What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology

[Dan_Lehman]

@xarax

@Dan_Lehman post:27

@xarax post:11

I believe that it is a self-evident truth, that has no need for any other justification :
If part of a knot is a bowlne, the whole knot remains a bowline - albeit a more complex one.
As part of the Karash loop is a bowline indeed, …

??? What is this part that is a bowline, please?

Please, read more than 1 out of 30 what I write…otherwise, you will be right to consider what you read as a “noise”, I suppose.

And then, with that gratuitous admonishment, you go on to
ramble off-topic about some game-playing notions --providing
fuel to the flame that maybe only 1-of-30 of your words addresses
the issue!

When the answer sought is given only later, sans introduction,
as :

@xarax post:153

The “Karash” bowline is… a worsened bowline, because its not-retraced-yet form is but a “twisted nipping loop” bowline.
(See attached picture) The nipping loop, being twisted and inverted like this, is only a worse nipping loop, as much of its
nipping / constricting power is lost around the U turn of the eye leg of the standing part.

WHICH IS A QUOTE FROM ANOTHER THREAD!!
You win the prize, for this.

Now, as far as there being some equivalence --some family heritage–
between the turNip of the bowline and this crossing knot
coyly regarded by you as merely a “twisted nipping loop”,
you’re on your own with this. I don’t accept it as a reasonable
distinction. (And, as you admit, the nipping mechanics are different
between these forms.)

–dl*