Ring Interaction Model (R.I.M) (long article)
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Knitting Circle
   
Author Message

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3064
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:36 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Okay, I have a lot to say about this... And most of it isn't a glowing review.
In fact, I'll go so far as to say that: While I'm not intending this from a malicious or nasty place, it's extremely likely that that is how it will be perceived...
Going through it "point form" possibly didn't help the fact, but it helped me keep everything straight as I was viewing it.

Given that warning, if you don't feel you can take comments of that style, I advise you to avoid reading the following post.
(Sidenote, after posting: It's unfortunate this is post #1 on the second page of this thread...)
All that being said: I'm not a dick, I promise... In fact, I have character references... Coif LoL But I can come across terse at times, and I fear this is one of these... YMMV



First of all... for a technical standpoint...
1. The filename has a % symbol in it. From a URL perspective, that is a no-no.. Firefox and Chrome seem to support this (which they shouldn't) IE9 under Win7 (correctly) chokes on the malformed URL and won't even open the PDF... You have just alienated (By my last check) > 50% of the MAIL audience.
2. When I saw what was going on, I pulled up a copy of Firefox to download the PDF... I saw the thumbnail JPG, and it lookd interesting. I then saw how slowly the PDF was opening, and went to get a drink... I came back just as it finished, and then watched Firefox slowly render said PDF... (Granted, I'm on battery right now, so powersaving is on...) This is an Intel i7/8Gb Ram MONSTER of a laptop, it shouldn't choke on a PDF... I expected something huge and amazing.
What I got was a single page PDF... That I can't, for the life of me, fathom why it is larger than 200kb... OpenOffice did you a disservice sir... Download PrimoPDF
3. WHYMUSTYOUUSEALLUPPERCASEFILENAMESWITHNOSPACESAND.lowercaseextensions?! This screams a horrible mix of Adoption (ignoring the Windows trend towards uppercase extensions lately, while ignoring the general Web/UNIX trend towards lowercase filenames)

*breathes* That's technical out of the way.

Next, I'll step onto my overview of the PDF.
1. As I said before it's massive, the loading & rendering time is horrible... The font (as has been mentioned) is a bad choice as well... Consider something default and sans serif for clarity.
P.S. The Lord of the Rings font bothers me on a personal level, because it's a blatent rip-off of someone elses copywritten typesetting.
2. The colours confuse me, why are we shifting towards the red side of the spectrum? I understand your wish to differentiate, but red screams negativity at me. Also, if you were to follow your trend for level 5 and go darker still, the black text would be almost (if not completely) unreadable in printed format. (Note: In printed format already, my laser did fine, my inkjet damn near soaked the paper due to high saturation in colour. On both, greyscale was unreadable by Level 4)
3. The words "All Weaves Start From These" appear in the headers of all four levels... Is this a misprint? If not, it's something that can be taken as-read and removed for brevity.
4. I had to zoom in like 7 times to read the Legend (See: Rendering Time) This perhaps should have been a seperate page instead. And 10+ times to read the lower left box of the four (See: Font)

*breaths again* That's the PDF out of the way.

Now, the theory/model itself:
1. As has already been pointed out (and debated) the wording is ambiguous, seemingly implying that rings starting with two or more rings somehow defy convention... While I am aware this is not the case, and one can easily argue that you are discussing theory not practice, it is still ambiguous. Ambiguity in a theory article is a bad thing.
2. The mathematical possibilites do not "seem" to grow exponentially, they DO grow in an exponential fashion. The trees just merge with each other along the way.
3. The line "No weave falls outside the R.I.M. Interactions that are not possible are not listed in the R.I.M." confused me the first three times I read it, until I realized it was two seperate sentances. Be careful of using acronyms to end a sentance because of this. You will often find them spelled out in such situations for clarity. (See my first comment regarding ambiguity)
I have a few more along that vein, but I think that a solid comment of "Have this proof-read by someone with ZERO understanding of chainmail to get a better view of the clarity problems" covers it.

4. Regarding the actual theory itself... I suspect that information like this would come as little surprise to the more... Mathematically inclined amongst us... Tesserex, in fact, probably had a similar chart in his head, in that regard I apologize if I am not "overwhelmed by the uniqueness", as the exponential progression is something I have been aware of since I began... I actively choose to seperate my "logical" and "artistic" sides for the vast majority of the time, as I find maille a far more appealing hobby to my own eyes when I view it from a "pretty" place, rather than a "cold, hard, numbers" place... I suspect I am not alone in this.
5. Regarding your prediction that you could encompass 90-100% of the weaves in the MAIL Database, I call shenanigans... There are FAR too many "Unit" weave (designs), and progression/positional variations in there. I predict that 40-60% may be a more accurate goal.
6. You are correct, however, that this being published may affect some peoples views on maille in the future, possibly foster more creativity...


*phew* I think I'm done... If you got through this, bravo... I look forward to discussing it with you... If you didn't get through this... You're not reading this... So, I'ma stop now.


TL;DR: From a humor perspective, my inner troll views this article as the following meme:

Discover all the weaves.
DISCOVER ALL THE WEAVES!!!!
...
Discovered all the weaves.
...Discovered all the weaves D:



Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 691
Submissions: 390
Location: Yucaipa, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:14 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

dl,

i got through your whole response! i was bracing myself, mentally, for for some really heavy criticism. i actually agree with almost everything you mentioned.

the file name and pdf stuff is actually really helpful. i didn't know anything about this. i taught myself html coding and i can tell i'm doing a lot of it the long way or the wrong way. at my core, i'm an artist and i hate having to do all the business stuff that comes with owning my own business. i have no love for computers, programming, etc. i wish i could pay someone to do it all and do it right.

the only reason % is in front of the file name is because chrome wouldn't load it and shot me a message saying - your file does not begin with a %. so i changed it and it worked. perhaps there is another alternative that i'm not getting?

all of the artistic comments are well taken and will help me to make it a better model.

i don't completely agree that there is ambiguity in the explaining of the model, but since a few people agree that there is, i will endeavor to adjust the wording.

it's really hard not to end a sentence with an acronym. my language skills are very poor. i don't think in language usually, i tend to think in images and video. starting with an image in my head, it's very difficult to translate into words and it takes a lot of energy that i would rather spend elsewhere. the result is typing in all lower case or all uppercase and horrendous spelling/grammar errors. the r.i.m. was intended to be a huge image the size of a poster that someone could hang on their wall. creating the image in my head was the fun part. making a pdf was the exhausting part.

i'm sure i didn't mention some of the points you made, but i assure you, i did read it all and i'm still feeling good. i really appreciate all of the time and effort you spent responding and examining the model.



Joined: May 08, 2010
Posts: 1156
Submissions: 11
Location: Chesapeake, VA, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:30 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

mithrilweaver wrote:
it's really hard not to end a sentence with an acronym. my language skills are very poor.


An easy solution I see to this is to stop putting all the periods in the acronym. Call it the "RIM" instead of the "R.I.M."

Just a thought...

Joined: February 19, 2011
Posts: 64
Submissions: 2
Location: Seattle, WA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:51 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Nifty!

(Actually when I think about weave classification from time to time, and play, it's more in terms of incidence matrices. Entries 0, 1, or -1 to account for the two possible directions (counter-clockwise or clockwise) which one ring could intersect another, if they do intersect. Then there's the problem of what constitutes a valid/useful normal form, and what transformations are valid between two incidence matrices, that will get us to the normal form.

There's also the fact that the number of possibilities can conceivably go up exponentially with the number of rings in a cluster (each pair may intersect clockwise, counterclockwise, or not at all, so possibly as many as 3^n possibilities... though some will be equivalent to each other). In other words, the table will likely get very large, very fast.

So maybe good to classify the smaller clusters explicitly, more hardcore theory for the larger ones. And of course there's also the issue of how to deal with the way clusters (units related by translations along a chain or sheet or space) connect. One example would be the same cluster of 6 (2-2-2) rings that, depending on how units are connected, could turn into simple 4 in 2 chain, or Byzantine.

Something simpler, like maybe a refined version of the table you offer, would possibly work better for most people here, though. Though I'm kinda hoping that at least one other person here has enough knowledge of linear algebra and group theory or graph theory to have some glimmering of what I'm getting at :)

(hi again to those who remember me; vision problems took me away from chainmailling for a while)

Joined: May 08, 2010
Posts: 1156
Submissions: 11
Location: Chesapeake, VA, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:28 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Most of what you said was gibberish to me (I never liked math, though I've been told repeatedly that I have an aptitude for it) but I just wanted to say, "Weclome back, symmetry!!" Glad to see you again. Smile

Joined: February 19, 2011
Posts: 64
Submissions: 2
Location: Seattle, WA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:06 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Jax25: Aw, thanks :)

Mostly I was talking about a way in which one could represent various clusters of rings in terms of the ways in which pairs of rings intersect, enumerate the possibilities for each size cluster, and describe ways to show that some of those representations are the same.

The way of writing this down would be like... let's say you have two rings linked to each other)...

0 1
1 0

i.e. ring 1 is linked to ring 2, ring 2 linked to ring 1, neither ring linked to itself. Two rings NOT linked to each other would be represented by

0 0
0 0

A Mobius of 3 rings would look like:

0 1 1
1 0 1
1 1 0

Simple, but when you get to 4 rings, you have to introduce the idea of handedness or clockwise/counter-clockwise intersections or you end up representing two different clusters in the same way. A counter-clockwise intersection would be represented by a -1 instead.

And then there's some more stuff about whether this covers orbital/captive weaves (no), tells us whether an array of numbers is physically possible at a given/any AR (no), or whether it says anything about how repeated units of rings connect with each other (again, no). So it would need to be fleshed out more somehow to cover those situations, and (for that matter) multiple ring size weaves.

Make more sense in a general kind of way? (Explaining is easier on a full night of sleep.)

Sneaking, er, looming suspicion this is veering sharply off-topic :(

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3064
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:27 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

*completely off topic*

Good Evening, this is Madeup Reporter with Channel 5 breaking news... We're on location in Chesapeake, VA, where a local womans head has exploded due to maths overload...
Her neighbours say she was a quiet woman, kept to herself, and made chainmail.
More on this story at 11.



Joined: May 08, 2010
Posts: 1156
Submissions: 11
Location: Chesapeake, VA, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:09 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Daemon_Lotos wrote:
*completely off topic*

Good Evening, this is Madeup Reporter with Channel 5 breaking news... We're on location in Chesapeake, VA, where a local womans head has exploded due to maths overload...
Her neighbours say she was a quiet woman, kept to herself, and made chainmail.
More on this story at 11.


Yes, that's about right. Hehehe.

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 Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:26 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Knitting Circle
Display posts from previous: