...such a reductionist approach leads to the inevitable conclusion that there must be one master knot/principle from which all others can be derived.
At the end, the physics is the same, so yes, there should be a law of physics / physical knots from which all others can be derived. However, as it often happens, nature loves to hide, and when it reveals herself, it does it by instalments : it takes off her veils one by one, and in slow motion. So, we can only have partial laws, covering one aspect of nature at a time.
The "
method I describe"
is not a method at all : What I have said means that :
1. There are many ways to skin a cat. Regarding the required role the stopper has been assigned, there are many different stoppers that can deliver.
2. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the particular stopper does its job, it is OK - but that is something one should test by trial and error - it is not something we can know beforehand. Moreover, as there are dozens of dozens of stoppers that can play the same role, we would like to find the simplest, or the simpler ones of them. If you claim that you have tied and tried
all simple possible stoppers, and you have found that this one is the simplest one capable to hold, on this material, that would be something important, indeed. We do not need something
more complex ! - but we do need to know if this is the simplest possible solution. "
Gentlemen, here is the catalogue of all the possible stoppers, offered to us by the mathematicians. I have tied and tried all of them, and I have loaded them as they should be loaded, to vibrate at the lower and the higher pitch of any chordophone - and here are the data of their security and strength, after x number of times they were knocked or punctured. As you can see, this knot, underlined with my girl-friend s lipstick, is the best, so I name it < name of the girl friend >, or whatever "
You do not give a name to any whale in the ocean. You name Moby Dick, if it is a special whale, which has a special feature other whales do not. Variations of knots are given different names for many reasons, the last one being the usefulness of this baptism ! Most names are not even wrong : they are silly, misleading, pompous, obscure, etc - because, most of the time, names do not pop up from the characteristics of the knots, but of the characteristics of the knot tyers.
If we had a classification scheme of the knots, that would correspond to some of the most important characteristics of the knots themselves ( like the periodic table of elements, for example ), the names would reveal those characteristics, and they would be useful, indeed. You would know which knot element could bond to which, and the strengths of the bond they form, for example.
You state the example of the "double overhand", which is a fine example of a misleading name ! WHAT does this name describe, beyond the mere topology of the knot, which plays a minimum role in practical knots ? And why, for KnotGod s sake, does the "Strangle" hitch have another name ? Why does the Fisherman s knot is said to be tied with two sliding interpenetrating single, double, etc., overhand knots, and not with pairs of overhand and underhand knots ? I have never met the name " Double underhand knot" - possibly because all things in the Universe are like clocks, and turn towards the same direction !
Perhaps you could make the strings of the giant statue of yours be able to vibrate by the current of air, like an Aeolian harp, and the whole hollow statue work as a means to amplify the sound...
(2)
1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolian_harp2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kithara
