I have trouble seeing how any loop can be an called an inline loop and not an end-of line loop. Maybe I misunderstand the use of the word “in-line”, but to me, any loop that gets a habit of being tied in the middle of a rope is VERY likely to end up loaded by the two eye legs and one parent leg, with the 4th leg left slack and having no effect on the knot, just as a tail would be. This is not different than how an end-of line loop is loaded.
I can certainly understand an end of line loop that cannot tolerate end-to-end loading and thus wouldn’t be very robust as an in-line loop, but the other way around doesn’t make much sense to me.
Perhaps I was parroting parrots, indeed, in this matter. I have never seen a picture of an end-of-line Farmer s loop, with both ends adjacent and pointing to the same direction - and the same was true for the Butterfly loop.
To me, the Farmers loop was always an example of an amorphous structure - what you had described as “an octopus”, but with tangled legs ! And what I describe as looking like the farmer s, or the farmer cow s, you know what ! And the tying method shown by Ashley was an example of a BAD tying method, which conceals, and not reveals, the structure of the final knot. A “magic trick”, which tends to persuade people that knot tying is such an advanced rocket science, so the only thing they are allowed to do, is to parrot the biblical script of Ashley…
Now, if you want to call the Plait loop as " end-of-line Farmer s loop", do it ! You just make the mistake of using the same name for two altogether different, geometrically, structures - but do not bother ! You would nt be the first one, you know ! We have so many knots named by so misleading and wrong names…
For another example of an “in-line loop”, and a topologically equivalent, but geometrically / structurally, very different “end-of-line” loop, see : http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4680
Firstly, I’m amused that my posts are regarded
as “page-long” by none other than the keystroke king
(who provides examples in this very thread!). And re
'trouble reading" (which I take to be “understanding”),
you can try asking questions --the absence of which
makes redress quite difficult, from my side.
Meanwhile, I will now entertain myself by thinking of
y’awl being “you & me both” --conjoined in confusion !!
1) If two knots are topologically equivalent then both knots are 'the same',
especially if one knot is deemed to easily capsize to the other.
to which you said that this should be uncontroversial.
How else is this to be understood?
I am not amused by saying that TIB knots are equivalent to the unknot,
a tired and useless argument, even as a straw argument to be countered,
in my opinion. The mathematical notions of knots, knots should have no
free ends either.
Yes. And how to you go about assessing topology?
I put the ends out of play --and not having them is one
way to do this(!), but leads to issues of how ..., e.g.,
with the [i]bowline[/i] and how one would fuse ends
to get mathematical purety (it matters how the tail
gets outside of the eye).
If you can untie a knot then ...
... you're doing something outside rules of assessing
topological equivalence, no?! But I think I'm seeing
a/the problem with [i]TIB[/i], in that my "loaded tangle"
idea of *knot* would not equate such things, but have
the 4 ends of end-2-end/eye-knots running outside
of the "cookie cutter" boundary and inaccessible to
manipulations to see about equivalence.
I don't mind the a/b/c/d idea as it makes naming knots based on shape
and load a much more useful approach.
I was quickly tossing in placeholders for common
names of [i]bowline[/i] variations "left-handed/cowboy",
"Eskimo", and so on. But they would have a loading
profile of an *eye knot* (nb : it might be part of this
system of understanding that there is no "eye" in the
system (though that might be a good way to explain
the equal loading of (nearly) parallel ends! (Think of
joining a short mooring line from the port cleat to a
like-sized tow line that is tied to the starboard cleat,
of a barge, and the joint has the structure of a
[i]bowline[/i]. (Well, one can regard the barge as
effectively completing an *eye*, but ... .) )
EBDB Bowline - implies the normal standing part (SPart) and eye loading of the knot only
EBDB (T) Bowline - implies the same knot shape as above, however someone has looked at loading the tail
EBDB (R) Bowline - ring loaded version
EBDB (E) Bowline - end to end loaded version
EBDB (4) Bowline - end to end and eye loaded (could be 3 instead of 4 I suppose) version
.
etc if there are more ways to load.
And here I'll say that one isn't really dealing, in *knot*
terms, with a "bowline" : there is this entanglement,
and some loadings are consistent w/eyeknots, some
are ... with end-2-end knots. (Hmmm, [i]Ashley's stopper[/i]
is a [i]bowline[/i] appropriately collapsed & loaded,
but that brings in some *ends*, fused into a segment,
and bursts my cookie cutter boundary.
Ok, fair enough I probably misinterpreted your statement because, "Two topologically equivalent knots are not identical ! ", which I thought was written responding to your post. That put the idea in my mind that you were thinking that the knots were ‘the same’. My mistake, sorry, so maybe nobody thinks in terms of 1) then?
Fixed up my first post in this thread to reflect alpineer’s comment above.
Thanks for pointing me to this. I would have hated presenting a new knot that wasn’t really a new knot, after all the time I’ve spent on trialling mine.
I could be wrong, however if I correctly tied the singular Fusion form (tied the double version and collapsed one eye, correct?), I don’t think it is my knot. It does look a little like my bowline, though the collapsed eye version I tied of the KDL is not post eye tiable (PET). How can the Fusion or KDL be PET if you start from a Figure 8 Loop (not PET, as we know) and add twists?
My bowline is PET and the gamut of other acronyms, so it isn’t topologically equivalent to a Fusion Loop.
Thank you, my keystroke Queen ! I have to inform you that the “King s” ratio of K / W ( the number of knots tied, with PICTURES of them, divided by the number of words blah-blahed in posts ) is almost infinite times bigger than the “Queen s” ratio.
I would love to delete, right away, ALL the words I had ever used, in all my posts, if the Forum allowed me to do so, and leave only the pictures of the knots I had tied… Just imagine what will happen if you, too, do the same !
No, that’s not correct. It has only one eye to begin with - no second eye to collapse. It’s just a regular Bowline with an extra half-twist in the nipping turn. If that isn’t your knot, then of course, your knot is different, and we’ll have to await your announcement (which hopefully will be soon :)). But it must be your knot :).
Regarding Mike Karash’s method of tying the KDL, I don’t like his idea of fully drawing up the fig.8 before the backflip move. Doing so is unnecessary and often confuses the knot tyer as to which part of the fig.8 to pull back when forming the eyes, ending instead with a Pile Hitch Noose. Just pass the bight through the fig.8’s end loop enough to pull the eyeloops through and complete the backflip maneuver.
Xarax, I get that by inline loop you mean a loop in the middle of a tensioned line, but you cannot tell me that ANY knot a is GOOD inline loop if it REQIRES tension on all 4 legs (or the two parent legs at least optionally plus the two loop legs). SO what it’s tied in the middle of a tensioned line. As you as you pull harder on the loop to one side, you may well have taken all the tension off of one side of the line and you’re pulling just against the other side of the line. I can’t see what difference it then makes what direction the slack end “points” (curves off toward). An in-line loop sure better be able to handle this or it’s a pretty lousy inline loop. And if it can handle this, then it can also be an end-of line loop, which was my point.
I’m sticking with my first statement. There are loops than can be end-of-line but not midline, but I don’t want to use any mid-line loop that cannot also be used end-of line, and I wouldn’t call it a mid-line loop if it can’t. I’d just call it a bad loop, or maybe a good sheep-shank?
(update: xarax has removed the post this responds to)
Xarax the fact that you refuse to be willing to acknowledge understanding something that isn’t said in your “language” does not mean that I have failed to understand you (or even that you have sincerely failed to understand me).
The fact is that the ability of a midline loop to be used in an end of line way, must be a PROPERTY (of the THING) of any acceptable mid-line loop.
Would you be happier if I said:
The ability of a midline loop to be transformed into an acceptable (at least secure) end of line loop under appropriate loading must be a property of any acceptable mid-line loop?
Of course, nobody can deny that, if a loop is EEL, it is great if it also retains the same geometrical / structural form when it is EEL in-line, and when it is EEL at the end-of-the-line(s). However, I believe that those loops are very rare - although the most common and perhaps the best of them ( although it is not PET -2, and not even PET ), the Butterfly loop, is such a loop, indeed.
O Nuttall should had knew that, and that is why I guess that he emphasized the fact that his loop, too, is also such a loop ( he says that it is even better that the Butterfly loop, regarding this matter ), and it belongs in this privileged small class of loops, with the expression “fit in line” - which I understand as "fit in-line as well as fit in-the-end-of-line "- in the name of his Linfit loop ( which, contrary to the Butterfly loop, is PET-2, and I guess that this is why “it wont jam”) (1).
Almost all the in-line loops I know are not end-of-line - meaning, they do not retain the same geometrical / structural form when they are EEL loaded while their ends are aligned, and perpendicular to their eyelegs, and while their ends are parallel to each other and to their eyelegs. The loops I referred to, the Plait loop and the ABoK#1056, the Sheepshank loop and the Sheepshank bowline, are different knots, they have different shapes and structures, and they “work” differently.
That doesn’t even make sense. You have two subjects, “a stable loop” and a “mid-line” loop and the only other nouns in the sentence are parts of a line, and you conclude by saying both have to be stable. Both what? Both the stable loop and midline loop have to be stable? Ok.
…except that if you end load a mid-line loop (which happens to mid-line loops all the time) it destabilizes into a completely different thing by definition (depending on the dictionary used). So like stable but fickle. Ok.
This also doesn’t make any sense. If a loop is loaded by only one end, then what on earth difference can it make where the loop is? The other end is not loaded. It is slack. Isn’t the first E in EEL “either”? You’re telling me the shape and structure of the loop cares what direction a slack end lazily finds its way towards?
Furthermore there is no way that a knot can be “EEL loaded” (sic) and have the the ends perpendicular to the eye legs. It is impossible (unless the knot is bent over a rod). If you have ONE (either) end, only, loaded and then both eye legs loaded, the one end must come out in a direction opposing the vector sum of the tension on the two eye legs. Just because a loop is tied mid line does not mean it will look like this:
The point of this thread, in the particular case of the loops, was exactly this : We should not use in-line loops as EEL end-of-line loops, and vice versa, because, most of the times, the knots will be forced to be transfigured, or badly deformed, and they will “work” in a different way than before, and also they will “work” in a completely different way if they are loaded by their one or by their other end.
Therefore, I have argued that we should separate those two classes of knots, something that Ashley had done ( by the way he arranged the in-line loops in the chapter about single loops : #1049 - #1056 ), but he had not done this explicitly : he had not offered a name for them. When we do not demand an end-of-line loop to be EEL, this does not matter much - but with EEL loops, where the geometry / structure of the nubs should be different ( due to this 90 degrees rotation of the ends, which now should have to point to one direction ), I think that the distinction should better be labelled somehow. If nobody comes with a better proposal, and until somebody finds something more suitable, I guess I will have to use the terms " loops with converging / convergent Ends ", and " loops with diverging / divergent Ends ". EEL loops should be loops with converging / convergent Ends - if they are not, their EEL loading as end-of-line loops will, most probably, destabilize their nubs, and we will be lucky if it will not deform them badly.
So now you cut off my sentences in your quotes to change their meaning and don’t respond to the point. lol. Whatever. (update, then you stubbornly insist you didn’t when the fact is right there for all to see, and when you look for yourself you make up some lame “explanation” and then go an erase the post.)
xarax:
Almost all the in-line loops I know are not end-of-line - meaning, they do not retain the same geometrical / structural form [b]when they are EEL loaded while their ends are aligned, and perpendicular to their eyelegs,[/b]
So tautological and yet, there you talk about just that impossible situation.
I have been thinking about this for a few days, on and off, and I think I understand the concept you express better now. So if I may have another go at expressing it in my terms to further help my understanding…
If we were to define an order of knots by their end-2-end loading (an ‘End-2-End Order’ or ‘Order of Bends’ perhaps) then we could fit a Butterfly Loop into this order (or perhaps a sub-order) because it is primarily loaded in an end-2-end fashion which would be totally consistent with a bend if the loop remains unloaded.
If we however take a Butterfly Loop and load it as an end of line Eye knot then we have just changed loadings and orders and we are now in the ‘Eye and One End Order’ (Order of Loops perhaps). So if we have just changed ‘orders’, then we have just changed knots and a new knot potentially gets a new name to reflect the order it has become.
It is this latter point that makes things so confusing. One of the main reasons I settled on calling the ‘Mobius Loop’ what I did was that probably no-one would quibble too much with the name “Mobius” or “Loop” for that knot. Having “Butterfly” in that knot, as I originally proposed, was problematic for some/many since my knot was clearly in the ‘Order of Loops’ whereas a Butterfly Loop belongs to a different order, so why use butterfly at all? I see merit in this argument now, when I certainly did not see any before.
This begs the question, how do we name knots properly? I think we need some sort of taxonomy, some structure to work within. Eg: I still find it unhelpful to investigate using a Mobius Loop in an end-2-end loading application and have the knot suddenly not be called a Mobius Loop anymore, but a ‘Reversed Buttery Loop’, a name I suggested earlier and one that was rejected for the Mobius Loop ::)
So, I think there has to be a way of talking about individual knots or ‘knot families’, or perhaps ‘knot tribes’ (both maybe) in a way that the structure of the knot and the load contribute in a logical way to a name.
Xarax you did cut off my quote and you only need to more carefully re-read the post in question again to see it, since you have forgotten doing so. Also my use of tautology had nothing to do with impossibility. For this I can only give a face palm and hang my head. You said it was obvious, a “tautology”, that a particular thing was impossible (because that was the original statement under discussion, der), a thing which you had just earlier described the properties of seemingly implying it was quite possible, making the impossibility of it obviously not so obvious to all. I don’t disagree though that it should be.
I am glad to see that people’s “cookie cutter” notions are being challenged, even it is DL whom I never really would have accused of holding too tightly to them anyway. Words are just words and the world does not organize itself for convenience of our labels.
And the tying method shown by Ashley was an example of a BAD tying method, which conceals, and not reveals, the structure of the final knot. A “magic trick”, which tends to persuade people that knot tying is such an advanced rocket science, so the only thing they are allowed to do, is to parrot the biblical script of Ashley…