Hitches : Are they "knots", like bends ? If they are, where are their nubs ?

[Dan_Lehman]

   Personally, I tend to think of "knots" as "local" rope-made machines
--not as "expanded", spatially extended ones, as the Versatackle or the Trucker's hitch, for example.
So, when I think of an eyeknot (loop), I imagine it as the three-loaded-ends "knot",
the very nub of the eyeknot, which does not include the whole eye..
...

I don't buy the "machine" definition --something advanced
by the (USA) Cordage Institute, and which is contrived and
a mis-reading of the dictionary definition of "machine".

"knot" has various uses/meanings, and I've often thus typed
at times '*knot*' to signal something special (whether I've
been consistent re what that something is is another issue!).
Indeed, I've wanted to define "knot" as a particular loading
of a "tangle", where a tangle is the interlaced material; but
I came to realize how much of geometry must be assumed
in order to have mere, specified loading achieve the intended
result --and that put a wrench into my (mistaken) thought
that *tangle* could serve such a useful, geometry-neutral
purpose.  <argh>

And I've followed the thinking about an eyeknot being a "nub"
loaded in a certain way by 3 of 4 ends --i.p., of 1 end opposing
2 others, 1 of which is the end of its part (so, not a bight
hitch)--; then it follows that one might question whether
there is in fact any such implied "eye", or might the opposing
2 ends NOT be connected --be separate ropes, e.g.!?

OTOH, Dick Chisoholm's articulation/definition of "nub" goes
some way to show that "knot" might be bigger than what
some think of it as, and indeed one really does include the
eye, and --it follows?-- the mis-span parts of the sheepshank;
that still, IMO, leaves structures as the versatackle needing
to be seen as "compound knotted structures" and not "knots".

As for hitches, my definition of them (in these forums) is a
"knot that entails an object", and the object is part of the
nub.  No, it isn't (necessarily) the same cordage or cordage
at all; but it is necessary to the structure of the *knot*,
and I just see that as a basic fact and so define it.
Note that in the venerable --and perhaps most-cited
"hitch"-- two half-hitches I see that as a compound
structure, whose knotted part is a clove hitch of the
tail around the SPart of the structure.  The pile, say,
is the structure's object tied to; the rope is the *knot*'s
object, hitched to.


--dl*
====

[X1]

   a mis-reading of the dictionary definition of "machine".

         machine (n.) 1540s, "structure of any kind," from Middle French machine "device, contrivance," from Latin machina "machine, engine, military machine; device, trick; instrument" (cf. Spanish maquina, Italian macchina), from Greek makhana [ μηχανη ], Doric variant of mekhane "device, means," related to mekhos "means, expedient, contrivance," from PIE *maghana- "that which enables," from root *magh- (1) "to be able, have power" (cf. Old Church Slavonic mogo "be able," Old English m?g "I can;" see may (v.)).

         Main modern sense of "device made of moving parts for applying mechanical power" (1670s) probably grew out of mid-17c. senses of "apparatus, appliance" and "military siege-tower."         
         The word machine derives from the Latin word machina, which in turn derives from the Greek (Doric μαχανά makhana, Ionic μηχανή mekhane "contrivance, machine, engine", a derivation from μῆχος mekhos "means, expedient, remedy").
         A wider meaning of "fabric, structure" is found in classical Latin, but not in Greek usage. This meaning is found in late medieval French, and is adopted from the French into English in the mid-16th century. .. The modern meaning develops out of specialized application of the term to stage engines used in theater and to military siege engines, both in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. The OED traces the formal, modern meaning to John Harris' Lexicon Technicum (1704), which has:Machine, or Engine, in Mechanicks, is whatsoever hath Force sufficient either to raise or stop the Motion of a Body... Simple Machines are commonly reckoned to be Six in Number, viz. the Ballance, Leaver, Pulley, Wheel, Wedge, and Screw... Compound Machines, or Engines, are innumerable.         
        The German scientist Reuleaux provides the definition "a machine is a combination of resistant bodies so arranged that by their means the mechanical forces of nature can be compelled to do work accompanied by certain determinate motion." In this context, his use of machine is generally interpreted to mean mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   It is interesting to notice that a great percentage of the early machines were machines-made-with-ropes much more than machines-made-with-solid-objects. The situation was reversed much later, when the accuracy of the man-made solid objects used as tools was improved.  Weaving should be the first use of light elements able to withstand tensile forces, connected to each other by "knots".   
   The word appears in Homer a number of times, with exactly the same meaning it has today ! Perhaps because of this I believe I can understand what a "mechanism" ( μηχανισμος ) and/or "machine" ( μηχανη ) is, and that I do not have to read the dictionary ! 
   Knots are static machines, no question about that. People are often misled by the fact that, most of the time, these machines are in a state of equilibrium, so they do not "convert one form of energy into an other " any more. However, we always have to be careful not to identify "machines" with "engines". Also, we can see that the slightest slippage of a segment of a knot due to an increased load, generates friction, friction generates heat, heat re-arranges the molecules of the materials within the segments until they reach a new state of equilibrium, and so on.
 

   one might question whether there is in fact any such implied "eye", or might the opposing 2 ends NOT be connected --be separate ropes, e.g.!?

   
   The existence of the connection or not between the 2 ends is irrelevant, I believe : a 3-limb knot is absolutely equivalent, regarding the "knot-ness" of the tangle, to a two-rope bend, where the one rope is loaded by both sides.

.
...my definition of [hitch] is a "knot that entails an object", and the object is part of the nub.  No, it isn't (necessarily) the same cordage or cordage at all; but it is necessary to the structure of the *knot*, and I just see that as a basic fact and so define it.".

   I believe I said exactly the same thing. I used the honey-I-shrunk-the-round-turns thought experiment, only to "show the nub" of the hitch. We should be free to change the geometry of a knot, to see if it remains knotted or knot. What we are not allowed to do, is to change the topology. If topology is sufficient to keep a tangle knotted, it is and it will remain a 'knot", and it will necessarily have a nub - although we should play with the geometry a little bit, in order to reveal it. If we change the geometrical scale of the round turns of a hitch, and shrink them, we can see its nub, and convince ourselves that hitches are knots, indeed, just like the stoppers and the bends.