yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot

[alanleeknots]

Hi All,
        yChan, Y2ABowlineNew is not a bowline,
       Mark have said it many time already

both legs of the collar must be fully encircled and gripped by [a] nipping loop

      The extra turn make it easy for over hand knot shrinking and buried inside the nub.
       Now you need knife to cut it loose.  謝謝 alanleeknots

[agent_smith]

Hello yChan,
Thank you for your presentation.

I name them 'Bowline' because they compose with the elements so shown in #1010 Bowline.

The knot presented in this post is not a 'Bowline'.

Please review the attached photos.

#46 overhand knot does not qualify as a 'nipping structure' (or a nipping loop).
A key requirement of all nipping structures is that they must be TIB (Tiable-in-the-bight) and non-jamming. #46 isn't TIB.
And I had previously tendered the definition of what a 'loop' is.
The word 'loop' has a particular meaning - and should not be diluted to describe other elements within a knot.

If they fail to achieve the definitions, I would name them as Loop Knot. IMO, I do not prefer using the name 'Eye Knot' because an eye implies small hole/opening/ring, but a closed/fixed loop is much bigger and for use to encircling or connecting object(s) of bigger size(s).

This proposition is incorrect.
The size of the eye has nothing to do with anything.
It comes down to how you define a 'loop'.
Using the word 'loop' to describe different elements is problematic and dilutes its definition.
I am currently debating the strict definition of what a 'loop' is with Derek.

Clifford Ashley uses the term 'loop knots' to describe a class of knots that permit attachments/connections.
Ashley published his masterpiece during WW2 - some 70  years ago.
I believe that his use of term 'loop knot' entered the common vernacular - and it has never been challenged.

Whether an eye knot is attached to a carabiner, a boulder or a very large tree makes no difference. In this case, size doesn't matter! 

I would challenge you to come up with a precise definition for a 'loop'. Once you have tendered that precise definition, I would be interested to see how it can be consistently applied.

[DerekSmith]

If they fail to achieve the definitions, I would name them as Loop Knot. IMO, I do not prefer using the name 'Eye Knot' because an eye implies small hole/opening/ring, but a closed/fixed loop is much bigger and for use to encircling or connecting object(s) of bigger size(s).

This proposition is incorrect.
The size of the eye has nothing to do with anything.
It comes down to how you define a 'loop'.
Using the word 'loop' to describe different elements is problematic and dilutes its definition.
I am currently debating the strict definition of what a 'loop' is with Derek.

I would like to offer a qualification to Mark's above rather strident assertion that This proposition is incorrect. - by suggesting that he adds - 'in his opinion.'

While it is correct that Mark and I have been in discussion over his attempt to rename 'Loop Knots' as 'Eye Knots', it would be wrong to infer that there is any progress on this issue.

I totally disagree with Mark's opinion and what he offers as supporting argument as to why, in his opinion, this change is valid.  I have repeatedly rejected his supporting arguments as invalid in my opinion.

I remain of the opinion that all Working Knots which have a fixed loop external to the Nub belong to the classification of Loop Knots, with the sub classification that some Loop Knots are also Eye Knots, where the loop is small, the loop legs are parallel as they exit the nub, and particularly when the loop is intended to incorporate a thimble.

NB this categorisation does not include Spliced Eyes, notably because a splice is not a knot.

As a specialist group, we need an agreed lexicon in order to be able to communicate our thoughts and perceptions.  Today, our lexicon is both confused and incomplete.  However, we do not have a Governing Body to decide upon this lexicon for us.  Naming convention will only happen by consensus of use.

At this stage of the discussion it is my considered opinion that changing the name of all fixed Loop Knots to that of Eye Knots, causes unnecessary confusion and fails to add value to our lexicon.  It is therefore my intention to continue to use the term Loop Knots for all working knots which have a fixed external loop (or loops), irrespective of the loop size or intended mode of use.

Derek

[agent_smith]

per Derek:

While it is correct that Mark and I have been in discussion over his attempt to rename 'Loop Knots' as 'Eye Knots', it would be wrong to infer that there is any progress on this issue.

Interestingly, I stated that we are debating the definition of what constitutes a 'loop'.
Your use of the phrase "making progress" is a leap of faith on your behalf. If you carefully read what I wrote, I did not say that we are making 'progress'.

per Derek:

I totally disagree with Mark's opinion and what he offers as supporting argument as to why, in his opinion, this change is valid.  I have repeatedly rejected his supporting arguments as invalid in my opinion.

And you are entitled to disagree! I had previously tendered a precise definition of what a 'loop' is.
And I am careful to apply it in a way that does not dilute its meaning. And yes, I am questioning Ashley's time honored view that knots such as #1047 F8 and #1010 Bowline are titled 'loop' knots. The alleged 'loop' in the alleged 'loop knot' doesn't take the form of a 'loop' (by my definition). To call it a 'loop' (in my view) is loosening the definition of what a 'loop' is. I probably should point out that I am not afraid to challenge old ideas and beliefs.

The 'loop' in a #1047 F8 doesn't actually take the form of a 'loop'. But, this comes down to how you wish to define what a 'loop' is (in contrast to a 'bight' and a 'turn').

I am still somewhat curious as to how you distinguish between the following elements:
[ ] bight
[ ] turn
[ ] loop
[ ] nipping loop
[ ] helix

Be that as it may, I remain somewhat optimistic that a precise definition of what constitutes a 'loop' is within reach. Keep in mind that I am an optimist

PS Derek, may I respectfully ask a favour from you?
Would you please read my posts very carefully before you reply - to ensure you don't apply an interpretation different to what I had intended?

[agent_smith]

per yChan:

I use #559 Marlingspike Hitch (not #206 Crossing Knot) , or #514 Overhand Knot as the nipping loops for different 'New' bowlines

This is interesting!

Using #559 Marlinspike hitch as the nipping structure would allow your presentation to be regarded as a 'virtual Bowline' (provided the other requirements are also met).
#559 Marlinspike hitch is TIB and non-jamming.
Assuming all requirements are met; a possible name would be "Virtual Bowline based on #559 Marlinspike hitch".

#559 isn't a nipping loop...but, it does permit encirclement and clamping of elements within a knot (ie the 'bight' component which is comprised of the collar and its 2 legs). Note that a nipping structure must be free to encircle and clamp elements within the core without jamming. It must also be TIB.

#559 is also jam resistant.

[DerekSmith]

@Mark,

PS Derek, may I respectfully ask a favour from you?
Would you please read my posts very carefully before you reply - to ensure you don't apply an interpretation different to what I had intended?

Well said, I hope we both consciously apply this sentiment.

per Derek:

While it is correct that Mark and I have been in discussion over his attempt to rename 'Loop Knots' as 'Eye Knots', it would be wrong to infer that there is any progress on this issue.

Interestingly, I stated that we are debating the definition of what constitutes a 'loop'.
Your use of the phrase "making progress" is a leap of faith on your behalf. If you carefully read what I wrote, I did not say that we are making 'progress'.

My comment Mark was not aimed at contradicting your statement, it was meant for your readers who might otherwise draw a false inference from your (totally factual) statement.

Derek

[DerekSmith]

@ Mark,

I am still somewhat curious as to how you distinguish between the following elements:
[ ] bight
[ ] turn
[ ] loop
[ ] nipping loop
[ ] helix

And here we have your favourite list again.  From your persistence, I am drawing the impression that your goal is to 'tighten down' the definition of the term 'loop'.  I on the other hand, do not wish to see its value or use restricted in any way, especially not its exclusive restriction to the term 'nipping loop'

'Loop' is a very open term, having many meanings dependent upon its context.  If we wish to more tightly identify the specific aspect of loop, where that is not immediately obvious from the context, then we have the normal tools available for doing this
a) use a specific name denoting a subset i.e. Noose, Loopknot, Eyeknot etc.
b) add an identifier i.e. 'Nipping Loop Component', 'Fixed Loop External Component' etc.

This leaves the remaining delightful looseness of the term Loop, free to be used wherever we wish - Loop around - Loop the Loop - Fruit Loops - etc...

The rest of the terms - bight - turn - round turn - helix.  I am sure these are all sufficiently well established and understood as to need no further definition.

However, by way of compromise, instead of flogging the use of the term 'Nipping Loop' , how about trying the term 'Nipping Component', then building a definition on that term?

Derek

[agent_smith]

per Derek:

This leaves the remaining delightful looseness of the term Loop, free to be used wherever we wish - Loop around - Loop the Loop - Fruit Loops - etc...

The rest of the terms - bight - turn - round turn - helix.  I am sure these are all sufficiently well established and understood as to need no further definition.

I have attached a delightful little exam paper to put your 'well established' definitions to the test.
Your responses would be appreciated...

Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood agent_smith

[DerekSmith]

@Mark.

You first :-

However, by way of compromise, instead of flogging the use of the term 'Nipping Loop' , how about trying the term 'Nipping Component', then building a definition on that term?

[siriuso]

Hi Mark,

We use 'Loop Knot' for a long time, 'Eye Knot' is not new to me too. But use the name Eye Knot instead of Loop Knot is not necessary and not appropriate.

I do not have any precise definition for a 'loop'. 

To my knowledge, a loop is used for describing a rope, string in the form of a circle/ring/non-complete circle of flex materials, so it includes closed loop, fixed loop and knotted loop in knotting. 'Ring' is used to described a closed circle, 'D-ring' for a ring in D shape. Besides our eyes (an organ), 'Eye' is used to descibed a hole/opening in/on an object, always in small size in comparison with to what it situated. Such as the opening of a spring on the ground, a focal centre opening of a tropical cyclone. Mesh is even smaller. My understand of English is not good, but the names used in Chinese for the above have the same and precise different definitions.

If it is needed to change the names, besides using 'Loop Knot'. I prefer 'Ring Knot' more than 'Eye Knot".

Happy Knotting
yChan

[siriuso]

Hi Mark,

My starts for the Y2A Bowline is completely different to yours in your photo presentation. Please analyze my knot will be very much appreciated.

yChan

[agent_smith]

per yChan:

My starts for the Y2A Bowline is completely different to yours in your photo presentation. Please analyze my knot will be very much appreciated.

I think you have completely missed the point I was trying to make.
My photo images were not intended to compete with your creation - or to attempt to re-create your work.

Also, I am not sure how many different ways I can repeat what I have already stated - that your creation isn't a 'Bowline'. I 'feel' that it is like trying to prove that 2 + 2 = 4, but the alternative viewpoint claims that the answer is 5. Both parties refuse to back down (although, who really knows if our invention of numbers is correct!).
And there is also the story of the lighthouse and the ship at night. The ship approaches the lighthouse and demands that the lighthouse alter course to avoid a collision (the ships Captain doesn't realize the light in the distance isn't another ship but, is actually a lighthouse).

The point of my images was to show that an eye knot built around #46 overhand knot does not, and cannot qualify as [a] 'Bowline'.

In the first instance, a nipping structure (or if you prefer, nipping component) must be 'TIB' (Tiable-in-the-bight). It is (by definition) topologically equivalent to the unknot.

A nipping structure must be able to freely encircle and clamp both legs of the collar without jamming
Note: Some people prefer to identify the collar and its 2 legs as a 'bight'.

All Bowlines have a fixed 'eye' - which allows connections/attachments (some prefer to think of the eye as a loop, even though this may dilute the definition of what a 'loop' is). I was venture to say that the term 'loop knot' is inherited from Ashley and has become entrenched even though the precise definition of what constitutes a 'loop' is elusive.

Another characteristic of 'Bowlines' is that they are 'PET' (Post Eye Tiable).

Anyhow, that's enough from me... the ball is in your court (so to speak) and whether you choose to believe or disbelieve these assertions

[siriuso]

Hi dear all,

Up to now, I have received comments mostly focus on my knots' names because I named them bowlines. Upon the comments made by our fellow expert members, these knots are not qualified as Bowline. I concur with their opinions based on some well observed definitions. So I modified these post titles, and hope to receive more comments on these Loop Knots.

Happy Knotting
yChan

[DerekSmith]

per yChan:

My starts for the Y2A Bowline is completely different to yours in your photo presentation. Please analyze my knot will be very much appreciated.

I think you have completely missed the point I was trying to make.
My photo images were not intended to compete with your creation - or to attempt to re-create your work.

Also, I am not sure how many different ways I can repeat what I have already stated - that your creation isn't a 'Bowline'. I feel that it is like trying to prove that 2 + 2 = 4, but the alternative viewpoint claims that the answer is 5. Both parties refuse to back down.
And there is also the story of the lighthouse and the ship at night. The ship approaches the lighthouse and demands that the lighthouse alter course to avoid a collision (the ships Captain doesn't realize the light in the distance isn't another ship but, is actually a lighthouse).

The point of my images was to show that an eye knot built around #46 overhand knot does not, and cannot qualify as [a] 'Bowline'.

In the first instance, a nipping structure (or if you prefer, nipping component) must be 'TIB' (Tiable-in-the-bight). It is (by definition) topologically equivalent to the unknot.

A nipping structure must be able to freely encircle and clamp both legs of the collar without jamming
Note: Some people prefer to identify the collar and its 2 legs as a 'bight'.

All Bowlines have a fixed 'eye' - which allows connections/attachments (some prefer to think of the eye as a loop, even though this may dilute the definition of what a 'loop' is). I was venture to say that the term 'loop knot' is inherited from Ashley and has become entrenched even though the precise definition of what constitutes a 'loop' is elusive.

Another characteristic of 'Bowlines' is that they are 'PET' (Post Eye Tiable).

Anyhow, that's enough from me... the ball is in your court (so to speak) and whether you choose to believe or disbelieve these assertions.

Mark, I am virtually (but not totally) dumbstruck by the unmitigated arrogance of your post.

By all means hold your own opinion, but when you express it please have the modesty to declare that it is your opinion.  But no, not a single 'in my opinion'  just a tirade of what you insist must be the definition of a Bowline, followed up with abusive statements relating to others ability to perform simple arithmetic and the inference that your statements are the 'rock of authority' .

I am surprised at you.

Oh, and Y2A is PET.

Derek

[agent_smith]

per Derek:

Mark, I am virtually (but not totally) dumbstruck by the unmitigated arrogance of your post.

And I am dumbstruck that you are dumbstruck by my post.

I am not going to add a qualifying statement to each and every post that I make in the IGKT forum universe - that would be ludicrous. I could also suggest that you go back and edit each and every post and add the qualifying remark "in my opinion".

What is really happening is that you are starting to fire the first warning shots across my bow - because what I write challenges your own paradigm - so you take a decisive move at each instance where I advance an opinion that conflicts with your own.

There is no arrogance Derek - that concept exists only in your own imagination.
I wasn't the only person declaring that this particular presentation from yChan isn't a Bowline - and it was stated several times. Examples and descriptions were tendered in a respectful way. You may not like that fact.

With regard to your reference to 'PET' - this is another example of your leaps of imagination...I did not state that yChan's presentation was not PET. I was giving a basic list of what [a] 'Bowline' is. That list also included a fixed eye that permits attachment/connections to be made. If I had intended to declare that yChan's presentation was not PET - I would have used very specific language such as; "yChan, your presentation isn't PET" (but I didn't write that, did I?).

Oh, and for Derek - it goes without saying that this is my own opinion typed by my own hand, as it obviously is so with every other post I make.