Term Post Eye Tiable i.e. PET

[SS369]

Of course a PET eye knot can be tied without going through or around anything.

I think most of the forum members likely understand the PET acronym to date and we are just going on and on as we do about names of knots or their parts.

Perhaps people don?t like the P (post)?
After eye tiable AET more likable. ? LOL
And on it goes…

SS

[Dan_Lehman]

@DerekSmith post:20

@agent_smith post:19

Per Robert Birch:
An eye knot is PET (post eye tiable) if it can be made with the eye around a post, without
accessing either end of the post and without needing to form a preliminary knot before passing
the line around the post.
The first part of his definition is incoherent and confused - and needs to be re-worded.
The second part (in red font) is accurate.

Personally I find the Birch definition to be totally correct and to aptly describe the restrictions imposed on a knot for it needing to be defined as PET. However, for completeness he might have written “around a post or ring” in order to ensure clarity that the formed loop could not simply be passed over the fixing point.

However, despite this, the term PET is virtually meaningless as any desired components or ‘pre-knots’ required can simply be tied with the WE after it has been passed around the fixing point, then drawn back around the fixed object / ring leaving a protoloop around the object, then finish off the knot using the WE.

Unless we are dealing with a ring whose eye is so tiny that only a single cord diameter can be passed through it, then the whole concept of PET is meaningless.

Derek

Egadz! :o

Let’s NOT confuse things with reference to a “post” qua tied-to
object --ThAT is readily and best avoided!
One might describe a climber’s attaching life-safety rope
to one’s own harness, being able to reeve the line through
the harness devoid of any existing/pre-tied knot in the line
AND THEN tying the eye knot in One Fell Soup (Roy Blount, thank you).

One doesn’t need graph theory here.

AND the adjectival compound term is rightly put ‘post-eye’
–nb: hyphenated to bind the terms into proper primary and
modifying roles in forming the adjective to “tiable”. (Which
maybe Knot Tyers might care to re-spell?

Now, I’ll await enlightenment on what looks like nonsense
–to wit:

the term PET is virtually meaningless as any desired components or 'pre-knots' required can simply be tied with the WE [u]after it has been passed around the fixing point[/u], [sounds like "post-eye" here!?] then drawn back around the fixed object / ring leaving a protoloop [are there sanitizers for this? ;D ] around the object, then finish off the knot using the WE.

This makes no better sense with my facemask over my eyes.

–dl*

[agent_smith]

However, despite this, the term PET is virtually meaningless as any desired components or 'pre-knots' required can simply be tied with the WE after it has been passed around the fixing point, then drawn back around the fixed object / ring leaving a protoloop around the object, then finish off the knot using the WE.

I am going to pick this apart in detail for analysis...

In detail:
[the term PET is virtually meaningless]
The term ‘PET’ can have meaning - however, it has to be properly defined.
Elon Must always declares: To get the right answers, you must ask the right questions.

as any desired components or 'pre-knots' required can simply be tied with the WE after it has been passed around the fixing point,

In my view, the key point is whether or not it is [i][b]conditional [/b][/i]that a knot is pre-existing in the line. That is; if it is a [i]necessary condition[/i] that a [i]knot [/i]must be pre-existing in the line [i]before [/i]the working end is fed through an object (a fixed ring) - it isn't deserving of the title 'PET'.

then drawn back around the fixed object / ring leaving a protoloop around the object, then finish off the knot using the WE.

I think this can be resolved with carefully drafted language.

…

I am not in favor of the Robert Birch definition where a reference to a ‘post’ is made.
The term ‘post’ may be problematic. Many people might visualize a post as a linear object embedded in the ground (eg a fence post).
In such a case, only one end of the ‘post’ is visible (the opposite end is buried in the ground and is invisible).
Also, there will always be people who will argue that you could simply slip the eye of the knot over the end of the ‘post’ - so its an artificial construct.

However, if the language is drafted to specify a ‘fixed ring’ (eg an eye bolt) - this removes arguments over the ends of the object/post you are tying to (because there are no ‘ends’ in a ring).
If the working end can be fed through a fixed ring - so as to enable the eye to be formed and sized without any pre-existing knot in the line, the knot is deserving of the title ‘PET’.

Some may dislike the qualification of a fixed ring.
An alternative definition might be drafted around the phrase; ‘fed through an object’.

The diameter of the opening (eg the diameter of a ring) does not disturb the definition.
However, the diameter of the opening must be sufficient to enable the line to pass through.

In terms of #1047 Figure 8 eye/loop knot, it is possible to argue that it is ‘PET’ - because the ‘TIB’ tying method initially forms a ‘bight’ - and after the bight is formed, the remainder of the knot is tied. One could postulate that the forming of the initial ‘bight’ constitutes the beginnings of an ‘eye’ - with no pre-existing knot in the line. And therefore one could argue that #1047 F8 is ‘PET’.
If the line has to be fed through a fixed ring, this removes #1047 F8 as a candidate for title of ‘PET’.

The English language is complex…

---

[jarnos]

@DerekSmith post:20

Personally I find the Birch definition to be totally correct and to aptly describe the restrictions imposed on a knot for it needing to be defined as PET. However, for completeness he might have written “around a post or ring” in order to ensure clarity that the formed loop could not simply be passed over the fixing point.

However, despite this, the term PET is virtually meaningless as any desired components or ‘pre-knots’ required can simply be tied with the WE after it has been passed around the fixing point, then drawn back around the fixed object / ring leaving a protoloop around the object, then finish off the knot using the WE.

Unless we are dealing with a ring whose eye is so tiny that only a single cord diameter can be passed through it, then the whole concept of PET is meaningless.

Derek

The advantage of so called PET knot, call it X eye knot, is that there is no need to do so much threading or drawing the cord forth and back to tie the knot.

The definition of X eye knot does not require mentioning a ring or a post or any such object: Suppose you follow the cord starting from the standing part into the knot and when you enter the outgoing leg of the eye, the eye knot is X if and only if tying the gone through part of the knot does not require threading an end of the cord.

[jarnos]

@agent_smith post:23

In terms of #1047 Figure 8 eye/loop knot, it is possible to argue that it is ‘PET’ - because the ‘TIB’ tying method initially forms a ‘bight’ - and after the bight is formed, the remainder of the knot is tied. One could postulate that the forming of the initial ‘bight’ constitutes the beginnings of an ‘eye’ - with no pre-existing knot in the line. And therefore one could argue that #1047 F8 is ‘PET’.

Good point. I guess we could have a better name for such a property.