Quote from: agent_smith on September 29, 2024, 11:05:44 PM
The last part of your commentary in the previous post appeared
to contradict the first part (" but not for eye knots").
Quote from Dan Lehman: But it actually points do a difference between the act
and effect :: that "Reverse (e2e)" gets same result/knot
as "Tail-load (e2e)", but not so for Eye Knots (where the
Reversal gives 2-v-1+B and Tail-loading gives B-v-2+A
--the Tail "B", swapped in for former S.Part "1").
Word salad
Cause and effect?
Also, I had previously stated that I prefer to begin with an end-to-end joining knot,
and use that as a base from which to derive the corresponding eye knots.
I find it more logical and intuitive to adopt this approach.
One can of course begin with an eye knot, and then try to derive the
corresponding 'bends'. However, it is less intuitive and results in more
possible pathway variables.
Note that Double Fishermans bend (Ashley #1415) does not fare so well
in a transposition.
Obviously, I dont like the use of the term "reverse" or "reversal" in lieu of transposition.
I am of the view that 'reverse' leaves open too many edge cases and ambiguities.
The term 'transposition' locks the concept down nicely for me.
...
You have made it clear that you don't believe in prizes, awards, ceremonies,
academy awards, fanfare, or recognition, for making a new knot discovery.
That's fine.
I am of the view that there are some dedicated knot tyers who do believe in the merits
of awarding recognition of achievement.
Why don't you make a counter claim against all yChan's knots?
I reckon he will bark at you faster than you can say "counter claim"
But those familiar with the concept of chirality would
have trouble with your recent images of a BWL tied
beside its mirror image with claims of differing chirality
when a savvy knot tyer fines one in a line with ends
out of play and yet transposes it into the other
--which chiral knots can't do!
The great
Xarax reminded me that in all of the technical posts,
that I make, I have an audience of one (1)!
The word salad that you and I engage in pops up on virtually no one's radar screens.
Its just two knot geeks engaging in deep technical dives that interest very few people.
With regard to your comment above:
But those familiar with the concept of chirality would
have trouble with your recent images of a BWL tied
beside its mirror image with claims of differing chiralityI of course disagree.
There was nothing technically wrong with the images of simple Bowlines (#1010)
that I posted previously.
I showed #1010 Simple Bowline in both 'S' and 'Z' chirality.
I also showed the transposed images.
I drew a
red line to clearly separate the differing chiralities.
The key concept is that the
core of the knots do not change.
I use the term 'core' to denote the part of the knot that is
central to its existence or character.
The chiralities shown were correct (one shown as 'S' and the other as 'Z').
Look - Dan - the fact is that most of this info is rarely (if ever) discussed or published.
With all of my work in relation to chirality, transposition, and correspondence between knots, it is
largely breaking new ground.
Whenever you break new ground, expect teething troubles.
Harry Asher briefly touched on some of these topics - but he never explored it in deep
technical detail. He only 'dipped his toes into the water' so to speak...
I think this is said re my "but not for Eye Knots";
I hope that that misunderstanding is now erased.
Well yes and no.
Its still a word salad
What you might have meant is this:
[ ] End-to-end joining knots usually tolerate a transposition (loading does not flip the knot - there is no 'eye' to flip)
[ ] Eye knots generally don't fare too well in a transposition (the 'eye' will be wrenched and loaded in an opposite direction).
This is where the use of the term 'reversal' can be complicated.
Although again, the Double Fishermans bend (Ashley #1415) doesn't tolerate a transposition.