Torwards a Cat. of Knots --first, a Norm de Noeuds

[Dan_Lehman]

Juergen [ON THE "NEW" FORUM] writes ::
 "We should therefore limit ourselves to the knots that someone has deemed useful and valuable.
But what are the criteria for that?"

 Perhaps one might begin by tilting the purpose of the collection
to "Norm de Noeuds"/"Knots Standard" --i.e., to presenting in richer detail
(the bar is darn low, now!) a subset of known knots that are fairly regularly
used (by doctors, anglers, mariners, commercial fishers, SARescue, cavers,
canyoneers, rock climbers, arborists ...), to give them a much better treatment
in terms of materials & loads & dressing-&-setting geometries.  What is a
"Figure 8 Eye knot"?  --one can find a variety of answers; and these should
be analyzed & explained.

 J. continues :: "I have already seen so many nonsensical and incorrectly assigned knots
on the Internet that it would be difficult to create a high-quality system for them."
I'm thinking that the above-suggested NdN would give a document for reference
that would help do away with the nonsense (of which knotting is full of, alas).
The issue arose in KM#160 (and lonnnng prior that, around KM#58), with FCB's
reiterated (since KM#30!) wish for a library-system-like CoKnots, piqued in part
by one more claim or query about whether a "new knot" had been found.

IMO, there should be little interest in "new" if that's all there might be of the knot
(one not seen even if previously coming into some tyer's hands because it has no worth!).
Some people write about deciding/judging "new" as though some prize/award hung
in the balance; that should not be.

Joergan claims " I myself have probably already worked through about 15,000
different simple knots. But I only consider about 30 of them, i.e. about 0.2%,
to be so good that they should be published and cataloged." !!!
That's incredible :: if one discovered 1 "new" knot nearly daily
--333 is a nice multiple for the year's total--, one would have 1k in just 3 years,
and ... 45 years at this rate to reach 15_000 !!  That said, I myself have
--using an objective term-- *illustrated* about 2_000, but w/o making
a full count (w/o being well enough organized for counting to be easy).
Suffice it to say, though, the number of (mere) *knots* is overwhelming;
there needs to be some shortcut to help our understanding.
(Frankly, there needs to be much more observation & analysis of what is actually
in use in the world --and not the continual parroting of knots books repeating
what was written in prior books!

Now, one example for this issue :: Joergen offers that "about 30" of his discovered
knots merit sharing.  I have discovered a bowline variation that itself can take any of 17 versions,
with minor differences about like that between Ashley's #1010 common bowline & #1034.5
tail-outside bowline --small difference but a difference none the less.  So, there are 17 *new*
knots in detail but essentially the same knot.  But each of these eye knots can be loaded in
a variety of ways; their eyes can be cut to render a S.Part & Tail and the former S.Part + Tail
fused into a new eye (what I refer to as one way of "fore<=>aft'ing").  So, maybe it becomes
now 17 x 3?  If one looks at each version of the 17 as a unique *Tangle* then there are 8 possible
eye knots for a 2-Tangle (calling all parts that leave the entanglement "ends" -->S.Part,
Outgoing Eye Leg, Returning Eye Leg, & Tail<--, one sees each "end" take its role as S.Part
with 2 EKnots resulting.
(2-Tangle :: piece 1-2 entangled with piece A-B ; EKs are 1-versus-2+A, ... 2+B; 2-v-1+A, ... 1+B, ... B-v-A+2).
NOT to say that these knots are going to be good, but they're there (sometimes dubiously with instability).
.:. a LOT of counting, cataloging.

Before which comes a not-so-easy task though of deciding how to image-wise present the Tangle.
The Bowline-sheetbend... tangle is I think a specious case, as the knots (k. = Tangle + Loading Profile)
mostly are nicely presented in a planar image; but other knots, well, are not so surely decided
to be from this or that perspective.  <sigh> And so on ... .   TOUGH issue!
But I do think that my "Norm..." idea can be tackled; in a sense,
it's doing much of what has been done but with much better,
detailed presentation --addressing IN-USE knots and not bothering
to chase everyone's hope of "NEW???".

 [fearing what the "NEW" Forum will do to formatting ... (yes, it ruined it)-:< ]


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

I had a look at the 'new' IGKT forum website.
I couldn't see the particular post from Juergen'.
Presumably, you have to be a paid financial member of the IGKT to be able to use the new forum?
Is this 'old' forum on borrowed time? Will it be de-activated or deleted at some point?

With regard to 'Juergen':

Its hard to make an informed comment without the full background context.
Be that as it may...
Is his principal source of irritation the allegedly large number of 'published' knots in both books and on the internet?
Does he object to people continuing to try to make new discoveries?
Is he frustrated by a lack of any authority to control and organise knots into a type of 'world dictionary of knots'?
Does he insist on an agreed standard for cataloguing knots?

If he stated that he only considers 30 knots to be worthy of being published and catalogued, that's quite a claim.
It reminds me of art - who gets to decide what is a worthy art form?


...

Edit NOTE (Comment):
Dan, your use of the term 'tangle' to denote a knot structure is of interest to me.
A conceptualise a 'tangle' as an unintentional chaotic mass with no particular design or structure.
A 'knot' being a deliberate (intentional) creation which possesses a distinctive form and structure (enabling it to be recognised).

[alanleeknots]

A 'knot' being a deliberate (intentional) creation which possesses a distinctive form and structure (enabling it to be recognised).

Hi Mark,
             Thanks for speaking out the truth, it makes me feel good, all my hard work paid off.
              alanleeknots.

[Dan_Lehman]

I had a look at the 'new' IGKT forum website.
I couldn't see the particular post from Juergen'.
Presumably, you have to be a paid financial member of the IGKT to be able to use the new forum?

Ha, apparently even to just read Replies !!!
--some invitational arrangement is that!  )-:

Is this 'old' forum on borrowed time? Will it be de-activated or deleted at some point?

My sense is that it is such not by express/direct action,
but via no-action and then the vagaries of technology
and there being no maintenance of the old.  (Meanwhile,
the "new" is making the old look SO good!)

Edit NOTE (Comment):
Dan, your use of the term 'tangle' to denote a knot structure is of interest to me.
conceptualise a 'tangle' as an unintentional chaotic mass with no particular design or structure.

That's your problem; "tangle" as used in topology is
not so chaotic, and I'm pretty clear on it connoting
the engagement of cordage in what we call a "knot"
--devoid of a Loading Profile, which is added so as
to generate a *knot*.  (But there are lots of challenges
to this conception, alas.)

A 'knot' being a deliberate (intentional) creation

How does one know this intent!?  --and what difference
whether it was so originated or resulting from cordage
being stuffed in one's pocket (or, for a knot fiddler to have
made a *wrong*/unintended turn somewhere towards the
original idea and getting this other entanglement instead?!

which possesses a distinctive form and structure (enabling it to be recognised).

Ha :: recognition can be quite challenging, when dealing
with the numbers of slightly-more-complex-than-usual
knots we have.  (E.g., I've sometimes several times tried
to follow the course of the S.Part through the knot tangle
only to find I'd gone wrong somewhere (being at the Tail
but having not covered some part of the knot!  And not
long ago you too put out a knot maybe too readily
"recognized" as a known, Klemheist hitch when it wasn't.)
And then there are the gradually differing precise geometries,
where e.g. the BWL's nipping loop becomes degree-by-degree
more helical --and this is SEEN in actual-factual mooring lines
of trawlers. 

There is the matter of what constitutes a *knot* in contrast
to a non-knot (a mere turn around an object; "elbows"?!);
but also to what is *a*-nother knot, distinct from the first
(that degree-by-degree opening of the BWL's nipping loop;
that much-like-#1425 dressing & setting of #1425a shown
by yChan(!).


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

Hello Alan,
Thank you.
I have to say that I am a great admirer of your work;
and your contributions to knot knowledge in general.

...

In reply to Dan:

My sense is that it is such not by express/direct action,
but via no-action and then the vagaries of technology
and there being no maintenance of the old.  (Meanwhile,
the "new" is making the old look SO good!)

Has there been any 'official' position statement about the lifespan
of the 'old' forum? ie Is there a termination date?

That's your problem; "tangle" as used in topology is
not so chaotic, and I'm pretty clear on it connoting
the engagement of cordage in what we call a "knot"
--devoid of a Loading Profile, which is added so as
to generate a *knot*.  (But there are lots of challenges
to this conception, alas.)

Its not my 'problem' per se.
I am only interested in language and how it is interpreted.
The word 'tangle' has a dictionary meaning.
And all words have meaning.

For me, a knot can either be created intentionally or unintentionally.
In this IGKT 'old' forum, the knots that are presented and/or discussed
are all tied intentionally.
They all have a particular geometric shape/pattern which gives it distinctiveness.
This enables the knot to be recognised.
Example: yChan will jump up and bark to claim a knot that he discovered first.
He does this because he is able to recognise the structure/pattern/geometry of a knot.
It implies the opposite of randomness (methodical/ordered).

How would yChan recognise a tangle (a random entanglement of cordage)?
In order for him to recognise and claim a knot, he first has to be able to
recognise it? Yes?

You (ie Dan) have also made claims to discovering knots. How were you able
to do this? It was pattern recognition. You recognised a pattern/shape, and then
you declared that you discovered it (at an earlier alleged date).
This is in effect your 'counter-claim'.
There is claim, and counter-claim.

To claim something, you must be able to describe it.
"Yes your Honour, I hereby claim this tangle as my original creation!"
Judge looks at tangled pile of spaghetti in amusement... !

How does one know this intent!?  --and what difference
whether it was so originated or resulting from cordage
being stuffed in one's pocket (or, for a knot fiddler to have
made a *wrong*/unintended turn somewhere towards the
original idea and getting this other entanglement instead?!

Human cognition/consciousness is your answer.
If you deliberately tie a knot, there was intent.
If a tangled mess of a knot forms in your pocket, it was not intended.

Ha :: recognition can be quite challenging, when dealing
with the numbers of slightly-more-complex-than-usual
knots we have.

Ha?
Dan, if I hold up a Double Fishermans bend ('Grapevine') in front
of you, would you be able to recognise it?
If I hold up a Zeppelin bend, would you recognise it?
If I hold up a F8 eye knot, would you recognise it?
If I hold up a Riggers bend (Hunters bend) would you recognise it?
and so on...

Something to ponder:
Imagine a knot assessor.
How does an assessor assess student knot tyers?
[ ] Assessor: "Please tie a Zeppelin bend".
[ ] Student: The student ties a F8 bend (Ashley #1411) and presents it to his assessor.
[ ] Assessor: "You have failed the assessment. You were instructed to tie a Zeppelin bend.
That is not a Zeppelin bend".
(obviously, we must all first agree on what a Zeppelin bend geometry is.
In the same way, we all agree on what an Elephant looks like).

Would you recognise a USA one dollar bill?
If yes, how?
Could a counterfeit one dollar bill fool you?

There is the matter of what constitutes a *knot* in contrast
to a non-knot (a mere turn around an object; "elbows"?!)

Well yes - we have the distinction of a hitch.
A 'hitch' requires a host, without which, the hitch cannot exist.
A 'bend' (end-to-end joint) is the union of 2 ends.

A 'Round turn and 2 half hitches' is a composite structure consisting of:
[ ] the round turn (540 degrees)
[ ] the 2 half hitches

The 'round turn' can exist by itself as a standalone structure.
However, a turn needs a 'host' (eg a post, a tree, a railing, etc).

...

Obviously, I dont agree with your definition of the the word 'tangle', and how it applies to knots.

[Dan_Lehman]

For me, a knot can either be created intentionally or unintentionally.

Ah, let's keep this opinion in mind,
as later you insisted upon intention.

How does one know this intent!?  --and what difference
whether it was so originated or resulting from cordage
being stuffed in one's pocket (or, for a knot fiddler to have
made a *wrong*/unintended turn somewhere towards the
original idea and getting this other entanglement instead?!

Human cognition/consciousness is your answer.
If you deliberately tie a knot, there was intent.
If a tangled mess of a knot forms in your pocket, it was not intended.

Perhaps, but look to the case of someone encountering
a loaded tangle (= "knot" for me) :: it's a thing coming
devoid of its history --just there, before the examiner, done
(and one doesn't know how, for sure --among obvious presumptions).
In recent time, I discovered two *new* knots to me :: the Tail-Loaded
BWL, and a compound structure I referred to as the "WTF?! Knot".
Eventually I came to believe that the latter was tied, well, in a sense
"intentionally" but was the capsized consequence of mis-tying
the former!  Now, "intentional"?  --presumably by human hands
and awareness; and its completion (to the capsized state) entailed
putting in one more OH knot so to effect an eye.

Then there are the "wind knots" --OH & Fig.8-- as called by
anglers for UNwanted/unintentional entanglements wrought
by vagaries of casting; there are however unintended no less
OH & Fig.8 knots.

Ha :: recognition can be quite challenging, when dealing
with the numbers of slightly-more-complex-than-usual
knots we have.

Ha?
Dan, if I hold up a Double Fishermans bend ('Grapevine') in front
of you, would you be able to recognise it?
If I hold up a Zeppelin bend, would you recognise it?
...

You're being tiresome and short-sighted.  In some easy
cases, recognition is obvious; but among the rich highlighting
of knotted structures we can see from tyers Chan & Lee,
there are ample lookalikes for which --as you quoted--
"your eyes may deceive you!"  (I have recently had to
go over VERY carefully a knot w/finer tracing part to see
what's what.  I'm prestty sure that Alan I think has put
out some novel Fig.8 structures that would be deemed
"Fig.8 ..." by those with a rockclimber's knot familiarity.
And we have encountered the "False Zeppelin" which
arises presumably from recognition problems.

Beyond this, come cases of bit-by-bit dressing differences,
slight between any two chosen points, but large enough
in other cases to want to say "different knot" --e.g., just
start capsizing a BWL from having a *loop* nipping turn
to ever more helical form en route to being a Pile-H. Noose.

Something to ponder:
Imagine a knot assessor.
How does an assessor assess student knot tyers?

On a quite serious case of recognition/identification,
there was a forensic issue regarding the unfortunate
deceased Ms Zahua, where two IGKTers testified resp.
for opposite sides, and one remarked how the other
had misidentified some knots --this before a court of law.
(the below URLink will get you started, but the particular
assertion (of Chisnall for defense vs. Philpott for plaintiff)
is elsewhere.
https://fox5sandiego.com/news/knot-expert-shows-how-zahau-could-have-tied-herself-up/

There is the matter of what constitutes a *knot* in contrast
to a non-knot (a mere turn around an object; "elbows"?!)

Well yes - we have the distinction of a hitch.
A 'hitch' requires a host, without which, the hitch cannot exist.
A 'bend' (end-to-end joint) is the union of 2 ends.

A 'Round turn and 2 half hitches' is a composite structure consisting of:
[ ] the round turn (540 degrees)
[ ] the 2 half hitches

The 'round turn' can exist by itself as a standalone structure.
However, a turn needs a 'host' (eg a post, a tree, a railing, etc).

No, you're missing the point.  By "knot" I mean all such things
--but what are "SUCH" things :: i.e., a hitch is a type of knot,
as is a joint, but is the RT a hitch?  How about just a "T".
(I'd taken to seeing such things as compound structures,
the *knot* of which was the 2HH = Clove Hitch; this seems
OK for the latter case, but put in a full RT and now you're
at my sense of "Is it a knot?!")
BTW, Hitches don't all fall apart bereft the hitched-to object;
they might change class from a hitch to a stopper (think
of the Strangle, or Triple(& beyong) Constrictor.

Obviously, I dont agree with your definition of the the word 'tangle',
and how it applies to knots.

But you're being just closed-minded, in this ::
"tangle" is as I've defined it for the purpose of trying
to articulate *knots*.  It's my definition, not something
for you to "agree" with.  But you might not like this way
of articulation (which, alas, has more challenge than
solution insofar as I've been able to work it).

In another post you hold up a traced OH form and
explain your treatment of that vis-a-vis a notion
of transformation to change the joint or form EKnots
from it.  Using the Tangle view, you would speak of
Loading Profiles, instead; going from exterior-loading
to interior-loading would be just that, and not the
movement of one course to swap places with another.
Labelling one of the two pieces entangled "1-2" & "A-B",
you then can specify a variety of knots by giving some
Loading Profile :: 1-vs-A the interior Joint, say; then
2-vs-B would be the exterior; you EKs would be a set
of eight : 1-v-2+A, +B; 2-v-1+A, +B; A-v-B+1, +2;
and B-v-A+1, +2.  And you can choose to give some
loadings names/relations ("principal" or whatever).
But there are challenges to this simple clarity in how
one --for starters!-- makes the geometry of the Tangle,
and then how loadings are effected --e.g., for that
Tail-Loaded BWL, there are a couple of results!  (<sigh>)


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

In reply to Dan (an audience of one):

Not sure where this discussion is heading, and whether it contributes to knot knowledge...?

I assert and reaffirm that a 'knot' will come into existence either
intentionally or unintentionally.
I will limit the intentionally tied knots to humans (ignoring animals).
That is - a human might have intent to tie a knot.
That intent also includes a specific outcome in the mind of the human.
That is, the human will tie something with a specific geometry, to achieve
a specific outcome/objective.

A knot that forms unintentionally would fall under the broader definition of a 'tangle'.

Your reply in relation to a knot tying assessor makes no sense.
The court case appearance of Robert Chisnall is a different matter.
That case was argued on the basis of whether the deceased intentionally tied herself up (or not).
The key issue being one of "intent".

I maintain that knot assessors do in fact exist in the world - and they are human.
Assessors must be able to assess - which implies they have performance criteria upon
which to form judgements about students.
An assessor will instruct a student to tie a particular knot.
The student will either pass or fail.

The assessor will base his decisions on measurable criteria - comparing the
students knot against a known 'standard' (eg Simple Bowline #1010).


With regard to yChan, and Alan Lee, there are attempting to make new
discoveries - and obviously there creations will be compared to existing knots.
They cant make a claim of originality if the knot was already known or had been
tied by a human at an earlier date.

(I have recently had to
go over VERY carefully a knot w/finer tracing part to see
what's what.

And?
You were examining the geometry of the knot - and determining whether
it was a new creation (or not). Likely checking against your existing body
of work, to determine whether a claim of originality could stand.
You had existing standard reference structures to compare against -
published in a range of 'authoritative' knot books such as;
Ashley, CL Day, Budworth, Warner, Chisnall, etc.

Imagine if none of these books ever existed. And imagine if these
individual humans never existed (in an alternative universe).
All you would have is your own cognition and memories.

You're being tiresome and short-sighted.

In some easy cases, recognition is obvious; but
among the rich highlighting of knotted structures we can
see from tyers Chan & Lee, there are ample lookalikes for
which --as you quoted--
"your eyes may deceive you!"

It is tiresome to reply to what I see is obvious.
A key word in your narrative is "lookalikes".
This is to be distinguished from identical.
That is, these "lookalikes" are just that - they are not identical
to existing/known knots.
Sometimes we need to pause and examine a structure more
closely - because it has a complex geometry.
The human eye needs to discern detail - to recognise a familiar pattern.

Beyond this, come cases of bit-by-bit dressing differences,
slight between any two chosen points, but large enough
in other cases to want to say "different knot"

Yes - and?
We might agree that a left-handed (S) #1010 simple Bowline is the same
as a right-handed (Z) #1010 simple Bowline?
That is, changing the chirality does not alter the knot species.
Something further is required - a definite change in geometry.
An intentionally tied knot will have distinctiveness - which enables it
to be recognised by humans.

In another post you hold up a traced OH form and
explain your treatment of that vis-a-vis a notion
of transformation to change the joint or form EKnots
from it.  Using the Tangle view, you would speak of
Loading Profiles, instead; going from exterior-loading
to interior-loading would be just that, and not the
movement of one course to swap places with another.

And your point is...?
So what if I... "hold up a traced OH form and explain some
treatment of that..."
Is that a crime?
Has some wrong been committed?
It appears that you are thinking of #1047 F8 eye knot, and
the transposition of Tail with S.Part?
With specific regard to #1047 F8, transposing the tail with
S.Part does not alter its character; it is still an F8 eye knot.
Something further is required to alter its character - to the
extent that it is no longer recognisable as #1047 F8 eye knot.

An extra twist results in F9 eye knot, meaning that it is no
longer #1047 F8, it is now something else.

BTW, Hitches don't all fall apart bereft the hitched-to object;
they might change class from a hitch to a stopper (think
of the Strangle, or Triple(& beyong) Constrictor.

You're missing the point.
A hitch requires a 'host'.
Removal of the 'host' results in loss of structural integrity.
Simple 'stopper knots' such as #515, #516 dont need a 'host'.
(meaning a separate external host object).
If I tie #516 around a rope (eg an S.Part) it is useful to think
of it as a 'strangle'. Removal of the rope from #516 does not
result in structural collapse or loss of structural integrity.
(that's because #516 can exist by itself without need of a 'host').
A round turn (540 degrees) needs a host (eg a pipe or railing).
Removal of the 'host' results in structural collapse.
#206 Crossing hitch (Munter hitch) also requires a host (eg a carabiner).

I conceptualise a 'knot' as being a self-supporting structure (no host is required).
An end-to-end join (ie 'bend') requires 2 'ends' (can't be tied with just one end).

...

Look, I'm sure you'll find edge cases to prove some point - and indeed, feel free
to do so!

[Dan_Lehman]

I assert and reaffirm that a 'knot' will come into existence either
intentionally or unintentionally.
...
A knot that forms unintentionally would fall under the broader definition of a 'tangle'.

When you come across a knot, InTheWild,
you will not know --for sure-- anything about intention
(though we have obvious presumptions in some cases!).
Therefore, intention has no role to play in determining
whether something is a knot.

Your reply in relation to a knot tying assessor makes no sense.

My citing the court case is about assessment not intent ::
 it showed the claim of "knot assessor"
--what one might regard the two expert witnesses to be--
did not resolve issues with determining identification of knots.

The court case appearance of Robert Chisnall is a different matter.
That case was argued on the basis of whether the deceased intentionally tied herself up (or not).
The key issue being one of "intent".

No, there was no question of intent, but of what the intent
was (binding or the illusion of such) and agency (by him or her).
(And I would like commentary on the impact forces & bed & neck!)

With regard to yChan, and Alan Lee, there are attempting to make new
discoveries - and obviously there creations will be compared to existing knots.
They can't make a claim of originality if the knot was already known or had been
tied by a human at an earlier date.

But how do you know "if the knot was already known or had been tied"?
That "Lee Lock" is something I have tied : how does that affect Alan's discovery
of it?!  The promulgation of it comes with Alan's revelation and your broadcast
in Bowlines Analysis.  There are cases of *new* knots appearing and yet orphans
--by the (unintentional) slip of the illustrator's pen (or words) some
knots have appeared, and nOne's to claim them.  The illustrator
was clueless; some viewer of the illustration was certainly not
*originating* the knot, but just following the illustration!
Hunter had a claim of origination (as did I, some years later),
but then Smith's book was brought to our attention --surely having
been to others' attention decades prior-- :: but whose to say we
might not come across an older occurrence, upon digging up some artifact?!
(There is a mysterious source reference in HNG Bushby's "Notes..."
given as "H." and once slightly more helpful "Haslope (1901)"; to which
there is strong suggestion that it is Pearce L. Haslope's "Knots & Knotting"
work cited in front matter of his published book.  But that work
--I surmise in a periodical, by the nature of Bushby's citation format--
has yet to be found; who knows what it might show, new to us?!)

(I have recently had to go over VERY carefully
 a knot w/finer tracing part to see what's what.

And?
You were examining the geometry of the knot - and determining whether
it was a new creation (or not).

No, I was examining some tokens of what I wasn't sure
was the same knot or not --the lookalikeness had some
not-so-much points, and I was trying to figure out what
was what, as my intention of the tying was seemingly
straightforward :: tie a Dbl. Strangle but take the 2nd
wrap INside of the first (I think ABoK #579? (759?))

In some easy cases, recognition is obvious; but
among the rich highlighting of knotted structures we can
see from tyers Chan & Lee, there are ample lookalikes for
which --as you quoted-- "your eyes may deceive you!"

A key word in your narrative is "lookalikes".
This is to be distinguished from identical.
...
Sometimes we need to pause and examine a structure more
closely - because it has a complex geometry.

Indeed; and sometimes we fail to do this (correctly).

Beyond this, come cases of bit-by-bit dressing differences,
slight between any two chosen points, but large enough
in other cases to want to say "different knot"

Yes - and?
We might agree that a left-handed (S) #1010 simple Bowline is the same
as a right-handed (Z) #1010 simple Bowline?
That is, changing the chirality does not alter the knot species.
Something further is required - a definite change in geometry.

Forget handedness, the point is the geometric-shape
changes I just described, where the nipping "loop" of
the BWL is degree-by-degree changed to ever more
diminished helix-angle helix :: one will want to call
the results towards each ends of this alteration "different"
--that one has lost the compressing nature of a loop--;
but there is no clear boundary.  AND so what does one
recognize to be, or deny being, a BWL?!  Take #1034
Carrick BWL as another case :: if one sets it with a hard
pull on the Tail, a crossing knot base is formed --not
what I'd call a "loop", as it collars itself--; but absent
such hard setting, one gets a perfect round loop!
Where to recognize what, in degree-by-degree states?!

In another post you hold up a traced OH form and
explain your treatment of that vis-a-vis a notion
of transformation to change the joint or form EKnots
from it.  Using the Tangle view, you would speak of
Loading Profiles, instead; going from exterior-loading
to interior-loading would be just that, and not the
movement of one course to swap places with another.

And your point is...?

My point is, as I said, that there various ways to look at knots
and their relations.  You have come up with "transformation";
I showed how the Tangle+Loading_Profile=Knot thinking would
treat the same thing.

"tangle" is as I've defined it for the purpose of trying
to articulate *knots*.  It's my definition, not something
for you to "agree" with.  But you might not like this way
of articulation

I conceptualise a 'knot' as being a self-supporting structure (no host is required).

Is a Sheepshank a knot, by your thinking?
(Oh, to be sure, it's hell on my Tangle thinking!)


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

To Dan Lehman (an audience of one):

Some replies to arguments that lead to nowhere...

When you come across a knot, InTheWild,
you will not know --for sure-- anything about intention
(though we have obvious presumptions in some cases!).

If I come across an unexploded bomb or fired ammo shell casing in the wild -
I can use deductive reasoning to form judgements about the discovery.
eg How did it get here?
By whom?
Was it made or placed by humans?
Was there intent?

If I come across a knot in the wild, there will be circumstances
surrounding its discovery.
How did it get there?
By whom?
Age/appearance?
Type of material the knot is tied in?
Does it have some distinctive geometric form?
If it has a distinctive geometric form, that would be a strong
indicator that someone (a human) tied it.
Example:
An old boot was recently found on Mt Everest.
Link: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/sandy-irvine-body-found-everest
Who's boot is it?
Age/appearance?
How did it get there?
Did it belong to a human? (well yes - what other entities wear boots?).
We can deduce from the evidence that it belongs to Sandy Irvine.

Intent is relevant with hand tied knots from humans.
Humans tie knots.
Certain classes of humans have need of knots (eg climbers, fisherman, etc).

A random mass of cord formed into a 'tangle' by weather effects,
and curious animals scratching and biting, is just that, its a tangled mess.
The end of a long rope left dangling on a cliff in the wild will be blown
about by the wind. The tail will whip about, and oscillate. It is likely that
some tangled mess will result over a period of time.
But it would not have been tied intentionally.
(unless there was a 'stopper knot' already existing - which can still whip about
in the wind and form addition knots. Although the original stopper knot
will have been cinched very tight - and have distinctive geometric form).

My citing the court case made perfect sense :: it showed
the claim of "knot assessor" --what one might regard the
two expert witnesses to be-- did not resolve issues with
determining identification of knots.

No - it didn't.
You're comparing apples with oranges.
The case was argued with regard to intent.
Did the deceased intend to tie herself up to stage a murder-suicide?
Chisnall argued that intent could not be proved.
But that argument by itself is not fatal to my point.
It just points to the fact that someone tied the knot (a human).
There apparently was no DNA evidence on the cord/rope to point to
a specific human. But, that does not alter the fact that a human
intentionally tied the knot.
The knot didn't magically appear by itself.
It wasn't a 'tangle' - it was an intentionally tied binding knot.

Here is a statement of fact for you Dan: Knot assessors do exist!
I myself have been assessed by an assessor (Vertical rescue and Rope Access assessor).
I had to demonstrate in front of my assessor that I could tie the required knots.
Measurable criteria included; accuracy, consistency (tie the same knot 3 times in a row),
dressing, sufficient tail, etc.
One could ask what is the purpose of assessment?
Should we ban all forms of assessment (including children and adults)?
Question: Should knot assessment be banned in all parts of the world?

But how do you know "if the knot was already known or had been tied"?
That "Lee Lock" is something I have tied : how does that affect Alan's discovery
of it?!

Dan - what is the purpose of the topic thread titled; "New Knot Investigations"?
You have seen that topic category on the IGKT forum, Yes?
Why have such a topic category?

People (humans) do post in that topic category - Yes?
Why do they decide to post in that category?

yChan makes new claims all the time - why is he motivated to do so?
What drives him? He is human, Yes?
Why should he bother posting content on the IGKT forum?
Does he have an audience?

With regard to your comment "That "Lee Lock" is something I have tied":
That means you are making a counter-claim, Yes?
Although you used the word "have" instead of "had".
It's hard to know for certain if you are making the claim that you
tied this knot earlier than Alan Lee?
Shall I assume you meant to type "had" instead of "have"?
If you brought this to Alan Lee's attention, I wonder what he would think?
He might not care?
If I 'assume' you are in fact making a counter-claim, would Alan like to see
some evidence/proof of your claim?
I honestly don't know how Alan would respond.
He might just ignore you!

Why do 'patents' and 'trademarks' exist?
Have you heard of plagiarism?
College/university students can get into big trouble if caught plagiarising.
I note Claudine Gay (USA university president) got caught plagiarising and
had to stand down from her position.
A claim of plagiarism implies that someone else's work was either copied
or used in a way to make it appear that it was the accused own original work.
The point being that someone else 'invented/published' the original work, and
it was unscrupulously copied for the accused person's own personal gain.

Lets look at the Zeppelin bend and Riggers bend.
You yourself made a lot of noise about disputing Charles Rosendahl as the original
creator. You went to significant lengths to disprove that claim.
You prefer that the title of claim be awarded to Bob Thrun (RIP).
I also did research into the history surrounding the Zeppelin bend and
published a paper also pointing to Bob Thrun as original creator.
Similar issues with the Riggers bend - Phil D Smith being the likely original
creator of Riggers bend (#1425A).

The question is: Why should we bother acknowledging and attributing
invention or new discoveries to certain humans?
You yourself have stated that there are no awards, citations, or trophies to be
handed out.
Question: Why are Nobel prizes awarded?
Could a Nobel prize ever be awarded for art (eg invention of a new and ingenious knot)?
There are Nobel prizes for literature and peace; but apparently not for art?

Here is a tough question for you Dan:
Are you in favour of removing the topic category of "New Knot Investigations"
from the IGKT forum?
If you say, "No" - I'd like to know why you think the topic category should remain as is.
I have a suspicion that you would like to see that topic category removed.

There are cases of *new* knots appearing and yet orphans
--by the (unintentional) slip of the illustrator's pen (or words) some
knots have appeared, and nOne's to claim them.  The illustrator
was clueless; some viewer of the illustration was certainly not
*originating* the knot, but just following the illustration!

The slip of the illustrators pen (or a mis-tied knot) that results in
something else - was still tied/created by a human.
That human may have been unaware at the time of creation that it
was something else - perhaps something not yet discovered or published.
But, in the fullness of time, information comes to light which points to
a new creation, something original.

Some new and resilient metal alloys were discovered in this way -
by trying to follow a recipe but accidentally adding some new ingredient
and producing something remarkable.
Stainless steel history: https://steelfabservices.com.au/stainless-steel-discovered/

I see this in the same way a person can be accused of a crime that they didn't
commit. They get sent to jail.
Later, new evidence is uncovered, and vindicates the original accused person.
They are set free, and exonerated.

The point behind this is "the seeking of truth".
Humans have a strong tendency toward innovation, exploration, discovery,
and the seeking of truth.
There are some humans who are evil by their nature, and they believe in
their own condition, thinking they are correct in their chosen path.
But by and large, most humans try to live a good life and seek the truth.

[Dan_Lehman]

The case was argued with regard to intent.
Did the deceased intend to tie herself up to stage a murder-suicide?
Chisnall argued that intent could not be proved.

No, the case wasn't intentional tying but by WHOM
--the plaintiffs insisting it was by a man, and Chisnall
allowing that, even more strongly asserting that,
the deceased had done the tying, as a deceit.

But how do you know "if the knot was already known or had been tied"?
That "Lee Lock" is something I have tied : how does that affect Alan's discovery
of it?!

Dan - what is the purpose of the topic thread titled; "New Knot Investigations"?

The purpose is to examine knots that heretofore are unknown
to have appeared in published literature, roughly.

yChan makes new claims all the time - why is he motivated to do so?
Does he have an audience?

I surmise he posts the results of his adventures into the
knot universe to show what he has found there (and in his
case, various methods to tie a knot).
But he's in dubious territory with filing some load of knots
with the IGKT (!) as though to somehow certify HIM as
The Knot Creator?!
As for "audience", I don't know :: have you tied all of his
knots?  (I have something printed out which I've been
*meaning* to get to, to tie a bunch of 'em, but that
print sits yet unattended, as I also have a load of
"play ropes" with novel knots (to me) that I have yet
to record from rope to ink-on-paper.)

With regard to your comment "That "Lee Lock" is something I have tied":
That means you are making a counter-claim, Yes?

NO!  Nothing "counter" about it; more of a shared appreciation
for the structure (which has won some rockclimbing advocates!).
"Great Minds Think Alike" is an utterance one might make in such cases.

Although you used the word "have" instead of "had".
//
Shall I assume you meant to type "had" instead of "have"?

By what corruption of English would I have reversed this?

Why do 'patents' and 'trademarks' exist?
Have you heard of plagiarism?

Oh, my, what a viewpoint.  Hanson knot, patented ::
and so what?  (I vaguely recall that some other, older
patented knot was one that could've been show to be
in the literature --but wasn't, and the world still goes 'round.)

A claim of plagiarism implies that someone else's work was either copied...

There are ample cases of this in current, general-knotting books;
there is an egregious case of images being, well, scanned (but then
published in different color).  Why hasn't this brought charges ...,
I don't know.

Let's look at the Zeppelin bend and Riggers bend.
You yourself made a lot of noise about disputing Charles Rosendahl
as the original creator.

Oh, not so much, that was Giles's revelation that Rosendahl
even KNEW about the knot, much less "insisted" upon its use.
I OTOH had once argued FOR giving the knot "R's Bend" name
so as to acknowledge him as originator.

You prefer that the title of claim be awarded to Bob Thrun (RIP).
I also did research into the history surrounding the Zeppelin bend and
published a paper also pointing to Bob Thrun as original creator.

Well, we have evidence that he was AN originator --where "orig."
means "discovered w/o help".  One can wonder if somehow that
small caving publication's presentation reached out to whoever
it was who spawned the Boating/MotherJones article giving the
knot the "Zeppelin" name (though "Rosendahl" was what the
Joe guy said it was known by) --by that "Joe" if he really existed
in the Navy & all (Roo found some evidenced of this), or by the
brother Bob Lee who gave the account that Joe said ... ?!
.:.  We might believe that at least for giving awareness to the
greater public it was the magazine article and not the caving
newsletter.

Here is a tough question for you Dan:
Are you in favour of removing the topic category of "New Knot Investigations"
from the IGKT forum?
If you say, "No" - I'd like to know why you think the topic category should remain as is.

It has benefit to revealing new things.  But the aspect of
"new"ness is at risk of being taken as The Road To Fame
--or even a Nobel Prize, if you were handing those out, it sounds.

There are cases of *new* knots appearing and yet orphans
--by the (unintentional) slip of the illustrator's pen (or words) some
knots have appeared, and nOne's to claim them.  The illustrator
was clueless; some viewer of the illustration was certainly not
*originating* the knot, but just following the illustration!

The slip of the illustrator's pen (or a mis-tied knot) that results in
something else - was still tied/created by a human.

Are you sure?  These days, look to AI to muck about everywhere
--as it sadly has in knots books(!)--; maybe it will get something
out of place, maybe in its combining a few things.  Could even
the programmer of the AI program be credited for its unforeseeable
actions?

There is an imbalance of action in the New Knots area
over having good reportage of the "InTheWild" area.
(I'll be returning to the former, soon, but also have
been InTheWilds of (get this!) venetian-blinds rigging
& knots for some years now, and am looking forwards
to acquire another discarded --and I hope relatively
old, of my collection-- one soon :: likely w/usual
OH EK qua stopper (Ashley does show this) in
the trio of pull cords, and dbl. strangles in the
opposite ends anchoring to the bottom bar,
AND THEN, most oddly, single strangles as
mere knot nubs thrust into the center-left/-right
bottom bar plugs --I cannot fathom WHY...? !!.
  Also, I've been attending to the knotting of
arbor tape (thin, solid, PP about 1.7cm wide)
on saplings --and found there the Tail-Loaded BWL,
along with other stuff.  (It's a real challenge to discern
the knotting with that dark, readily folding material,
carefully pulling it apart but then not wanting to lose
the tied structure thus.  (Such examination comes
on knots I've "harvested" from trees no longer in
need (or w/collapsed stakes and so on), cutting
the eye to retrieve.)


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

In reply to Dan Lehman (an audience of one):

Mostly another long and tedious word salad.
Where else can knot heads/geeks engage in word salad narratives?

The following is off-topic (again):

All murder cases based on old English law require proof of intent in order to get a conviction.
Also known as "mens rea".
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

I don't have access to a copy of the written decision/judgement (do you?).

Obviously, in the murder/suicide case, the Judge had to determine WHO did the knot tying.
However, intention/intent also plays an important role (mens rea). There must be mens rea.
Possibility: The deceased INTENDED to stage the scene to make it look like a murder.
Another possibility: The deceased was intentionally tied up by another person, and then murdered.
We'll never know with 100% certainty.

With regard to your claim that you also tied Alan Lee's knot, your use of English
is ambiguous: (see also link below for definitions of "have" and "had").
per Dan Lehman:

That "Lee Lock" is something I have tied : how does that affect Alan's discovery
of it?!

A reasonable person might reach the conclusion that you are making
a counter-claim. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with making a
counter-claim (it is not illegal or wrong to do so). In fact, that's how the truth is eventually is uncovered.
You seem to choke with difficulty when you encounter the phrase "counter-claim".
Dictionary definition: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/counter-claim
Why don't you just be crystal clear?
Why not just reveal your actual intent in terms of discovery?
You're either making the claim that you tied the knot earlier than Alan Lee, or not.
Which is it?
Alan/Xarax gave us a discovery date.

With regard to the English words; Had and Have...

By what corruption of English would I have reversed this?

Link: https://www.englishclass101.com/lesson/english-grammar-made-easy-139-have-vs-had?lp=172
There is indeed a difference in how these 2 words are used.
I was simply curious if you had made a typo (we all make typo's... auto-correct confounds me all the time)?
"Had" would alter the meaning...
Maybe in the USA spelling and grammar does not differentiate between 'had' and 'have'?

With regard to yChan and his announcements on IGKT forum:
Response fron Dan Lehman:

I surmise he posts the results of his adventures into the
knot universe to show what he has found there (and in his
case, various methods to tie a knot).
But he's in dubious territory with filing some load of knots
with the IGKT (!) as though to somehow certify HIM as
The Knot Creator?!

I once again raise the question of what is the purpose of "New Knot Investigations"?
There doesn't appear to be anywhere else in the knot universe where a person
can make a claim of originality.
I don't think yChan (or anyone else) is expecting 'certification' or a 'Nobel prize'.
I think he is motivated by a desire to explore and to seek out the truth.
He likes to share his discoveries, it gives him purpose.
Most humans (particularly men) need 'purpose'.
ie Why am I here? What do I do with the time I have been given?
What is my purpose?

With regard to the reason why patents and trademarks exist:
Reply from Dan Lehman:

Oh, my, what a viewpoint.  Hanson knot, patented ::
and so what?

Interesting way to answer a question.
I couldn't care less about the Hanson knot either... but
that's not my point.
There is a fundamental reason why patents and trademarks exist.
Why do we build statues and monuments?
eg The Lincoln memorial in USA.
Should we remove the Lincoln memorial?
I know in the USA many statues and names of schools are either being
torn down or altered to suit a new narrative. Why not remove all
existing published knot books, or heavily edit them and re-publish?

With regard to challenging the alleged history of the Zeppelin bend:
eg challenging others pointing to Rosendahl and the 'Mother Earth' article...
Link: https://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/zeppelin-knot-zmaz80jfzraw/
Reply from Dan Lehman:

Oh, not so much, that was Giles's revelation that Rosendahl
even KNEW about the knot, much less "insisted" upon its use.

That's not my recollection of your pursuit of truth seeking.
I recall numerous posts in this forum where you debated roo and xarax at length.
You reached out to Giles - and agreed with his opinion.
You appeared to be on a singular mission to set the truth in order.

Quote

Here is a tough question for you Dan:
Are you in favour of removing the topic category of "New Knot Investigations"
from the IGKT forum?
If you say, "No" - I'd like to know why you think the topic category should remain as is.

Dan's reply:

It has benefit to revealing new things.  But the aspect of
"new"ness is at risk of being taken as The Road To Fame
--or even a Nobel Prize, if you were handing those out, it sounds.

I don't think "the road to fame" is the key driver.
I am of the view that it has more to do with 'purpose'.
Many humans need and seek purpose in life.
I think Elon Musk is not seeking fame or riches.
After your first 100 million, does the second 100 million really matter?
What gets Elon out of bed every morning?
It is purpose - he is driven to achieve his ambitions.

Here is another question for you Dan:
Q. Should we bother to attribute knots to certain individuals?
Examples:
[ ] Zeppelin bend: Bob Thrun
[ ] Riggers bend: Phil D Smith
[ ] Mobius Butterfly: 'Mobius'
[ ] Heart bend / Bingo bend / U fold bend: Constant Xarax
[ ] Schwabisch/5 coil slide and grip hitch: Allen Padgett (not Bernd Strasser!!)
[ ] Butterfly: Henry Bushby
EDIT NOTE:
I recall that you made a lot of noise about Bernd Strasser
and the attribution of the so called 'Schwabisch hitch' to him.
Why did you bother to point out Allen Padgett and the image in his book 'On Rope'?
Do you have an issue with Bernd Strasser?
Link: https://www.treemagineers.com/bernd-strasser.html

Why should we bother giving recognition of discovery to certain individuals?
Does it benefit society in some way?
Why should we grant/attribute recognition of discovery to some individuals?
What is the purpose of attributing recognition?
Do human's desire recognition?

Here is an IGKT post from 2015 - might be of interest?
Link: https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=5574.0

In relation to accidental discoveries:

The slip of the illustrator's pen (or a mis-tied knot) that results in
something else - was still tied/created by a human.

Dan Lehman reply:

Are you sure?  These days, look to AI to muck about everywhere
--as it sadly has in knots books(!)--; maybe it will get something
out of place, maybe in its combining a few things.  Could even
the programmer of the AI program be credited for its unforeseeable
actions?

You give too much credence to 'AI'.
Artificially intelligent software/programs haven't created/published any
new knot discoveries as far as I am aware.
That's not to say that this wont happen in the future.
Keep in mind that humans write the software that is 'intelligent'.
But it doesn't have human cognition/feeling.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A-gqHJ1ENI

...

Awaiting next round of replies and responses

[Dan_Lehman]

Here is an IGKT post from 2015 - might be of interest?
Link: https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=5574.0

Oh, this is a good one --a paradigm to chew on
over & over, for various aspects!  (Though issues
with images not being found confound the pleasure
by some measure.)


(-;