The Lexicon of Knotology

[sharky]

Nodomania: obsessive compulsive knotting
Nodoze: sleep deprivation from knotting at night
Nodope: drug free knotting

[DerekSmith]

And just to keep the humour going :-

Nodologists do it with cordage...

[Sweeney]

...and a Noddy - a slang term for a Nodologist (esp one who rides round in a small yellow drophead coupe!)

Barry

[DerekSmith]

Nice rationalisation Dave.

---------------------------------------------

Building on from N.Binding:-

B.Knot  --  Creating a force transferring connection by creating 3 dimensional contact structures on the surface of the cord only.

B.Splice --  Creating a force transferring connection by knotting the cordage and/or sub parts of the cordage on and through itself.

B.Whipping --  Effecting the transfer of force by wrapping a smaller diameter cord tightly around the outside of the cordage being bound.

B.Stitching --  B.Whipping but involving both the inside and the outside of the cordage being bound.

B.Weaving  --  Creating sheets of flexible fabric by interweaving or plaiting numerous strands of cordage.

B.Netting  --  Creating sheets of widely spaced cords by knotting strands of cordage.

...

[DerekSmith]

...and a Noddy - a slang term for a Nodologist (esp one who rides round in a small yellow drophead coupe!)

Barry

or a Plonka if it is a yellow Reliant Robin.

[DerekSmith]

Bights, loops, eyes and Turns  -  another family of 'Aunt Sallies'


TURN()  is a  base generic term.  It is a partial term, requiring the additional definition of 'by how much' so the term should always be used in combination with the amount (which should include its units (NB when the units are not included then the units are taken to be hR)).  The amount could be stated in degrees, radians or 'half revolutions' (hR), so TURN(1 hR) is a turn back on itself, while a TURN(3 hR) would have been called a 'Round Turn'.  Turns may be made around another object (or self) or not, and may be made incorporating an end, or not.

TURN() incorporates the sub terms BIGHT, LOOP and WRAP, and LOOP includes the sub term EYE

     T.BIGHT is a TURN(1 hR) without ends and without a contained object.  It also used to refer to a mid portion of cord (i.e. without ends), but is now taken to mean a mid section plus a TURN(1 hR).  In doing so, it creates a new doubled cord END which is generally used to create a KNOT mid-line. (Utilising Dan's definition a hard-folded, "doubled" structure (w/o much any attention to whether its ends ever cross)

     T.WRAP is a TURN(2 hR) with or without an end and around an object (often self).  WRAP is often compounded to create a series of turns adjacently around the object or self.

     T.LOOP is a TURN(1 hR) with or without an end, with or without an object and does not form a new double stranded cord.  A loop is open and is generally formed to contain an object or to fix an object (or self) to.

           LOOP.EYE is a LOOP made tightly around an object ? ?

[DerekSmith]

Using this schema, both LOOP and BIGHT are TURN(1).  By adding another distinction to TURN(1) we should be able to dispense with these two specific terms.  The LOOP is Object(indeterminate) Double End(NO), while the BIGHT is Object(NO) Double End(YES).  If we use the convention of 0 for NO, 1 for YES and blank for indeterminate, we can add these distinctions to the TURN() description.

TURN( Amount of Turn , Object included , Double End formed )[/size][/color]

BIGHT then is  TURN( 1 , 0 , 1)  -  i.e. 1hR, no object, double end formed.
While LOOP is  TURN( 1 ,   , 0)  - i.e.  1hR, object not specified, no double end.

Alternatively, we could make more use of the Object term by using it to denote anything, nothing, self or fixture.
          Anything (, ,) - as the term suggests , the loop can contain something if you want, as in the bowline, you can make it around an object or clip into it or not - your choice.
          Nothing (,0,) -- the loop must be clear - apart from decorative, I can't think why you would use this.
          Self  (,s,)--  the loop goes around some other part of the cord.
          Fixture(,f,)  --  as in a hitch or a loop around an anchor or other solid object etc.

This only leaves the question of with or sans 'an end' - from this follows the question of 'how far from an end?'.  Obviosuly, the end cannot be incorporated, otherwise it is not a loop, and  'how far from an end?' is surely no more relevant than 'how long is a piece of string?' - so lets try working without the 'with / without end' criterion.

We can compile all the present terms and attempt to rationalise them or we can essentially dispose of them and attempt to create a rational terminology to see if we can work with it.  Personally I do not care what the OED defines a loop or a bight as and do not believe that we should limit ourselves by these existing definitions - after all we are only on this thread because we know the mess these present definitions are in.

Can this sort of logic take us forward or is this too far too fast?

Derek

[DaveRoot]

I'll try to look at these ideas more closely later today.  Out of curiosity, are you making use of any of Peter Suber's work?  I haven't studied his notation in detail yet, but it might help prevent "reinventing the wheel" if his ideas are useful.  Might make our work go faster, especially if he has already dealt with any notational "snags" and issues which we haven't yet encountered.

Here's his "cheat sheet" for his notation: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/knotting/notate-dict.htm.

Dave

[sharky]

Nodist Colony - Exclusive community of knotters...

[DerekSmith]

Hi Dave,

No I have not used any of Peters terms for three reasons.

First, his work sits nicely alone as a markup language or shorthand to describe the moves taken in making a knot.

Second, Peters goal was to create a tying language and not to rationalise our lexicon.  Consequently he uses numerous terms such as 'fore' and 'aft' and 'clockwise'  in his descriptions.  Peter did not seem to be concerned about a logical structure for the language he drew his terms from.  Some of his notation may match where this lexicon ends up, but I believe we should go for clarity and unambiguity rather than be driven by what has gone before.

And third, although his work is seminal, it has not caught on, probably because his terminology is so cryptic.  Modern XML's are rigid in their structure and their terminology, but far more descriptive in the terms used.  Understanding GP(SP, LH), GP(RP, RH), *2 ML(RP)=LP.1, CO(RP, SP), PN(LP.1:HP), *3 RV(E.RP, LP.1.D-U), *4 MV(SP^:L, RP^:R)  as the method to tie the OH is more arduous even than trying to read a KM file.  I think he is right when he says "Unfortunately, these virtues are in tension. We can have one or the other, probably not both."  His work is foundational and doubtless will become the starting point for the next generation markup language that can be machine read.

Derek

PS - at that nodist colony - would string vests be compulsory ?

[sharky]

It would be a no strings attached nodist colony...

[DerekSmith]

Hrmm  --  without attachment or binding, it wouldn't be Nodism, so it couldn't be a Nodist colony ! !

Come on - keep up there Cap'n Billy

[sharky]

On the  contrary my friend...you don't want to go in there all knotted up...with no strings attached there is nothing to do but get bent, hitched, looped, bound or knotted...me thinks I am way ahead of you...

[DaveRoot]

One thing that comes to mind is that a notation such as TURN( 1 , 0 , 1) might lead to confusion because it's easy to forget what each parameter means.

Then I started thinking about the word "Turn."  We're familiar with it from such things as "Round Turns," but it strikes me that "Turn" doesn't really describe the action that we're trying to describe.  You defined a "Turn" in terms of half revolutions, which I believe hits the nail on the head.  Instead of thinking of ways to distinguish between Loops and Wraps and so on, what if we refer to such things in terms of Revolutions, such as "0.5 Revolutions," "1 Revolution," "1.5 Revs," and so on.  This will simplify the terminology because we have a single term (Revolutions or Revs) which is modified by the number of Revs to make.  For example, in traditional terminology we would say, "Make a Round Turn around the post," but in Nodology we might say, "Make 1.5 Revolutions around the post."

"Bight" is another traditional term that we're familiar with, but which isn't very descriptive in itself.  You pointed out that when making a Bight, "it creates a new doubled cord END," which is a good description.  I would suggest that a better and more descriptive term for "Bight" would be something like "Doubled_End."  For a simplistic example, in traditional terminology we would say, "Make a Loop, then push a Bight through it," but in Nodology we might say, "Make a Revolution and push a Doubled_End through it."  Or "Make a 1 Rev and push a Doubled_End through it."

Thoughts?

Dave

[DaveRoot]

edit (2/18/2010):  The ideas below are out-of-date.  The new proposed terms are listed and defined in the Nodeology wiki at http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms.


Playing around with some more ideas:

N.TAIL_END = The end of the N.CORDAGE which is used in tying an N.KNOT.  Traditionally referred to as the Working End, Bitter End, or Running End.

    Reasoning: TAIL_END seems more descriptive and familiar than Working End, Bitter End, or Running End.  This term is easily grasped and remembered because people understand such things as "the tail end of the line" or "the tail end of the lecture," etc.


N.EXIT_PART = The part of the N.CORDAGE which exits the N.KNOT and ends at the N.TAIL_END.

    Reasoning: This terminology creates a matching pair with N.ENTRY_PART.


N.ENTRY_PART = The part of the N.CORDAGE which enters the N.KNOT at the opposite end from the N.EXIT_PART ("opposite" in the sense that one part of a rope enters into a knot, and another part of the rope exits from the knot).  Traditionally referred to as the Standing Part.

    Reasoning: "Standing Part" is not very intuitive.  ENTRY_PART and EXIT_PART create a matching pair of terms which should help make their meanings more descriptive and intuitive.  I also like MAIN_PART as a replacement for Standing Part, but imagine if we tie a series of knots along a rope (working towards the end of the rope).  On each successive knot, where's "the Standing Part" or "the Main Part of the rope"?  Is it the part of the rope which is beyond our first knot in the series?  ENTRY_PART is perhaps more intuitive because it describes the section of rope which comes immediately before ("entering into") the knot which we're currently tying.


N.LOOP = The oval-shaped length of N.CORDAGE which remains after certain N.KNOTS are tied (e.g. Bowline).  Useful for throwing over a post, or for clipping onto with an attachment such as a carabiner, and so on.  Traditionally referred to as a Loop or an Eye.

    Reasoning: "Eye" is sometimes used for the oval-shaped length of cordage, but "Eye" gives the impression of smallness (for example, no land creature has an eye which is as big as the loop that we usually form with a Bowline).  "Loop" has at least two meanings in traditional terminology, but in Nodology we're replacing one of those meanings with something like N.TURN(2 hR) or N.REVOLUTION(1).  Therefore, N.LOOP is intuitive and descriptive and unique.



I'm starting to think that my terminology of "1 REVOLUTION" should probably be "N.REVOLUTION(1)" instead.  In addition, perhaps N.REVOLUTION(1, CROSS_OVER) and N.REVOLUTION(1, CROSS_UNDER) can replace the traditional "Overhand Loop" and "Underhand Loop," respectively.  "CROSS_OVER" means that the N.TAIL_END crosses over the N.ENTRY_PART (from the perspective of the knot-tyer).  "CROSS_UNDER" means that the N.TAIL_END crosses under the N.ENTRY_PART (from the perspective of the knot-tyer).

This new terminology seems to work fairly well, even though we still have a number of gaps to be filled.  For example:

"To tie a Bowline, form an N.REVOLUTION(1, CROSS_OVER) in the air and push the N.TAIL_END through the hole in the N.REVOLUTION to create an N.LOOP, then bring the N.TAIL_END around the N.ENTRY_PART and back through the hole in the N.REVOLUTION.  For safety, leave a fairly long N.EXIT_PART."

One obvious gap to be filled is how to specify the direction in which the N.TAIL_END is pushed through the N.REV in the above example.

Thoughts?

Dave

edit:  Added a clarification of "opposite" in the definition of N.ENTRY_PART.


edit (2/18/2010):  The ideas above are out-of-date.  The new proposed terms are listed and defined in the Nodeology wiki at http://nodeology.pbworks.com/Bindings-Terms.