Problems with JPL7
Author Message
mithrilweaver

[ Grand Master Speaker ]

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 660
Submissions: 386
Location: Yucaipa, CA

 Problems with JPL7 Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:13 pm Link to Post: I have come to believe that the JPL7 in the library is not actually the "real" JPL7. I believe that I have discovered the "real" JPL7. I know that sounds strange at first, please let me explain. it's going to take a really long time. And on top of that, I have a tutorial out that is for sale, so i can't really take you step by step through the construction. I'll be submitting my weave later after this discussion, the only problem is - what to name it? and what to do with the previous JPL7? here is the old JPL7: http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=889 here is my new JPL7: In 2011, I made my version of JPL7, but I thought is was the same as Lorraine's JPL7. I didn't discover that it was different until this month - September 2016. In order to prove that they were different, I did a deconstruction. I took each ring out, one by one, and took a picture at each step so that I could get back to where I was. The deconstruction proved that they were different in 2 ways. 1) my weave flips 2 or 3 rings for each new ring added (Lorraine's JPL7 flips only 1). 2) The beginning structure in my JPL7 is not a Mobius4. It is a Mobius3. So, I proved that they had different structure, but who cares? Why should should my weave replace Lorraine's as the real JPL7? Well, I started to analyze the specs on my JPL7. Turns out that it has a minimum of 6.1AR and is loose enough for a bracelet at 6.3AR. Lorraine's JPL7 has a range of 6.6AR - 7.2AR. Next, I looked closely at the structure. Because I flip 2-3 rings, each ring is closer to the central core of the chain just like JPL3 and JPL5. This helps each ring not to stick out as far as Lorraine's JPL7 does. This, combined with the lower AR, convinced me that my JPL7 is the "real" one. The JPL series is unique in that they cram the most rings into the smallest space. They have the highest "blank in 1" for their given ring size. This also makes them the strongest chain for their ring ratio. But, if you don't accept these rules or you don't really understand the chainmaille theory, then this is all mute. As Lorraine has already explained to me, she does not believe in "true" progressions. So, if you fall in this category, my JPL7 is just another variant with nothing special about it. It's impossible to convince people otherwise. I expect that people fall into 2 categories with this issue and there is really not much I can do about that. so, what to do? Is there a "real" JPL7? And if so, how do we go about changing the database? Let me know what you think.http://www.joshuadiliberto.com

Joined: July 23, 2006
Posts: 2277
Submissions: 97
Location: Standish, Michigan, USA

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2221
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

 Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:56 pm Link to Post: In the spirit of friendly conversation/debate/discussion let me give you my thoughts on your question. I will start by saying that I am no expert on weaves or weave theory. I don't know if I agree that the new one is a "true" jpl7. For a true progression I have always understood/believed that a pattern is followed through out the entire progression. For example: European 4 in 1 to European 6 in 1 to European 8 in 1 and so on. If your weave flips 2-3 rings each progression it would not follow the same "pattern" as JPL 3 & 5 like the first JPL7 does (which you referred to as Lorriane's, but I want to take people out and just look at the weaves) so would not be a true progression. I agree totally with Narrina that you have proven them to be different and it deserves to be in the gallery, but it might be might be more accurately named a "dense" jpl7 instead instead of a "true" jpl7. This all depends on your perspective of which is the "true" chain. Personally, I feel that a pattern of modification should be held for it to be a "true" progression, like in the first JPL7. While your thought on the density of this weave being the "truer" form is interesting I would hold that this thought should be the same for other weaves as well and I cannot think of another chain where that standard would hold true. What are your thoughts? Once you stop learning, you stop living, so... Ask questions. Try new things. Share what you know. MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08
mithrilweaver

[ Grand Master Speaker ]

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 660
Submissions: 386
Location: Yucaipa, CA

Zlosk

[ Major Voice ]

Joined: February 15, 2002
Posts: 385
Submissions: 10

 Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:06 pm Link to Post: The current strain of odd-numbered JPLs is based on the variables/constraints that I chose to be the defining characteristics of JPL when I originally created my POV-Ray scene code to render them, back in 2004. Per my constraints, even-numbered JPLs are not possible. Since even-numbered JPLs exist in the weave library, my constraints do not exactly match other people's chosen constraints, nor do they need to, as long as we understand which constraints are being followed to come up with a specific JPL progression strain. A massive, in-depth discussion can be found at Another JPL question (JPL5, JPL7 and so on...). Further explanation of my methods and how I defined "skip" variations can be found at JPL7 variations, rendered. IGP (Irregular Grid Painter) Links: Home | FAQ | Downloads
mithrilweaver

[ Grand Master Speaker ]

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 660
Submissions: 386
Location: Yucaipa, CA

Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:29 pm

 Zlosk wrote: The current strain of odd-numbered JPLs is based on the variables/constraints that I chose to be the defining characteristics of JPL when I originally created my POV-Ray scene code to render them, back in 2004. Per my constraints, even-numbered JPLs are not possible. Since even-numbered JPLs exist in the weave library, my constraints do not exactly match other people's chosen constraints, nor do they need to, as long as we understand which constraints are being followed to come up with a specific JPL progression strain. A massive, in-depth discussion can be found at Another JPL question (JPL5, JPL7 and so on...). Further explanation of my methods and how I defined "skip" variations can be found at JPL7 variations, rendered.

i totally agree that it depends on the definitions you are following. the rule that i follow that few people understand is that odd # jpls have the highest ring ratio in chain form possible. it's not a constraint. it's a condition.

the truth is we are explorers of new weaves. we don't invent or create new weaves. the universe already knows what can exist and we find them. when people tried to make up rules for what jpls should be, they guessed. and there is nothing wrong with that. it's how we eventually figure things out. in this case, i think the rules are slightly off and need reconfiguring. the evidence is in the smaller ar.

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2221
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

 Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:31 pm Link to Post: I think I am starting to understand clearer. I will have to get back to you once I have thought things through more. Once you stop learning, you stop living, so... Ask questions. Try new things. Share what you know. MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08
Slagr

[ Big Voice ]

Joined: May 26, 2010
Posts: 234
Submissions: 30

Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:53 pm

 mithrilweaver wrote: the truth is we are explorers of new weaves. we don't invent or create new weaves

I'm glad to hear you say this because every time I come up with a new weave I never know whether to consider it "invented" or "discovered," much like the age-old question about the nature of mathematics.

Concerning your proposal though: have you applied this method to higher JPLs also? I agree with your premise of JPL progressions being defined by their AR / N-in-1 efficiency.
mithrilweaver

[ Grand Master Speaker ]

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 660
Submissions: 386
Location: Yucaipa, CA

 Posted on Tue Sep 20, 2016 6:21 am Link to Post: i like the way you think slaqr. i was just thinking today that if i applied my formula to jpl9 and got the same efficiency, then that would prove my point further. i'll let you know what i find.http://www.joshuadiliberto.com
mithrilweaver

[ Grand Master Speaker ]

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 660
Submissions: 386
Location: Yucaipa, CA

 Posted on Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:12 pm Link to Post: well, to my surprise, jpl9 is not cooperating using my formula. it works, but it's no more efficient than lorraine's formula. so, looks like my jpl7 is a special case that happens to be more efficient and can handle lower ars.http://www.joshuadiliberto.com
JanPieter

[ Voice ]

Joined: June 19, 2013
Posts: 97
Submissions: 8
Location: Rotterdam

 Posted on Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:41 am Link to Post: Whether or not your JPL7 should replace the old one or be called the 'real' or 'true' JPL7, it looks awesome! I was never taken by the original JPL7, I think I'd only try it for it's puzzle value and for being able to say I did it. However this JPL7 I'd wear. Personally I'd like to see it added as Jens Pind Linkage 7 + 'cool nick name' and keep the original one as just Jens Pind Linkage 7.

Joined: July 23, 2006
Posts: 2277
Submissions: 97
Location: Standish, Michigan, USA

 Posted on Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:56 pm Link to Post: It's been submitted as 'JPL7 Alternate,' and I should be able to approve it early next week. Insistence is futile. We are the Quartz, lower your shovels and surrender your rocks. We will add your gemological and mineralogical distinctiveness to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is rutile. Handmaden Designs LLC Facebook Twitter Pinterest Handmade Artists Shop Author Website