take ?knot? to be specific:  e.g., contrary
Harry Asher, I do not believe that Ashley was aware of Asher?s ?Shakehands? bend
(or the corresponding loopknot), as the knot of that structure shown in ABOK (#1031)
is loaded differently.
   So, one then must shrug ?so what?? (as C.Warner has privately challenged me).
Here, the bar of worthiness is applied:  I?m happy to credit, with a published
presentation, knots that have some possible worth--be it in function or in
(interestingly novel) structure--; for the others, I can simply confirm to the
enquirer that we?ve found no match (and qualify the significance of that), and
give our rationale for assessing a knot as dubious.  Thus, we must ask what rope
problem  the knot solves, and how it compares with known solutions.  Perhaps its
value isn?t confirmed, but only suggested--and we then assess an uncertain future for it.

   Well, what hangs on new ?!
--to the inventor, fame?  Rather unlikely; and the IGKT isn?t giving prizes or certificates
for the discovery of a new knot.
--or just respect from one?s peers?   But maybe this shouldn?t depend on being first:
if a child discovers  the well-known knots for herself, isn?t that most meritorious?!
Or do we just weigh some absolute value of the invented knots, irrespective of each
inventor?s reach to discover them?  In the case of the IGKT, we at most give the new
knot and its inventor(s) recognition and whatever publicity derives from being
featured in KM; perhaps, in some special cases, we might go further, and advocate
the invention to other forums--such as SAIL, Climbing, or a Scouting magazine.
And in giving recognition, we shall try to use words carefully to not imply more
than some objective truth that So-&-so has found this knot, and viola!
   Now, even of those knots that can be found in the literature, there are some
that ought to be more widely known, to ?us?--e.g., it was of scant value that the
?new? #1425a (added to ABOK ) was published by Phil Smith in his obscure book.
Thus, Hunter?s (re-)discovery of it made a big splash:  voila, here we are today,
IGKT!  (And hence my name for it, "SmitHunter?s Bend"--which isn?t used by hunters,
riggers, or smiths!)  Some things bear repeating.  There might also be cases of
a new tying method or link to some other knots (from which the ?new? candidate
was derived).

A more reasonably practical/productive course for the IGKT to take is to try to
map/articulate a knotting universe of structures, aiming to organize what is
known, and through serendipity (a good name for lack of rigor!) and the use
of a check list as noted above for any tangle  (i.e., exploring it for different
loading profiles), and other methods of projection , this universe can be
proactively enlarged--not just sitting back and waiting for the odd (some are
quite so!) query about a "new" knot from the outside world.  --a sort of building
of a Greater ABoK , as it were.  --for which, yes, a good knot-ID system
would be most helpful.  Nevermind about names so much, or don't let that issue
hamper progress; there is much confusion and via the internet the rapidfire
spread of nonsense, re knot names.  Still, Wikipedia e.g. can stand as a now
global reference cleaned of the nonsense, and offers one hope towards that.

Derek opined, as have several others in the past,

it is highly probable that every knot and variation we create will have been
created already by someone, somewhere, sometime in this world.

which I greet with ambivalence.  For some cases, it's true--i.p., that grand
knot that bound together knot "tyers" from around the world (and, I will again
crusade, should be the logo for the so-bound guild, it's right-angle four ends
symbolizing the major compass points, E-W, N-S !! )--; but in others, I think
that both the difference in historical materials (anything like nylon monofilament
fishing line?) and the witnessed lack of ingenuity in known knots & novelties
leads me to seriously doubt the assertion.  But at least one can yet argue
"Who knows?!" and cast the doubt.  Again, what hangs on "new"?

As for "variant", that is much a judgement call, in my mind.  One can e.g. think
of the simplest knot, the Overhand, tied as a binder around something; then
of loading one end to make it a hitch (which can be effective in some cases);
then of making what Ashley calls a Half hitch (and I class as a noose-hitch),
which will work in some cases qua ring-hitch; and then in the form slightly
different in which the tail is set back around the object under the SPart like
a minimal Timber Hitch.  These are now four distinct <somethings>, be they
one knot or several or variants.  And although simple, it seems that we'll find
such cases where useful variations are simply overlooked.  (Among my more
recent discoveries:  a re-dressing of the infamous Granny knot, which looks
quite good, in some material--secure when slack, strong-looking, and easy
to loosen (pull ends) (in some other materials, alas, its stability under load
isn't so good.  While its only a re-dressing, I regard it as distinct and "new".)

[well, whew, I need to be doing other errands!  --all for now]

--dl*
====

[Paco]

Whew!

Reading up on all these posts makes me think that we are addressing more than one issue here.

1.  What is a new knot, variant, etc?
2.  How do we catalog them?

I don't think we've still come to a conclusive answer to number 1.  But I think that to create a IGKT numbering system isn't a bad idea.  And I don't think that it even matters whether or not a knot is "new" to be put into the catalog.  As to the example of the Killick hitch and the Timber hitch, are they different knots or just variations?  Yes.  But they can still be catalogued, given separate numbers.

This still doesn't answer question 1, but it may not be necessary to have an exact definition.  I don't know.

And for next week, let's come up with a definition of sports, with the bonus question, is Chess a sport?  (Please no, let's not)

[DerekSmith]

Dan

I had no idea that there already was as 'New Knot Claims Assessment Committee'.  In fact when Lindsey mentioned earlier to Paco that he should send his knot to the Guild for assessment, I was certain that he was exercising a 'leg pull'.

So, questions questions ---

Is the committee still in operation?
Who are its members?
What is your remit and what is the basis for guiding your decision making?
but perhaps most importantly, what have the committee 'assessed' and where have you recorded your assessments?
and
How come you haven't mention your role or this committee when 'new knots' have been posted onto this forum?  Were they 'captured' by the committee and assessed behind the scenes?

What did the committee make of Dave Roots lovely Myrtle Knot (collapsed Constrictor on self, forming a bend or a loop)? or Paco's knot which led to this thread?

What system have you used to designate the new knots that have been found to be 'new to you' and what are your thoughts on using an extended ABoK numbering system?

Derek

[DerekSmith]

As usual Dan, I have given myself the opportunity of reading you writings (especially the important ones) more than once, and as ever even more jumps out on the subsequent reads.

I really am astounded and more than a little disappointed that this hugely important committee is not writ large across every Guild surface.  For example, why on earth isn't there an NKCAC board on this Forum?  Surely the Guild realises that no matter what a persons age, when you come upon the wonderful world of knots, there is barely greater excitement than discovering a new structure (even if it is the most popular 'new knot' ever discovered).  It matters not how good or great the discovery is, and most are not looking for kudos, it matters only that people are 'playing' with cord and discovering ways of making it structurally interact with itself in ways that were new to them.

Surely we should be promoting this passion and interest, even down to handing out certificates for - 'This Months Marlin Spike Knot invention goes to ....'  discovering this knot for oneself is a great thing, not something to be ashamed of.  Had I discovered it, then I would have loved to have been awarded an IGKT certificate stating that Derek Smith had Invented / Discovered the famous Marlinspike Hitch on such and such a date.  -- The Guild commends his budding knotmanship.

And when someone really does discover/invent and new knot or method of tying, then what nicer than to receive an IGKT certificate for their contribution to the knotting world.  On the one hand it is 50 pence worth of paper and postage, on the other it is a powerful means of reinforcing the pleasure to be had from knotting as a hobby.

One observation I would offer though is that it might be wise to consider divorcing the establishment of 'Newness' from 'Usefulness'.  Yes, someone might have submitted a really crappy knot that will (should) never see the light from beyond the trouser pocket, but that should not detract from the fact that its discoverer was part of the effort to map our world of knots.  Evaluation of a knots usefulness is probably better left to the wider world of practical evaluation and critical review through the medium of the likes of this forum.

Would we double the size of KM if we published every new knot and method submitted? and even if we did, so what?  It demonstrates the measure of interest amongst members for this sport.  All knots do not have to be 'Matthew Walkers' to justify accolade, they just have to promote the fun of knotting.

So Dan, what are the guidelines for submitting a knot or method to 'eN Kack' and where are the submissions to be made?

Lindsey, what is your remit for publication of these little jewels and what format do you require, and can you regularly publicise this committee?

Mel, can we have an 'eN Kack' board please - 'For the submission and discussion of proposed new and variant knots and methods of tying and knot usefulness'

Derek

[Sweeney]

I like the ideas in this but suggest that although KM is a good way to congratulate and recognise members' efforts it is (at present at least) restricted to members. Given the remit of the Guild as a public charity would it be more appropriate to devote a section of the website to showing new knots - starting with those not published in Ashley but already in the public domain (though not unfortunately in one place)? This in itself might inspire non-members to join and it provides support for our educational aims. A section for the NKCAC and its work could sit alongside. This may prove advantageous in the UK because of the Charity legislation under which the Guild operates - we must demonstrate a "public benefit" to retain charitable status (the fact that the benefits of our efforts are potentially worldwide is to be welcomed).

Barry

[DerekSmith]

Excellent idea Barry, but it needs volunteers.

Perhaps Forum members can start to amass material here for transfer to the website.  At least we will see how much volunteer interest it attracts.

Derek