Variant Knot Vs. New Knot - who cares?

General Discussion
1

Fellow knottologists,

A question has arisen on another thread as to what constitutes a New knot or what might also be considered a Variant knot. Now, naming (“knot” = “hitch” = “bend” = “splice” etc.) is something that we have to use in order that we can readily and easily bring to mind the structure of a knot. However, naming is not the issue here. If we have the same structure, then clearly a knot is not different from another, even if it has a different name (Thumb Knot, Overhand Knot, etc.,). But how do we distinguish a New knot from a simple (or complex) Variant knot? If we make a Thumb Knot right-handed and another one left-handed, is that a Variant or is that New or is it the same thing? Is a Bowline with an added half hitch to the tail a Variant knot or a New knot? What does constitute a New knot and what does constitute a Variant knot?

Undoubtedly there are some very brilliant minds who scan this Forum in search of the Holy Grail of the Best Knot for Everything (BKFE), so maybe they would consider adding their ponderous thoughts to this discussion of when is a never-before-seen knot a New knot and when is it a Variant knot? Does it first have to be published and does it count if it is a private publication or is not in general circulation? Does the publication have to be written in English or translated that way? Perhaps there is a simple answer or perhaps you think it to be an exercise in futility - let us know your thoughts anyway - inquiring minds need to know!!! ??? 8)

SR

2

Handedness is insufficient warrant for calling a knot “new”, in my opinion. I don’t expect much controversy on this point. In symmetric knots, opposite handedness often goes completely unnoticed.

Usually, if a knot can be described in terms of another knot or knots, there is much benefit in doing so. If a knot can be described as a combination of knot forms, it should be recognized that there is no new topology, but it is rather just an assembly of basics, such as a round turn and two half hitches.

However, I will say that if knot forms are combined in such a way that their orginal topology is altered in order to combine, then it should be obvious that there must be new topology involved. Specific examples might provide more opportunity for in-depth discussion of particulars.

On the publication issue, I’d have no problem recognizing a person discovering a new knot if it can be proven in way of any publication, either public or private.

3

Hi Roo (and others who have looked in),

Many thanks for your posting. Let’s take a look at what you appear to me to be saying [please, anyone, feel free to contradict or discuss]:

Usually, if a knot can be described in terms of another knot or knots, there is much benefit in doing so. If a knot can be described as a combination of knot forms, it should be recognized that there is no new topology, but it is rather just an assembly of basics, such as a round turn and two half hitches.

As for topology, I assume then you would be agreeable to a sheet bend and a bowline being described as the same? The [topology: the way in which constituent parts are interrelated or arranged - OED] structure [read: constituent parts] remains unaffected, but we do have some ends joined that were not previously. Should this [bowline] be a new knot [instead of a sheet bend] or simply “an assembly of basics”? I vote here for the new knot because the topology is the same but we have joined some ends to create a new purpose (a temporary loop in the end of a line, instead of a joining of two lines of differing sizes - CLUE). Could we describe this as a variant? How should a variant be described?

Fortunately, or not, our English language is perhaps too varied in its application and usage to ever be really defining - maybe we could turn to mathematics? Perhaps we should combine usage and structure instead of either one [math or English]? Is a variant a new usage or a new structure [here I vote that a variant is a new usage of the same or similar structure, but there I go using English!]. Roo, you have set the ball in motion - could you expand on your thoughts some more so as to enlighten us? Thanks! :slight_smile:

Now, as to publication in a private manner - how could one verify that the publication took place on the claimed date? You can fix your home printer to state any date you want. Similarly, you can photoshop the insertion of a current newspaper alongside a posted publication. So how to provide [acceptable and incontrovertible] proof of private publication? I don’t know - I am fishing for ideas and feedback. Of course, if the publication is not private but public [posting on an internet forum, lodging with a library as an ISBN or ISSN] then it becomes less fraught with controversy. :o

SR

4

I’d call that an extension, and I guess a variation of the Bowline.
So, we’ve recently explored a lot of Bowline extensions in seeking something
adequately secure for kernmantle ropes. The Cowboy & Common Bowlines
I’d say are maybe “versions” of each other; the former might offer some significant
resistance to the sort of capsizing-into-Pile-Hitch-Noose I showed in the YONN… thread
just now. Drawing the line gets more tricky with the Mirrored Bowlines variations.
(And consider how their presentation to a knowledge base lacking the Janus Bowlines
would seem a greater departure than it does with the other variations in awareness.)

Does it first have to be published and does it count ...

"Does it count " thoughts shift the discussion to one of some kind of recognition
or claim to fame --and this for now should be put aside as not so intellectually
interesting or meritorious. If the stakes are low–and some might argue against
knot invention even having stakes (!)–, we can lower the bar on credibility.

Does the publication have to be written in English or translated that way?

We can consider the case of the so-called Heaving-line Bend (i.e., a messenger-line
bend, of thin-2-thick ropes) attributed by Ashley to Ohrvall, where in fact the knot was
presented by O. as something found in a museum to secure an instrument string to
an anchor bight (which knotted structure is FAR more interestingly intricate!); and
then that O.'s illustrating daughter botched the drawings (or O. himself did so in
his sketches of record), so that the knot was really an orphan at birth–an image
of nothing-real was put into print and later misinterpreted to be . . . a messenger-line bend!
How to give any “credit” there, huh? --just laughs all around, I think.

As for topology, I assume then you would be agreeable to a sheet bend and a bowline being described as the same?

Firstly, “topology” has mathematical connotations that aren’t helpful in practical dealings,
and are best left out of the discussion. (Schake has tried to put math in to the practical,
but I’m unfamiliar with his presentation.)
And this example is a good one to highlight senses of “knot”. I do NOT describe them as
the same, no.

Re “topology”, in the mathematical sense, I’ve discovered some of what I call
“Symmetric Figure 9” knots; they are topologically equivalent to that form
sometimes misconstrued for the (confusingly named) “Stevedore’s Knot” (stopper),
and are, to my perception, closely related to Ashley’s #425 (not “a”), although this
bend is of interlocked Overhands–see them as degenerate Fig.9s (one less turn).
I’d say I’ve broken new ground, but one could argue a case from #425 at least to
provide proximity to “prior art” (a patent term).
And although the (“a”?!) “Figure 9” eyeknot is known, I’ve not encountered mention
(beyond maybe my own) of putting it in reverse, which might have appeal.
(I think I have such a base in cord I’m half sitting upon (rear pocket) now, forming
a twin-eyes knot via the insert-bight-&-backflip, Bowline on a Bight way.)

... structure [read: constituent parts] remains unaffected, but we do have some ends joined that were not previously.

By my inclination re “knot”, I take the opposite view in both cases: that the knots
differ because of the loading profile,
and that the connection of ends (to make an eye) is irrelevant.
–at least that is a case worth considering: the looks-like-a-bowline AT THE KNOT of
this tow-line to a barge (big, spaced eye, you think),
but on inspection it’s found that in fact the “eye” is the end of the tow line cleated
on port side, and a separate (but disguisedly similar) rope cleated on starboard side.
The knot is otherwise in all senses a bowline (we could even say it was exactly
that, and then the eye was put in cleats, and then somehow the part between cleats
got cut by falling cargo–and then became clearly separate ropes).

If we enforced a rigor that every knot coming to attention of this knowledge-center
IGKT were put to a loading-profile check–that is, the given knot was generalized
into a tangle and that was enumerated into all possible knots that it could
generate (itself a problematic challenge, in light of what constitutes allowable
transformation/deformation (mathematical topology has no bounds!)),
then we could be more sure of “newness” of incoming candidates–i.e., that they
couldn’t be something we’d previously encountered but taken with different loading.
(But such rigor just spoils the fun of “invention”, don’t it?) :-\

(E.g., Asher “invented” Shakehands bend, but saw that Ashley has the same, er,
tangle as an eyeknot; I, before Harry, had also discovered the bend, and for
me, the obvious eyeknot was loaded on the other end qua SPart than what Ashley
shows. The difference in behavior might be worthwhile; clearly, the reach to get
from one to the other is minor–but it’s something.)

I’d thought of a tact in which one would conceive a tangle,
which would be just the general “topology”–as SR is using it above–;
and then from that one would define knots, which would be specific
loadings of the tangle . But the problem arose in fixing the tangle ,
as it has SOME implied loadings/directions/angles from the start,
but lacks hard boundaries on how much change can come to them.
(E.g., should we see the Pile-Hitch noose hitch in the general owline
tangle? Is the Lapp bend really indicated there (much different angle
for what was the bowline’s SPart) ?! --and the Marlinespike Hitch,
and Slip-Knot/Overhand Noose?

–dl*

5

I don’t advocate revisionist naming, so let’s assume that the Bowline Loop and Sheet Bend were new just for this discussion. Even if you decided to call them the same base name of “Sheet”, you still call one a Sheet Bend and the other a Sheet Loop. So, they wouldn’t really be described as “the same”. You have an acknowledgement that the loop is part of the topology, and changes possible loading.

Similarly, changing the free ends and standing parts of a bend, would be an inherent change in topology that changes possible loading.

Now, as to publication in a private manner - how could one verify that the publication took place on the claimed date? You can fix your home printer to state any date you want. Similarly, you can photoshop the insertion of a current newspaper alongside a posted publication. So how to provide [acceptable and incontrovertible] proof of private publication? I don't know - I am fishing for ideas and feedback. Of course, if the publication is not private but public [posting on an internet forum, lodging with a library as an ISBN or ISSN] then it becomes less fraught with controversy. :o
Rules of evidence would apply. I'm intentionally going to only lightly touch this issue, since it doesn't bear directly on knots. If, for example, someone claimed to have privately discovered a knot and named it at some date, and there are many descriptive references to it in various other places after that date (even if in private) to corroborate, one might conclude that the claim is valid.
6

Back to my point about “rigor” and some thorough exploration of the “tangle” by
applying all (arguably obvious; but in any case, present for inspection) loading profiles.
The bowline is ONE direct way of making an eyeknot corresponding to the bend.
(It is “one”, but not what would flow from the most common tying method–which would
be to first form the bight part into which the “turn thru” (Richards’s term), loop would be made!)

Similarly, changing the free ends and standing parts of a bend, would be an inherent change in topography that changes possible loading.

And this too is one of the obvious loading profiles that are awaiting investigation upon
the presentation of the prospectively “new” “knot”. It is right there; but is anyone looking?

Rules of evidence would apply. I'm intentionally going to only lightly touch this issue, since it doesn't bear directly on knots. If, for example, someone claimed to have privately discovered a knot and named it at some date, and there are many descriptive references to it in various other places after that date (even if in private) to corroborate, one might conclude that the claim is valid.

Right. But, again, what’s in the issue?
And, as I previously pointed out somewhere, what’s the benefit of being “first”
as opposed to thinking up the knot on one’s own (which, yes, could be done
for any of the well-known knots, especially by children). We have one case in
which “Blake’s Hitch” is traced back to musings & then action by arborist Jason
Blake, circa 1991; but we can also find this hitch presented in Nylon Highway
(USA Nat.Speleological Society’s newsletter for the Vertical Section) prior to
Blake’s publicity (in Arbor News or … ?) though later than Blake claimed
discovery, and then some 198x publication in an Austrian (German?) guides
periodical. The hitch carries, so far as we know, a 2nd-discoverer’s name
(as does “Hunter’s Bend”, which I refer to as “SmitHunter’s” to credit Phil Smith
(I could more fully try “SmitHuntersLehman”, too, as it was my discovery in ‘73
–and how many others’ , we might wonder?) What if anthropologists discover
the knot in some ancient or secluded society? Is the honest discovery by later
people diminished?

–dl*

7

What indeed? A few days ago I was showing someone how to tie a Rosendahl/Zeppelin bend and by mistake tied Hunter’s (or whoever’s) bend. Did I therefore discover it? By a strict dictionary definition possibly I did but in terms of this thread of course not. Rather than ‘discover’ which we can all do in the sense of ‘for ourselves’ perhaps “originate” to clearly indicate beyond doubt the first time a knot has been seen. But as the word discover leaves open the question as to whether this is a “first” or not perhaps this is the word we use until no-one has found an earlier reference after a reasonable time (a year maybe?). In any event if experts like you Dan are impressed with a discovery then the discoverer deserves the kudos no matter that it later transpires that this was not original (as long as there is no suggestion of plagiarism of course). Whether a knot is useful to me or not matters a whole lot more to me than who tied it first! There isn’t a Nobel prize for knotting is there??

Barry

8

Or, whoever’s minding such things with some concern about “invention” could simply
not care much about like discoveries that occur after some reasonable publication.
But from a How-do-knots-come-about? concern, it might be that publications are not
so relevant where it is known that they haven’t much effect–e.g., were we to learn that
some group regularly used Rosendahl’s bend though in ignorance of its having been
known elsewhere, that is an interesting bit of knowledge to have. And in various cases,
it can be enlightening to learn how various discoverers come to their respective moments
of insight–by tying to tie this other knot, but deliberately seeking to modify some knot, or
by a clever gust of wind and dropped string!

A real interesting & problematic case is like the Heaving-line bend,
where without doubt some knot is published, but upon examination it turns
out that an artist bungled some illustration, of an editer turned upside-down original
images (–a real case in [i]On Rope, 2nd ed. and asymmetric Prusik hitches!):
without doubt, there IS the knot, in print; but the author did not know it, and the
bungling clerical help really didn’t know it either; but the “new knot” is born, an orphan.

.:. Knot use & value should be primary concerns; mere "new"ness should be very minor
–contrary what some have stated (in KM), it’s simple to be (merely) new; and we shouldn’t
work hard at setting some bar purely re novelty, thus.

–dl*

9

I don’t know what fields everyone else is in here, but I personally am an English teacher. I teach people from around the world how to speak English.

There are two ways to look at a language. You can either be a descriptivist or a prescriptivist. A prescriptivist says that something is either right or wrong. Is ‘aint’ a word? To the prescriptivist, they would say, no, it’s not. It’s slang. And therefore, it shouldn’t be used. The descriptivist says that ‘aint’ is used, therefore, it’s a word – who are we to say it’s wrong? Personally, I’m somewhere in the middle. I think that if something new in the language fulfills a purpose that was otherwise lacking, then I say it’s a good addition to the language. But, if by using a word, you make the language more confusing, then it shouldn’t be used.

It’s how I see knots as well. First off, the Bowline and the Sheet Bend are established enough that to now call them the same knot would only serve to confuse the knotting language. Or the Timber and Killick Hitch. It’s too late to change their names, or to stop calling them separate knots. But then, what about new “knots?” Should they get new names, or should they be described as variations on old designs? If they are visually and functionally different, I think it would be confusing to call them variations on an old knot, because for practical purposes, they’re different. Theoretically, they may be the same, but our world doesn’t run on theory.

So how about this – We can have the knot theory definition of knots, and we can have the practical definition. Just like English grammar and English usage which generally disagree, but both have their places.

10

Which is a heckuva position to take–by strict logic it can lead to utterances all of “ya know what I mean”,
or some bizarre reliance on context. Webster’s 3rd New Int. Dict.'s abandonment of prescriptionist leaning
hasn’t been a boon for language. Just because some newsdweeb, chosen for square jaw and rigid hair
fancies saying “comprised of” shouldn’t beget an acceptance of such solecisms; nor the ignorance of
the language its execution by those who should uphold standards. --the irony of those who would refer
to a dictionary for guidance being guided by a growing mass of others who can’t be bothered, and, “like”
are “like” just “like” speaking naturally, … . grrrrr.

Or the Timber and Killick Hitch. It's too late to change their names, or to stop calling them separate knots.

Whoa, they are distinct knots. The confusion comes in losing the historical K. hitch (my surmise),
and introducing a compound structure that is a spaced equivalent by the same name. Something
is lost there (just as the very nicely keen & complementary senses of “comprise”/“compose”/“constitute”
/“comprised in”/“composed of”/“included in” … are lost by (mis)using one for all senses, and thereby
somehow necessitating a draw upon context (which itself begs the question of how to be understood,
if all is in flux and ambiguous!).

If they are visually and functionally different, I think it would be confusing to call them variations on an old knot, because for practical purposes, they're different. Theoretically, they may be the same, but our world doesn't run on theory.

The world doesn’t so much refer to knots books, either; and people can remember only so
many things–names, knots, … .

:slight_smile:

11

Thanks to Barry, Roo and especially Dan,

You certainly all have given me something to think about, but I am not certain that I am any nearer to the goal. Perhaps I may never get there.

Barry:
The timing of discovery (I like that term better than “new”) is really important only to the subsequent discoverer of the knot as to whether or not it may have some newness associated with it. Further, it would seem that, just because nobody had written it down does not necessarily disqualify it. It would seem appropriate therefore to measure against some known date such as AA or BA (anno Ashley or before Ashley i.e. 1944) as to whether it had previously been published. Even that may not bring about a total level of satisfaction, so perhaps timing is not yet a set-in-stone method of discerning “newness”? Your point concerning the usefulness of whether or not this affects use of the knot is also well taken, except that, to a discoverer, the knowledge of being first or later than first is important.

Roo:
I believe that loading should come into play when deciding whether a knot is new (newly used - is that not an oxymoron?) but I also think that the topography/topology (what IS the difference, I wonder?) comes into play with the usage. Thanks as always for your helpful comments!

Dan:
Erudite as always and you have quite the talent for in-depth exploration. However, I do not feel that we are any closer, despite your valiant attempts (and they HAVE been very valiant) at clarification on what is new, what is a variant and what is even just a version of another knot? Perhaps the wording is not what should be examined but the application, as you are clearly noting:

When the good people who make up the requisite committee of the IGKT get together to discuss a purported “new” knot, just what is it they seek and how do they make the differentiation? Maybe one of them will be kind enough to respond here…

Meanwhile the naming of knots appears to be a non-starter, the description is fraught with difficulties over how it (the knot) is used, and there is no apparent sense in going the route of defining by twists and turns, absent the use of the application and loading (and then we need to know if it is temporary or a permanent change of loading). Derek, you have a facility with the twists and turns - what would YOU do? ???

SR

12

Squarerigger

I have been mulling over the naming of knots and concluded that perhaps we are looking at the wrong problem. Please excuse the following ramble but it follows my train of thought! I was watching a Robin feeding this morning along with 2 Goldfinches. I know my 5 year old grandson could easily name both but neither of us have a clue what the true classification is (per Linnaeus - probably misspelt). The classification of animals and plants follows a defined path which has stood the test of time and more to the point is in a lingua franca - Latin - so English does not cause a problem to non-English speakers. Unfortunately pro gardeners have this irritating tendency to refer to plants by their “proper” names which means that if you want one you’ve forgotten its name! Now for knots - in any discussion on the forum about new knots or variations comparisons are made to existing knots in ABOK. But Ashley did not name all knots he simply gave them a number - some of which are so frequently used that they are easily remembered. Where we have a problem is that no-one is issuing numbers anymore so there is no definitive way of referencing a new knot or variation - it can have a common name which may be helpful but the number is the key - and it is completely language and alphabet independent.

An example - the Beer Knot - which I like because experienced knotters who are unaware of it can be invited to spend ages trying to think of a simple bend which cannot be tied in rope (only in tubular tape of course). The origin of the name (supposedly because it’s like a Water knot but better and beer is better than water) is amusing and makes for easy remembering (esp to beer lovers) but this must be an exception. Give a knot a number however and it becomes recognised. I know that this has been raised before in different contexts but it strikes me that the Guild are in an ideal position to take a lead - I wonder if the publishers of ABOK would be interested in a new volume of newer knots?

Barry

13

Sweeney,
I think it would be a wonderful thing to assign each knot a number. It could be the knot equivalent of the scientific name, where people from anywhere would have a common base to understand it. So if you were in Portugal, you don’t need to know what they call a reef knot. You just have to know the numbers in Portuguese.

But normal humans don’t talk in numbers. The name “Beer Knot” is more likely to be remembered than #39708. But, if confusion is caused by using the common name (which might happen, according to regional differences, like the square knot/ reef knot), then the number could be referred to in order to clarify. So common name for daily use, number when necessary.

14

This is a hard one. It is no wonder Paco found a similar problem in defining if one sport was different from another.

This thread has already covered a lot of ground, but like Lindsey, I don’t feel any consensus starting to gel. Perhaps it is time for a refocus.

Naming – For a knot to ‘catch on’ its name is important - it is an issue of marketing. But as Lindsey stated at the first post, naming is not the issue here

Provenance or Prior Invention – I think it is highly probable that every knot and variation we create will have been created already by someone, somewhere, sometime in this world. So likelihood is nothing is really ‘New’, however, it might be new to us with our present day knowledge and libraries.

Language – I have a problem with our use of the word Topology – topology noun, geom the branch of geometry concerned with those properties of a geometrical figure that remain unchanged even when the figure is deformed by bending, stretching or twisting, etc . I also have a problem with the opening statement (“knot” = “hitch” = “bend” = “splice” etc.) While I think I know what we all mean, I don’t believe that this is also what we are saying.

Taking the word ‘knot’ first. It is a word with many meanings, some of the set might include {relationship, join, tangle, congestion, mathematical, Real …} Of these, we are involved only with ‘Real Knots’, and even here we have a term with several meanings. Again, the set might include { Working Knots, Decorative knots …} and only finally do we get down to the Working Knots set which contains { hitch, bend, splice, binding, stopper, loop …} which tend to refer to type of use (is this important? Does it make it a different knot if I use it to bend or to bind?)

The key issue is that we are considering physical knots which are involved in the transmission of force. Our knots are ‘Force Engines’, they take and redistribute force and in doing so, they respond by modifying their own structures. This is key to what our knots are and what they do and I have a feeling we should be looking here for the differences between one knot structure and another.

This brings me to the word ‘Topology’ which refers to a geometric property of a closed figure which remains unchanged even when the figure is deformed by bending, stretching or twisting, etc . Clearly, the all important structure of our Real Working Knots, which do most critically deform – is not Topology. So what word should we be using here? Is Structure the right term?

Structural response to force – The bowline and the sheetbend are different knots because they are used by different trades, in different applications and are created in different manners, yes. But fundamentally, they are different knots because they process the forces in different ways, and this is only because the knots are loaded in different ways. Because we are dealing with Real Working Knots, how the forces are applied and how the knots respond is, I believe, critical in differentiating one ‘knot’ from another.

In this frame of reference, because we are dealing with Real Working Knots, both structure and loading and response to loading are critical elements in the definition of what a knot is, and therefore have to be considered in differentiation between one ‘Structure / Loading’ system and another. i.e. ‘knot’ = ‘Structure / loading system’.

Variation vs New – I am struggling here. If we make a small structural change which does not essentially change the loading response characteristics, yet improves say the security or untyability [language abuse alert], then perhaps that is a ‘Variation’, while, if we make an equally small structural change, but this significantly changes the working structure of the loaded knot, then perhaps that constitutes a ‘New Knot’. But should we be giving higher importance to loading than to security?

As I said, I am struggling here.

Derek

15

I agree - naming is not the issue here. But that is not the same as referencing a knot - be it a “new” knot or a variation of an existing knot. Unless there is an agreed designation for any knot (as Ashley recognised by numbering everything including entries which are not knots) then it becomes impossible to have a meaningful discussion about it in relation to other post-Ashley knots without repeating drawings, photos etc. I can understand and sympathise with the difficulty of deciding when a knot thought to be previously unrecorded is published whether this is truly a new innovation or merely a trivial reflection of something well known eg left handed rather than right handed (that said the Bowline is a case in point). And the issues discussed as to how one might distinguish knots are most important but without a baseline post-Ashley how does one proceed - perhaps by citing a publication? Clumsy esp if the publication is out of print. And having decided that this structure deserves to be considered a new discovery where does one put it for future reference? The discussion so far is in the abstract, I think some practicality needs to be included.

Barry

16

So, do we have any lawyers in this group? Is there anything that would prohibit someone from writing a new book called “Beyond Ashley” that continues the numbering tradition? Then we could use the ABOK system and create a new set of numbers.

And, as has been mentioned, Ashley numbered everything. Would it be imperative to decide what was a knot and what was a variation? You could just say, when carrying on a discussion, “That looks like ABOK #4502, or because of the way you formed the loop, more like ABOK #4518.” Remember that the original, while being called the knotter’s Bible, still contains flaws and inaccuracies, and so a new book that assigns numbers to variations wouldn’t be the end of the world.

I’d say that if a variation already has a name, give it a number. If not, then we (meaning whoever writes the new book, preferably someone involved with the IGKT) can decide what to do with it.

17

Hi Barry, Paco and especially Derek,

You have all hit the button right on the head - no names, no numbers just descriptions WHEN maknig comparisons (for the purpose of deciding whether it is NEW, EXISTING, or VARIANT). Let’s start thinking about some other crafts that use flexible forms to make objects - basket-weaving, knitting, crochet and so on. Not necessarily a sub-set of knotting, perhaps a superset, but nevertheless a related area of interest. Their standard descriptions look at structure much more so than we do. We, as knotters, try to name everything and it simply is not working effectively to decide whether a knot is new, variant or existing. Naming or numbering are a dead end methinks - they do not translate across languages, particularly if you do not know the key beforehand.

That brings me round to what I was thinking in the shower this morning - why not relate to everything by the structures it incorporates? In music we learn how to play by following the notes at first, but pretty soon we understand the individual notes and can “get” a tune without even having to know the key in which it is played. As humans we understand that a particular key has sharps and flats and, when you know the minims and crochets and rests that are in the sheet music, you get a better understanding of its sound and feel - it’s final appearance and structure if you will. We can do the same thing with knotting. Derek, you said in another post that you have just realized that structure in a knot is important, so much so that you cannot describe a knot simply by looking at one elevation or view of the knot, but that you need to look at all sides. This is why Ashley’s work was so seminal - he realized that people recognize structures and he uses people’s innate abilities in that regard to explain the knot with drawings of structures. We can do the same.

Here are several structures that can be thought of as building blocks - the crossing (over, under or right to left or left to right if necessary), the wrap (needs a direction that is unambiguous), the bight, the loop (crossing itself but not necessarily crossing another cord), the twist (wrapping the line to and fro over some core line). How about it? Can we then determine that, if a knot has THIS structure it can be described as EXISTING, if a knot has THAT structure not THIS, it may be new or it may be a variant. If a knot combines THIS with THAT maybe it is a variant? I am struggling with a new concept here and I need to know if I am off altogether or not. Does anyone understand this or do you have a better idea or do you think that two existing knots have exactly the same structure? Maybe the loading has to be included into the description as well e.g. the knot is a temporary eye comprising a bight trapped in a loop with the loop end and the bight end continuing one to the other, the resistance being from the other end of the loop and the load being taken by the eye. Okay, long description but you get the idea - loop around a bight, two loop ends resisting and loaded, one bight end loaded, bight continuous to loop end, bight around standing part. Which other knot matches that description?

Each structure can be described and drawn to make the whole thing clear (decorative knots will definitely have their challenges here!) to any language (OK - unsighted people may have some difficulties) and age. Whaddya say - huh? ??? :-\

SR

18

Hi Paco, I totally agree, but I don’t think we need any lawyers to get involved.

The IGKT can simply decide to start its own knot numbering system i.e. IGKT nnnn or for short #nnnn. Out of respect to the great man, it can then designate the first 3850 to those already assigned by Ashley so that ABoK xxxx = IGKT xxxx. Then the assigning group can start to assign knots from say #4000 upwards.

But you are jumping ahead to when we have solved the problem you previously set us - how do we decide if a knot is simply a variant of an existing knot or a new knot? However, yes, if such a system is set up then when the problem is resolved, then we will at least have a place to record the new knots and their variations.

Q. Have you contacted our new Chairman yet and asked him if the IGKT has a Knot Review Panel, and if they have could they give you an answer re your ‘new’ knot?

Derek

19

Derek

You’re right - the IGKT can - and I think should - start its own numbering system but there are already a number of knots that are not in Ashley which fall to be recorded so a piece of work on this does not need to await the outcome of the variant vs new discussion. In fact by getting going before the current issue is resolved pushes the discussion to the fore as decisions will have to be made about actual knots. Once a knot is accepted as “new” there is nothing to stop this being amended later when an early reference is found (eg Hunter’s Bend as a case in point).

Barry

20

So close you can taste it - or is it the soap?

We humans have a fundamental problem with perspective - we are knot tyers and perceive a knot from that very fixed perspective. When we are given a knot, we even have to orient it into our fixed tying frame of reference in order to be able to just recognise it.

Take these three knots for example. Do you recognise them? Can we describe then in terms of twists turns and bights?

http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/OH%20Knot%20perspective.jpg

Those who have done Technical Drawing might immediately spot that it is simply three perspectives of the same structure, that being the OH knot from the side, from the top and ‘end on’ i.e. looking down the cord (with a little latitude please for the limitations of my drawing utility).

Which perspective is right? Are any of them ‘right’ considering they are all tyer-centric rather than being knot-centric.

So long as we stand outside of the knot and view it from the myriad of possible tyer perspectives, then I think we are going to be ‘tasting the soap’ rather than tasting the ‘essence of the knot’.

From a knot-centric perspective the OH knot might be described as :-

Opposing fully loaded parts enmeshed in a full turn ‘S’ twist, self counter-wrapped by a partially loaded ‘Z’ twist clamp.

Now I am a chemist and I can cope with the likes of ‘2,4-D orthodianisidine’ yet even I find this description of the OH mind numbing, and it is not even a full description (it lacks inclusion of the turn connections between the ‘S’ and the ‘Z’ components).

I have no doubt that at some time a fresh minded savant will hold in their minds eye the full understanding of the vectors and forces which are a knot, and be able to describe these uniquely in some language that makes it possible to record each knot in all its functionality. But until that day, I have to conclude that we simply cannot ‘say’ the essence of a knot such that we may compare essences to declare if one is different from the other.

Minded of this, could I propose an alternative approach - That of the fictional Sherlock Holmes - “Eliminate everything which is impossible and that which is left must be the truth” – or at least a version of it (or was it Hercule Poirot?).

For Real Working Knots (obviously not relevant to decorative knots where appearance is essence)

Mirrors and ‘handed versions’ are simply variants of the same knot.

Additions which do not change any functionality are variants.

… any other exceptions we arrive at …

Everything left is a different knot, and if we can find no reference to it then it is a ‘New Knot’ (i.e. new to us).

Then of course, we need to formally record it, so Barry’s proposal to formalise the IGKT numbering and recording system becomes highly important.

Derek