TENTATIVE DEFINING OF "KNOT"

General Discussion
61

To my prior definitions, I see that some cases are left out:

  1. 2 PoFM with all ends loaded: net-knot ;
  2. 1 PoFm with both ends loaded: knob
  3. 1 PoFm & object w/both ends loaded: running binder hitch?

The first is fundamental, and the “2 PoFm” is taken to mean “in effect”,
regardless of whether tracing back the material in a net finds that in fact it’s
one continuous PoFm–at the point of the knot, it’s effectively two. (Same
consideration applies to e.g. a rockclimber’s sling, single PoFM end’s joined.)

The 2nd exists as marker knots. In a gym climbing rope (hand & foot use),
mid-line knots would be loaded this way, then qua stoppers when the climber
bore upon them, and ultimately rather unloaded.

The 3rd case exists in e.g. the binding of nets & headlines, cord run in spiral
wrap around & around and into binding knots, w/tension on the ends.
(I’ve a sense of “running” that takes the perspective of the material; this clashes
with e.g. “Running Bwl” where one means that the loopknot’s eye runs along
the rope to make a noose structure. Frankly, this is not a function of the Bwl,
of the knot, but of a rope structure built w/knots.)

SquareRigger stated:

A silk scarf or sarong tied around a comely waist is a knot, but the person is not. Does that help?
And it does & does not; i.e., it shows a puzzle for the definitions. If the knot in question for this sash is a Square/Reef, I'd say that the object was involved (and knot a [i]binder[/i]) on the initial "throw" (medical tying term), as the pressure against the object helped hold the tension (one hopes); but on the finishing throw, making the Square/Reef, one has tied a [i]bend[/i]! --which happens to hold some tension of a wrap of rope around an object. Similarly, although "Round Turn & 2 Half-Hitches" is a common "hitch", I now prefer to see it as a noose structure with a Clove H.. "noose hitch" might be a good term for such common things (Scaffold knot, e.g.). The so-called "Midshipman's Hitch" is generally regarded as a fixed loop (or one that is adjustable between fixed points); I see it as a "noose", because it has the same structure of a knot around the line. (Behavior? --well, the same knot can change with material & force! Hence my preference.) So, ... a fuzzy boundary?!

–dl*

Derek & SquareRigger: Perhaps it is best if YOU each copy your full posts
from the new/short thread into this one, to keep in one place (even though
I’ve replied to each–I can amend my posts to point forwards … ).

62

No Dan, lets not joint these topics together - they are different and need to stand alone. I hope you will look a little closer to my post in that other thread to see if you can ‘see’ the important difference.

Charles is, I believe, trying to define a knot by analysing its components. A knot is a machine, and as such its components operate in both individual ways and in compound ways. It is therefore rational to look at the components, sub components and major parts of this machine in order to understand its function.

But this approach can be limited, and starting from an altogether different point can be rewarding.

For example, take a motorbike and ‘explode’ its components into a three dimensional - walk through- presentation. This is, I believe, what Charles is aiming to create. Although you have all the components of a motorbike, and you have the potential to reconstruct a motorbike, in reality, all you have is a ‘proto-motorbike’. If you rebuild the components you have what many would recognise as a motorbike, but still you only have a machine which is capable of becoming a motorbike.

Sit on it, start it and wind back the throttle – WOW - so this is what all the fuss was about !!

Now you have something much-much more than that pile of components - you have the essence of the motorbike. You have something you could never have thought could have been contained within that pile of pieces. You are now looking at the motorbike from a different standpoint and you are able to see and learn different things about it. Same pile of bits, different perspective.

In order to talk the language of the knot, we must be able to understand the life, energy and the essence of the knot. To do this we must strip away the adornments, lore and pre(mis)conceptions man has encrusted them with. To do this we can try to look at knots from different perspectives - from different starting points - and that is the purpose of the new topic, its just one of a number of new perspectives I hope we will jointly explore.

This thread is looking at knots from the inside out. Go to the new topic and try to keep ‘outside’ the knot and ask yourself - What point is Derek trying to make. In order to learn to ‘Talk Knot’ I believe that we will have to take a number of ‘Perspective Excursions’ in order to be able to study various aspects of knot to get to the truth which has been hidden by way we have looked at knots up until now.

63
I may be wrong and often am but I thought that Charles was not trying to name specific knots but develope a vocabulary to help classify knots.. not define to the word "knot".
??? You asked exactly this question earlier in this thread, and got a direct answer from Nautile confirming that in fact it was indeed the intent:

Yes Roy I had in mind to define the knot structure in a general manner.
I was not addressing this or that knot or bend or hitch

the original idea... "Tentative Classification of "Knot"".. yes I know that is not what he said but I think it is what he ment.
Which is apparently to know more than he does! :o
Naming knots is an almost impossible task. However classifying is not. Bends, loops, binding, nooses, etc..
I think you misread the notes. There was some difficulty in specifying some example knots, and names were bandied about, but the point still was to focus on this or that pair of knots and try to see how the pair might be held to have the same or different "structure", in an effort to nail down what was intended (by either speaker) by that word.

Classification is a good topic, too. I think we have also a thread that began
exploring that (but not this one).

knudeNoggin

64
About the stage work example, I was giving an example where two physical instances of the same knot had to be considered as different knots. ... Whether they are mentally tagged by location or by function, they have to be thought of as different from each other.
As with PABpres, I too don't understand what / why the difference, unless as he suggested, it was to help locate the particular item.

“Tie the X knot just like the Y knot” would be an adequate instruction
to someone in this case, would it not?

knudeNoggin

65
Of course one of the brighter children immediately asked, "What makes a knot a knot?"

I replied that a knot is something you make in rope for a specific purpose, which you remember how to make, and which you know how to untie your own darn self.

Then if you come upon knotted, er-hem, cord w/entanglements, you really cannot know if you behold [i]knots[/i] or mere happenstance (which might have identical shape)!

Nautile’s “first crossing is High/over, second in Low/under” or “H/L” rubs my old
“Over/Under” raw; but a compromise of “O/L” esp. in some typeface as “O/l” has a nice
obvious match to binary strings! ‘01101010010101’ (pronounce “oh-un-un …”) (: :wink:

(-;