Weave Characteristics Definitions Help
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 635
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:51 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

TrenchCoatGuy wrote:
Karpeth wrote:
(My definition of symbiont might have been a bit clumsy, but we have to decide; is Definitely Not Beer symbiont or not? It uses orbital interactions, but the rings are not true orbital.)


Definitely Not Beer does not to meet the proposed symbiont criteria.

Jackalgirl wrote:
When you start talking planet rings, I think of planetary gearing systems and get all confused. But that's no reason not to talk planet rings, mind you: I'm a weirdo.


Yeah. Planetary gear systems use the sun-planet terminology (where the planets orbit the sun). This uses the planet-satellite terminology (where the satellite orbits the planet). I couldn't think of another better set of terms, since these were pulled from astronomy terms (starting with the well accepted "orbit"). Satellite fits the proper definition, but planet could be re-termed to less elegant terms like "central body" or "inner mass".

Shirluban wrote:
With the term "planet ring", I expect the orbital to be around the center of a ring like in [weave=Helm], and not around an eye like in Orbital.


Maybe it helps if the "planet" could refer to multiple rings? Perhaps we should call the sum of all rings the orbital ring passes around as the planet.


As per My suggested definition, it would be symbiont. But It’s not a must for me.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:41 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:

As per My suggested definition, it would be symbiont. But It’s not a must for me.


Again, I'm a newbie, so it's tough for me to wrap my mind around some of this (through lack of experience). So pardon me if I seem like I'm asking obvious questions --

In looking at the Weave Study thread and that really clear picture of yours of the Definitely Not Beer weave, my understanding of a symbiont is that it's a ring that, while involved in one or more orbital and/or captive interactions, is linked with one or more other rings as well.

The difficulty for me is figuring out how to express linking (as a connection) vs orbital / captive interactions, which is where two closed rings touch each other, but are not actually linked.

This is probably something you've all already agreed on: that "linking" refers to the process of actually connecting rings to one another (open a ring, weave it through another ring, close the ring: they are now linked). Orbital and captive rings are not linked -- they are closed rings that are held in place by other rings that are not linked to them. Symbiont rings might have orbital and/or captive interactions with some other rings, but they are linked to one or more other rings in the weave.

Does this make sense?

Edited to add: I was just trying to describe this situation to DH and the funny part was that we both agreed that it was simple to describe what's going on visually (I was using my fingers) and that orbital and captive rings are easily understood by what they are not -- they are not linked, where "linked" is <makes ring with index finger and thumb of left hand, touches tips of index fingers of right hand through the left-hand "ring" perpendicularly>. So what you have to do is start with the definition of the normal "in" connection, which I'm calling "linked", but which you all might call something else.

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 635
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:10 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Jackalgirl wrote:
Karpeth wrote:

As per My suggested definition, it would be symbiont. But It’s not a must for me.


Again, I'm a newbie, so it's tough for me to wrap my mind around some of this (through lack of experience). So pardon me if I seem like I'm asking obvious questions --

In looking at the Weave Study thread and that really clear picture of yours of the Definitely Not Beer weave, my understanding of a symbiont is that it's a ring that, while involved in one or more orbital and/or captive interactions, is linked with one or more other rings as well.

The difficulty for me is figuring out how to express linking (as a connection) vs orbital / captive interactions, which is where two closed rings touch each other, but are not actually linked.

This is probably something you've all already agreed on: that "linking" refers to the process of actually connecting rings to one another (open a ring, weave it through another ring, close the ring: they are now linked). Orbital and captive rings are not linked -- they are closed rings that are held in place by other rings that are not linked to them. Symbiont rings might have orbital and/or captive interactions with some other rings, but they are linked to one or more other rings in the weave.

Does this make sense?


Your interpretation of symbiont is the same as I proposed, yes, it makes sense.

He definition of linking versus non-linking is based on knot theory. If the Two rings (when welded) are unable, under any circumstance to be able to be removed, they are linked. If you change the sizes, and something fall out it’s not linked. (This definition only holds true for small segments; Helm Chain breaks it.). A captive ring, made smaller, Will trivially remove itself. An orbital, made bigger, Will remove itself. (And non-trivial cases such as helm, requires arguments or definitions.).

There are Two types of weaves, pushing the need for new definitions (including symbiont), exemplified by Staggered Captive Inverted Round Sheet, composed of Two chain types (2-1 and Inverted Round) interlaced in peripendicular grains, and Definitely not Beer, where one ring is orbital in relation to one connection, but linked to others. (Dragonscale could be another example of the first type, as it’s Two sheets of E4-1 interlaced in parallell.).

I would argue that Both types should be called symbiont, as they act very much alike. Should I concede, I would propose a tag encompassing weaves Such as DNB.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 601
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:01 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:
TrenchCoatGuy wrote:
Karpeth wrote:
(My definition of symbiont might have been a bit clumsy, but we have to decide; is Definitely Not Beer symbiont or not? It uses orbital interactions, but the rings are not true orbital.)


Definitely Not Beer does not to meet the proposed symbiont criteria.


As per My suggested definition, it would be symbiont. But It’s not a must for me.


Oh, right. For clarity sake of readers, I was referring to MusicMan's proposed definition. I think it adds interesting information to the library. I still think that the term should be "symbiont/symbiotic weaves" not "symbiont/symbiotic rings".

As per your proposed definition... Your definition does get at the interaction details for individual rings that would include the aforementioned weaves, but I think that labeling the rings is not getting at the useful information (see note above).


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:26 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:
He definition of linking versus non-linking is based on knot theory. If the Two rings (when welded) are unable, under any circumstance to be able to be removed, they are linked.


In complete agreement with this. If we agree on this (or a similar) definition for "linked", then defining orbital and captive rings is easier (IMO).

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:37 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

TrenchCoatGuy wrote:

Oh, right. For clarity sake of readers, I was referring to MusicMan's proposed definition. I think it adds interesting information to the library. I still think that the term should be "symbiont/symbiotic weaves" not "symbiont/symbiotic rings".


Por que no los dos? Although I can see why not, which is that calling a weave "symbiont" (the way MusicMan defined "symbiont", which I agree should refer to a weave)...

MusicMan wrote:
where the captive/orbital behavior involves the interaction of two (or more) independent weaves.


...and then calling a ring that is linked but which has orbital and/or captive interactions with other rings "symbiont" might be confusing.

How about "multiplex ring" as the description of a ring with one or more orbital and/or captive interactions with other rings, but which is linked with one or more other rings in the weave?

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 635
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:57 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I don't see how anyone could disagree; however the wording, this is what linking comes down to.

Jackalgirl wrote:
TrenchCoatGuy wrote:

Oh, right. For clarity sake of readers, I was referring to MusicMan's proposed definition. I think it adds interesting information to the library. I still think that the term should be "symbiont/symbiotic weaves" not "symbiont/symbiotic rings".


Por que no los dos? Although I can see why not, which is that calling a weave "symbiont" (the way MusicMan defined "symbiont", which I agree should refer to a weave)...

MusicMan wrote:
where the captive/orbital behavior involves the interaction of two (or more) independent weaves.


...and then calling a ring that is linked but which has orbital and/or captive interactions with other rings "symbiont" might be confusing.

How about "multiplex ring" as the description of a ring with one or more orbital and/or captive interactions with other rings, but which is linked with one or more other rings in the weave?


I am in full agreement.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 2 of 2. Goto page Previous  1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:16 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: