Fine then. I understand.
I am sure you can, but it seems that sometimes you do not.
I have read Miles book as carefully as I could, and I believe I know his method. He
DOES NOT start from well known symmetric knots, and proceed by transforming them
, as you claim
. He starts by the matrices that represent symmetric 2D diagrams of
EACH LINK, and then he superimpose those two links, paying attention to the kind of symmetry of the end result. He distinguishes three kinds of symmetry, and the Tweedledee symmetry obeys the higher of them: it is symmetric along two perpendicular to each other axes : he calls the bends which obey that symmetry "tr
iple symmetric". The 2D diagram of the Tweedledee bend, which I have re-drawn in KnotMaker and posted in this thread, is quite complex, and it can not be used as a basis for an easy to remember tying method ( I have tried it ). Even when Miles describes tying methods, he relates the Tweedledee bend with the Dee bend, which I have also shown in this thread . And the Dee bend itself to the Harness bend... NOWHERE in his line of thought or his sequence of tying methods does he relate the Tweedledee bend with the Matthew Walker bend, for KnotGod s sake ! Read his lips : "
To tie [ the Tweedledee bend ] ,
first tie A10 [ the Dee bend ],
then insert free ends symmetrically." Now, read his lips for the Dee bend : "
As with A8 [ the Harness bend],
a tying method begins with cords aligned in opposite directions, with four crossovers ( over, under, over, under ). Symmetric insertion of the free ends yields the triply symmetric TWEEDLEDEE bend."
ALSO, he examines the Matthew Walker bend in a completely different way, as the first implementation of Ashley s tying method, at ABoK #1426. He calls all the knots in this sequence by Ashley s name, generalized, as N - FOLD OVERHAND BENDS. This method is related to the Oyster bend,
NOT to the Tweedledeee bend. ( p. 124, p.125 ). The Oyster bend is topologically different from the Teedledee bend - its "diagonal elements" are on the outer shell, not in the inner core of the knot.
WHERE IS THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE MATTHEW WALKER, THAT SUPPOSEDLY MILES FOLLOWS TO GENERATE THE TWEEDLEDEE BEND ? WHERE IS THE INVERSE TRANSFORMATION ?
You seem too quick to dismiss my willingness and/or ability to understand - you have done it again (1), and you keep doing it now. I have not seen this kind of behaviour by you against any other member of the Forum. Am I sooo mean and dumb, I wonder...
1.
...don't call me in the morning. . Why do you insistently belabor other's statements with your incessant grandstanding? It's not just about you.
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-grandstanding.htm#slideshow