it contains the Half Hitch Component (HhC)
Where is
this whimsy ?
"By what definition do you claim this to be a Bowline ?"
By the definition given in (1), and quoted by agent smith at the first post of this thread ! I will repeat it, in a slightly different wording :
There are three, and only three elements that characterize a bowline, in relation to any other end of line loop:
1. The knot tied on the standing part s leg, should be topologically equivalent to the unknot, i.e., it could be completely untied with the removal of the rope segment after the eye leg of the bight. Any sailor will laugh with an end of line loop that is not completely untied like the bowline.
2. This knot on the standing part should include one, at least, nipping loop, which secures the tail.
3. The rope segment after the eye leg of the bight should include one, at least, collar.
Based on that definition, the "bowline" presented above IS a bowline indeed ! ( Of course, following Dan Lehman, I have twisted the meaning of "collar" a little bit
, as the U turn of the tail is around the standing part, indeed, but there is something else in between the nipping loop and the touching point of this "collar" with the standing part...I offered this example to you as an easy target, but you failed to shoot where you should, to the " Dan Lehman collar"...
)
My point was not answered from you, not now, not any time before. A hitch has its two legs highly asymmetrical, in looks as well as in function. The one is squeezing the other, so the one crosses the other, it passes above the other. The collar has its two legs symmetrical and parallel, they touch each other, of course, into the nipping loop, but they do not have to cross each other ! The two legs are squeezed by the nipping loop, they are symmetrical, in looks as well as in function. You want so much to explain the bowline in terms of the sheet bend, that you try to see the sheet bend hitch part in the bowline, too....Well. there is not such a structure there, and that s evident in the case of the bowline closest relative, the Gleipnir.
Does this falsify the proposed definition - well, yes it would IF the proposed test piece were self evidently a Bowline. One test for that might be - would the 'man in the street' identify it as a bowline? I would suggest that most people would not, so we have failed to falsify my proposed definition with this test piece...
This test piece was an example of how a bowline structure can work, with the two legs of the collar parallel to each other and to the standing end. If it is not a bowline, it is not because the nipping loop does not hold as it holds in the case of the Gleipnir, i.e. with parallel legs going through it. It is because there is another structure, intervening between the "collar" and the nipping loop. You are right, of course, that most men in the street and the harbours will not identify this lousy loop as a bowline, but the only thing that this proves is that we should define the collar even more strictly - and not even more loosely, as Dan Lehman does ( and, as a result of this, he is driven to the indefensible position that the Carrick loop and the Angler s loop are bowlines...)
So, yes, let us define the collar in a way that does not include the collar-like stricture of this loop, to be in accordance with the tradition of the men in the streets and the harbours. But we must not confuse it with the hitch that exists in the sheet bend structure, because they are two completely different things. They are both very simple, elementary structures, so we have to be very careful to avoid any confusion between them, because if there is a confusion here, it goes all up to the top of the ladder, and we would not be able to analyse correctly the more complex knot structures.
By way, this structure was described by Korgan as
a binder, in Reply # 73 (See attached pictures): http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1870.60
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2897.msg17389#msg17389