Assuming that you mean the "Theory of Practical Knots" forum,
do you believe that the end-of-line loops shown in this thread should be posted there ?
If yes, why ? Please elaborate a little more on this,
because I believe that a "new" knot that is simple enough - and not a decorative one-
AND it is meant to be / could eventually be, a practical knot, should be posted
in the Practical Knots forum.
The difference / divide here is that you are focusing on the
*knot* as something maybe to be used (and hence "practical"),
but in the contentious issue re defining "bowlines" the point
is to deliberate over definitions , and not practicality per se.
And definitions/conceptions do have some sense, theory-like, of
able-to-be-tested=ness, in that one can try applying & working with
such conceptions --human-imposed divisions/groupings-- and see
how well they do. E.g., does omitting a specification for some
"proper collar" --like omitting Euclid's axiom re parallel lines intersecting--
result in a grouping that is unhelpful (too inclusive, not selective?).
Of the images above, of particular *theoretical* interest IMO is the
120deg-angled <what_knot_is_this?!!> orientaiton of the (Eskimo/no?) bowline :to me, that is a paradigm case to consider in how one conceives of
"loop (eye) knot". For one might (maybe should) think of it as
a knot of a single PoFM (piece of flexible material) with two *limbs*
opposing 1 *limb* and the 4th free (= untensioned) --in distinction
from a "net-knot", where all *limbs* are tensioned (but, angles...?).
Actually, the "single PoFM" is perhaps a bad conception --it implies
knowledge outside of the image frame presented ! (where one sees
only one termination (the untensioned tail), and is left to presume/guess
(or, by some other definitional plan, maybe specify *knot* per loading)
what limbs connect to what. Which leads to the interesting question
undermining one commonplace/natural sense of "loop knots" --that
they in fact contain a "loop" (eye) : perhaps that is only some
possible condition of a knot structure which should be said to be
of TWO PoFM --we can trace TWO connections of *limb* to *limb*
in our *knot*-image frame; we can discuss what possibilities exist
for outer connections, or maybe that is beyond the immediate
conceptional needs?
So we can / should question whether a knot so loaded at 120deg
angles IS a (proper?) "eye knot"; our canonical eyeknot form might
require effectively aligned axes of tension for two legs opposing
(in tension) a "SPart".
And all such interesting, challenging deliberations are to my mind
welcome under a title "theory", but that can be amended in some
way ("philosophy" I think might be more apt) and maybe it is best
that "Computing" be separated, to be a forum rich in coded ways
to knotting practical or decorative.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Certainly the knot shown (or, one of the possibilities of the shown
structure, AND at such angles!) is practical; it can be seen in the
lobster-pot bridles of some commercial fisherman --who prefer to
tie what we might tend to call an
"Eskimo bowline" between two
short circular slings. (I just came across one photographer's photo
of such pots in Maine, USA !) The slings --with end-2-end joints of
fisherman knots, so far as I can tell (the usual)-- are
girth-hitchedto the pot corners, and one (likely a bit longer) ties a
sheet bendwith the "tail" used to attach the "snood"/"gangion" line to,
hence loading all (twin?) *limbs* --which is six strands of rope
(2 qua bight making "proper collar", 2 qua a single unit to tie
through this collar and be loaded on their (2) bight end).
--dl*
====