Perhaps we can dispense with "theory" and substitute "philosophy" or some other term indicating discussions of foundations of things?
I proposed the "Study of...", and I had in mind a title like "Study of structure, of form, of function, of definition" .
And I don't think that we need to separate such discussions vis-a-vis *practical*/*decorative* --I don't see 'a priori that there should be such a gulf between them when the deliberation is on such first principles & nomenclature; and even if there are different directions, ideas from one camp might beneficially influence thinkers of the other.
Practical knots are machines/tools, so they are the subject of scientific/analytical/experimental study. Decorative knots are objects of Art, they are the subject of Aesthetics, they are synthetic, They can NOT be proved or disproved that they are indeed what they claim to be, by a physical experiment
As a person that happened to get involved in both worlds, I know very well the gulf/gap between those
"two cultures" C.P Snow was talking about...I am not happy with it, but that is how things are, and WE are not going to change this, I am afraid !
Well, I understand how you might think this, but really don't agree with your re-ACTion to it, and don't think that you should even so fear & resist it -
My reaction might well be proved pointless, even mistaken, ( as it was proved to be in the past). But that does not mean I am going to sit speechless and listen to nonsense, that try to propagate
dangerous ideas, ideas I know very well that, if implemented, they are going to reduce the Practical Knots forum to half its value ! I have made much effort ( for my age) to enrich this forum as much as my limited knotting knowledge allowed me to do, so I will not sacrifice this,or the interest some other people showed in my efforts, without a re-ACTion !
Often, in Net fora.., when one forum accrues great activity, managers seek ways to split it --if helpful-- so as to make discussions & research (Search or mere paging through topic listings) more efficient.
Exactly ! I proposed to split the present Practical Knots forum to two, where the one subsection will include everything about the Applications and Uses
of Practical knots , and one that will include everything about the Study of structure/form/function/definition
of Practical knots. Most, if not all, of the content of the misnamed "Knot Theory" forum will go automatically to the second subsection. WHAT ON EARTH IS WONG WITH THIS SIMPLE SOLUTION, I wonder...But perhaps I know...People that
fear and
hate the proposed second sub-section, are trying to high jack the term "Practical Knots" for themselves, and throw this sub-section as far away from the first one as they can. Well,they have the right to try this if they have such a narrow view about it, but they will succeed in devaluating the Pacica Lnots section
only over my dead/baned body ! And the contentious Move of the long thread should be seen, without hostility, like planting a mature tree into a place lacking a forest. --and, no, not so the tree will die for lack of light; but so that it will help other trees grow.
A nice romantic painting indeed, but you are not as naive to see only this !
The new tree is attempted to be planted UNDER the already grown old tree, so it does not have any chance to grow...And before it will die - as it will, no question about it - it would have destroyed the roots of the old tree as well !
Let the two trees be planted side by side, in the same fertile ground presently covered by the old tree : that is, the fertile ground of Practical Knots forum !
... define "practical knots" ? --this, you must know, is an issue with others, with which I have some sympathy, much ambivalence. For the presentation of a knotted structure simply AS "practical" with no indication of why/how so except by it being posted under the forum of that title, is a not very convincing case for practicality.
Tell me Dan Lehman, if you post a knot, like the "Violin" bend, a simple bend, should you indicate why/how this bend
is a practical knot, or
will be proven to be a practical knot in the future, with the materials used in the future ? Do you have to "state an application" for
a bend, for KnotGod s shake ?
And, yes, I think it is vast ...some few hundred... practical knots? --to which we can easily expand them from many starting points to a far greater number.
I have just finished a first reading of ABoK, and I am left with the impression that it is mainly a book about Decorative knots. Not only because of the number of Decorative knots in comparison to the number of Practical knots that
is included, but of the relation of the numbers of the knots that
could have been included !
I keep the term "vast" for the number of Decorative knots. I can not even imagine a n upper limit of this vast field, in comparison to the field of practical knots. There, with my limited experience, I do see some boundaries, beyond which knots lose their practicality. I am not saying that the number is not big, I only say that, from which I have sensed from my short journeys into KnotLand, the number is only one order of magnitude greater than the presently known...So , if we have a few hundreds knots, the total number of possible practical knots I reckon that should be a few thousands. But that is ot a vast number, in comparison with the few thousands, or even millions, of the Decorative Knots. And as I have said, with the proper computer tools, we could discover all those knots in a few months, even in a few weeks !
Testing those knots - taking into account all the possible materials, loading conditions, environmental aspects, dressings, etc.- THAT is a really vast area we should explore...in the next 10 generations....
But, back to your conception of "practical knot" : how do you understand this? --for as you've often answered the challenge by simply waving to the unknown future and claimed that the
knot might be found to be useful! Isn't it only then, at such finding (by whomever), that one has the substantiation that the knot is "practical"? How do we, without that knowledge, make the prior determination?
... you have some sense of limits on what will be so called; so, what is it that restrains the discovery of knotted structures so that it is not vast, so that much of what is found
is deemed "not *practical*"
My two pence : It has nothing to do with a subjectively chosen
quality. It has to do with a quantity, and a quantity only. Unfortunately, this quantity is, at present, very difficult, or even impossible, to
measure by using well defined notions and procedure. It is the quantity of simplicity.
Simplicity should be taken into account, and an upper limit of it - that has to do with our brain abilities and the economy of material and time while we tie a practical knot - will automatically pose a limit on the number of possible practical knots.
I had the vague idea to split this measure of simplicity of a knot into two separate domains. First, the simplicity of the "base", that is, the initial rope configuration -be it still only a mat or an already tied simple knot - we use to weave our working ends around and through it, to tie the final knot. I suppose we should be, eventually, able, to measure the simplicity of this base- somehow, by the number of rope crossings, for example, or the hand moves this "base" requires to be formed, or by measuring whatever other concrete characteristic of it.
Second the simplicity of the next step, the tucking of the working ends through this "base". I suppose we should be able to measure that simplicity, too - somehow, by the number of tucking, the difficulty of executing the act of a particular tuck, on a particular opening of the "base", by measuring whatever characteristic of the moves required to dress and finish the knot.
Only a simple enough knot can be a Practical knot. And having an upper limit on the number of measured simplicity of each knot, we have a upper limit on the number of possible knots.
Do not take me wrong here. I am not saying that this is the most important thing when we consider which knot is practical and which not ! I only say that this is the thing that can reduce the number of possible Practical knots, from a vastly big one, to a manageable big one ! All the other considerations, taken together, can not generate such a great reduction from a vastly big number to a big number, as the upper limit of simplicity of a knot can. Some knots present an unacceptable slippage, or an unacceptably tend to jam. Considerations about slippage or jamming of a knot can not offer such a great relief in lowering the number of possible Practical knots, as the upper limit of simplicity can offer. Simplicity turns (vast )infinity into a (big, but finite)number!
Now, a simple enough knot might be proved to be a practical knot, or not. However, I think that all the other characteristics are
easier to evaluate - that, of course, does not mean that they could be evaluated in a shorter period of time ! Testing all the possible simple enough knots will probably last for one or century, may be more ! And it will require new automatic machines, to execute those testings in
an industrial scale !
I know that all those things might sound as "just thin air talk", or blah blah to Practical Knot fundamentalists ! ( Some of them will have to use their Google translator, and some help from somebody else that can think, to understand what I am trying to say...) However, I can only say that this is my two pence opinion,
earned the hard way, by tying and untying hundreds of knots ! I have presented about half a dozen new knots, that are practical as much as most of the known knots are practical , and I beg anybody that has a different view, to prove that they are not ! I would be glad if my artificial(compute) and/or DNA inherited(brain) memory will be shortened, and cleared to other interesting things of life !
