Author Topic: Is Knot Notation still being pursued? (from newbie to Forum)  (Read 9647 times)

GrandpaBig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Is Knot Notation still being pursued? (from newbie to Forum)
« on: January 02, 2021, 04:21:10 AM »
Quote
author=Michael Ohene link=topic=1362.msg9373#msg9373 date=1242614979]
...
My webpage :
My notation: http://www.whatsthesequency.com/knot.html
....
-Michael Ohene

I saw this from about 10 years ago.  Michael's web site is still active.  There is quite a bit there, but I have not taken the time to study it, yet!  I am aware that others have pursued this, also.  Peter Suber (google) once had a knot site and proposed one.

I have the book:  "A Fresh Approach to Knotting and Ropework" by Charles Warner

I may have seen other proposals - can't remember what or where.

I am a retired electronics engineer who does a little programming - mainly Python - and have been doing a little study of mathematical knot theory - not even enough to be dangerous yet!   I have heard there is some python library to support mathematical knots.  Is anyone on the forum still pursuing this?

Blessings!
« Last Edit: January 02, 2021, 04:23:23 AM by GrandpaBig »

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 455
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
Re: Is Knot Notation still being pursued? (from newbie to Forum)
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2021, 01:58:33 PM »
Hello GrandpaBig,

Can you please clarify if you mean:
1) hand written notation to describe each of the hand movements to tie a particular knot; or
2) software (computer code) - to enable drawing of a knot structure which can be saved to an image format.

Thanks...

GrandpaBig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Re: Is Knot Notation still being pursued? (from newbie to Forum)
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2021, 08:09:34 PM »
As far as just a notation i believe Knotmaker by Dave Root and Derek Smith lends a notation for their knot drawing tool.
.
As far as Python specific knot notation (only read about) drqawing/evaluation:
kauffmanstates.py
pyknotid

I will look into both of those.  I am a Linux guy and have tried running some knot software in past with not too much luck.  I will try again.  Good to have names associated with a software tool!   Thanks so much.

GrandpaBig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Re: Is Knot Notation still being pursued? (from newbie to Forum)
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2021, 08:12:58 PM »
Hello GrandpaBig,

Can you please clarify if you mean:
1) hand written notation to describe each of the hand movements to tie a particular knot; or
2) software (computer code) - to enable drawing of a knot structure which can be saved to an image format.


Agent_Smith,

I am usually a "both and" vs an "either or"  guy.  It would just be good to know what is available.   Thanks for the response.

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 455
Re: Is Knot Notation still being pursued? (from newbie to Forum)
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2021, 11:03:56 PM »
i think we might say belts and suspenders.
Multi-path generally good to know, even if just pick mono path from.
>>cross verification parity within self/set
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
Re: Is Knot Notation still being pursued? (from newbie to Forum)
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2021, 01:39:18 AM »
In reply to GrandpaBig:

With specific regard to hand written notation to describe the hand movements to tie a particular knot:

I have to inform you that it has been tried many times in the past - and all end the same way (they die a slow death and are forgotten).
Harry Asher attempted to introduce a hand written notation system in his book - "The Alternative Knot Book" - but again, it never caught on and died a slow death.

Why?

In my view, all of these hand written notation systems fail to take into account a 'reference frame'.
That is, the notation only has meaning to the person who wrote the notation.

From an outsiders perspective, there is no reference frame from which to make sense of the information.
For example, the notional concept of 'up', 'down', 'left' and 'right' can only have meaning within a defined reference frame.

Think of an astronaut in space... which way is up? Is there an 'up'?
For example, some attempts have used phrases such as; "form an underhand loop" (which is meaningless). Underhand implies there must be an 'over' hand... and again, which direction is 'under' and which direction is 'over'. If the knot is flipped over, 'under' becomes 'over', and 'over' becomes 'under' (and 'left' is exchanged with 'right'). The reference frame must be very clearly specified and then maintained by the knot tyer.

Most notation systems also fail to take into consideration the concept of chirality and the fact that all knots have a mirror image 'inverse' form. Eg... tie your favorite knot and then hold it adjacent to a plane mirror... and you will see its reflected 'inverse' form - which is equally valid.

I wish you every success in your endeavor to develop a user friendly hand written knot notation system!
If you succeed (I do believe anything is possible) - i will predict that it solves the reference frame problem and uses chirality to describe loop geometry.

...

In term of computer code - this is a different matter.

Peter

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Is Knot Notation still being pursued? (from newbie to Forum)
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2022, 07:26:58 AM »
Each occupation has its own terminology and knotting is no exception.  Surgeolns are able to discuss with their colleagues intricate procedures using their own terms. Likewise a mechanic using terms of their trade. The terms of each occupation are obviously incompatible with one another. Knotting does have its own terminology and our reference is Clifford W Ashley, if we use his terms we will have no problems but if we try to 'reinvent the wheel ' our efforts will be futile.


agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
Re: Is Knot Notation still being pursued? (from newbie to Forum)
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2022, 08:53:29 AM »
Hello Peter,

I didn't see an actual question in your post - it appears to be framed as a comment.

I think the whole subject area of descriptive terms to define various knot components is complicated.
Knot terminology is actually quite complex - it certainly isn't unidimensional.

Knot terminology is an evolving subject area.
There are traditional concepts which date much more than 100 years ago...
Ashley published his seminal book in 1944 - and it is a remarkable achievement, particularly
when one considers that it was all done without the aid of a modern computer (unthinkable by today's standards).

There have been a lot of developments since 1944... and some of the concepts evolved by Ashley
and others doe not always explain or keep up with evolving ideas.

Proposing (or introducing) new knotting terminology can be challenging - because the person who does so may draw unwanted negative attention.
If a new concept challenges old traditions, the person who introduces it risks facing vehement opposition and causing outrage.

Quick segway to the aerospace industry...
Werner von Braun was brilliant in his time - and evolved rocket technology that was reliable enough
to get humans to the moon and back. Now we have game-changers like Elon Musk who challenges
old paradigms and old ways of aerospace engineering. The old guard thought Elon was crazy and that
he'd never 'get-off-the-ground'. Well - they were wrong.
Now we live in an era of reusable rockets and costs are being driven down dramatically. We need people
like Elon... people who challenge old ways of doing things, and challenging old paradigms.

Non decorative knotting appears to be a predominantly masculine pursuit - largely because males have a tendency to like 'things'.
... like tools, engines, pumps, aircraft, electrical components, plumbing, etc. Females tend to be more interested in 'people' -
rather than things/objects. Just look at the technical aspect of the IGKT forum - all of the technical 'stuff' is predominantly driven by males.
Men also have a tendency to be less agreeable, competitive, and willing to take higher risks - which is important for our species as a whole.
And so the 'less agreeableness' trait can be challenging - particularly when old traditions are challenged.
The tendency to be disagreeable can lead to clashes of ideology - and this can evolve to attacks on a persons character.
The debate on 'loop knot' versus 'eye knot' immediately springs to mind (loop knot is the traditional term for a class of knots that have a
circular/elliptical component that permits attachments to objects).

There is no universally accepted textbook on knot terminology - some of it is tacit knowledge.
Some of the published knot books that exist contain numerous errors or misinformation.
Many authors parrot their content from others - and you get error creep.

Some concepts are muddled or even confused by 'authoritative' authors (eg Budworth, Ashley, Warner, Asher, Day).
Take for example the notional concept of what a 'loop' is in contrast to a 'turn'.
If you read all the 'authoritative' texts, you may be left scratching your head about what a 'loop' is in contrast to a 'turn'.
Is there a universally agreed definition of a 'loop' - to distinguish and characterize is in contrast to a 'turn'?
And in relation to this is a 'loop knot'... where the word 'loop' exists to delineate a subclass of knots.

A subclass of 'knots' is 'hitches' - and if we look to some traditional authors, it is hard to obtain a definitive characterization of what exactly a 'hitch' is.
And so how do we precisely define what a hitch is?

And other terms such as 'PET' (post eye tiable); 'EEL' (either end loadable), 'BTL' (biaxially through loadable) all evolved in the last 20 years or so.
The term 'Ring loading' is another 'relatively recent' concept which I have challenged in terms of more precise loading directions.

And the term 'Offset' - evolved by Dan Lehman is also 'relatively recent' (ie evolved after Ashley). There is a class of 'end-to-end' joining knots
that have their core 'offset' from the axis of tension. And so this challenges the common use of the term 'flat' or 'one-sided'.

The term 'Bight' is also subject to some variance by authors... eg when the 'legs' of the 'bight' are not parallel. It is difficult to find consensus on the
moment when the 'legs' of the bight overlap, for instance, at this moment a loop is created (with a particular chirality - S or Z). Only a 'loop'
can have chirality - and here you will again find plenty of opposition. Which comes back to 'loop knot' - where the use of the term 'loop' appears to be
a catch-all descriptor for a knot that has a round/circular component that allows attachments.
I prefer the descriptor 'eye knot' - the 'eye' allows attachments - but it has no particular chirality (Analogy; Eye bolt).

I have (over the years) tried to write down some concepts... and I thank many people for this opportunity. In particular
Scott, Xarax, Saverio, D Lehman, tsik_lestat; all have 'pushed the envelope' - opening up new lines of thinking and in some cases,
driving the development of new theories to fit practical examples.

It isn't case of re-inventing the wheel...rather it is a case of finding new wheels to invent.
In my personal view, adhering to the notional concept of avoiding reinventing the wheel is in fact futile!
« Last Edit: June 04, 2022, 11:26:29 PM by agent_smith »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4181
Re: Is Knot Notation still being pursued? (from newbie to Forum)
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2022, 06:27:22 PM »
Knotting does have its own terminology and our reference is Clifford W Ashley,
if we use his terms we will have no problems
but if we try to 'reinvent the wheel ' our efforts will be futile.
I must strongly disagree.  Try e.g. "bight" for starters : historical
(& thus Ashley) uses of this term show it to be confoundingly
overloaded --is it that mild curved coastline, the hard-turned
river or rope, the just-somewhere-not-at-ends part of a line,
the *space* between an arc'd rope and it's straight-pull line
where one advisably should not stand! ... !?

Among other terms.

(Re)Inventing terms is alone ample challenge in this
--what to articulate, what to generalize.

<sigh>

--dl*
====

KnotMe

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
    • The Chinese Knotting Homepage
Re: Is Knot Notation still being pursued? (from newbie to Forum)
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2022, 09:33:24 PM »
If we (the IGKT) choose to, we could define a notation that in all likelihood become defacto standard.  A human readable notation that can also be used computationally would be ideal.  Checking to see if there are any knot theory standards that would also be useful for practical knots would probably be advisable.  If Knotmaker code could be made cross-platform that may be a good starting point.

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 455
Re: Is Knot Notation still being pursued? (from newbie to Forum)
« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2022, 09:29:37 AM »
A bight to me is an arc180 w/uncrossed legs ending in same direction as arc pulls;
the legs may be bent some, so less efficient, but that loss can be a gain in byproduct from efficiency loss, yielding seating factors of friction, nips and grips nominally in linears.
.
A Hitch node(swell from minimal clean smooth linear rope run) to me is linear force input thru single sided SPart to controlling arcs, Hitch thus  terminates linear force run on another device;
So is not a continuation node as a line of force to another rope as called 'Bend' of duals SPart in/ SPart out as a linear force continuation thru a node swell in otherwise smooth uninterrupted/no node line of force.
>>the loading against the linear force is inline, down the length of the line as restriction, not across length/cross-axis
>>Splitting hairs at hybrid of Friction HITCH, as no arcs in the host line, is just a grabbled rail i think so Hitch, not Bend.
i think inherent more so in the language of the times and before, there is a logic to many of the names; and some names ready, but not used so much (for rope parts).
.
i totally look at working class, force loaded knots as topics i present tho.
>>and so think at cross roads of naming/mapping families to how you'd tie vs. actual force usage lean to the latter.
>>and same for forming pieces if making knot parts for names, should be to structural geometries as most basic truths and lessons seething out over time consistently if go to study.
i prefer Square over Reef, for the mechanical reminder of Square as itself a beginning lesson
>>otherwise would be all for the salt air smell and heritage felt with 'Reef Knot'
.
But to that naming, run into similar problem as others: usages of same forms.
For if tie specifically from Constrictor/Bag/Groundline etc. family
>>the rope parts load differently and degrade tension differently
>>if radially loaded force against swell as in Round Binding from inside the controlling arcs
>>or if linearly loaded as Hitches from outside the controlling arcs, tensions degrading thru arcs from conversion loss/frictions etc.
.
The most comprehensive naming, would be to pivotal points of architecture of support and mechanics that our intellect and understandings may have been formed on when there was nothing else to use, let alone so formable instantly to task varieties.  These are the real deeper reasons think is important to scouting, more than just survival and memory lessons.

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

 

anything