You are not Logged In! -- Please consider creating an account. (It's free!)
This is the BETA version of the Articles Library -- Expect occasional bugs -- Report them to Daemon_Lotos => [Here]

# Least Common Denominator(LCD) Weave PhilosophyArticle © MAIL User: ElementalDragon

From Tesserex's Definitions of Weave Terms article:
"Ring Group:
A set of parallel rings that have all intersections in common, and which have no rings obstructing maximal planar contact between rings. For all technical purposes, ring groups can be treated as single rings"

As an example of this statement, let's take a look at good old Byzantine. Typically Byzantine is done with two connector rings between the "boxes". Those two connector rings perfectly exemplify the definition of a ring group. And therein lies the crux of the least common denominator maille philosophy.

The LCD weave philosophy is a belief that a weave is defined by single rings, and that ring groups are merely cosmetic adjustments to any given weave. This is a development from ideas such as Tesserex's ring group definition, and a belief that "kinged" weaves and the like are not really new weaves, but just variants or cosmetically altered versions of a weave. Think of it like cosmetic plastic surgery. Cosmetic plastic surgery does not change how a person's parts go together, just how those parts appear.

However, as with any rule, there seem to be exceptions. Back to Byzantine, again. Applying the LCD philosophy to Byzantine would define the weave with single connector rings between the boxes. The exception here is that by mathematical regression from Celtic Roundmaille (4) and Turkish Round (3) (both of which seem to be derived from mathematical progression from Byzantine), 2 connectors should define Byzantine. This type of situation may be something to keep in mind if you choose to apply this concept yourself.

Of course, Byzantine is not the only weave that could be affected by this concept. Helm/Parallel Chain is another commonly used weave that typically uses a 2 ring ring group in its construction. As far as I know, however, there is not a progression/regression relationship that would justify the weave being defined with those two connector rings. Although there is some discussion as to whether having captive rings makes a new weave in certain instances, captive weaves also could be considered under this theory. One captive or 100, it's still the same.

There are some decisions to take into consideration with this philosophy. As with other stances on what constitutes a weave, there is room for discussion over the validity of this stance. And while this is a short document, relatively speaking, the core concept is here, and pretty much anything more would just consist of picking apart weaves one by one, to a greater extent than I did in the previous paragraph. I do hope this gives some food for thought to those who are inclined to the study and analysis of weaves.

Original URL: http://www.mailleartisans.org/articles/articledisplay.php?key=518