Talk:The 85 Ways to Tie a Tie

Return the knot tying images
Could somebody please bring back the knot tying images? I drew the originals myself, and have full rights to them. I tried to explain this (wrote it on their talk pages) when there was a warning that they would be deleted for copyright worries but this seem ignored. I'm somewhat concerned that getting things done / reverted on wikipedia is becoming sufficiently complex and technical to prevent many non-expert wikipedians from taking part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delph2 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that someone deleted your drawings. I think that such drawings could be very helpful in this article. Would you please go to Wikimedia Commons and add your drawings again? I suggest that you immediately declare that they are your own work and you have full rights. Nowadays there is a rather neat step-by-step upload wizard that really helps uploading and choosing the correct options. Nikolas Ojala (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Physica D paper
The only paper in Physica D by a Fink is "Robustness and efficiency in inverse protein folding". Is protein folding that similar to necktie folding? —Keenan Pepper 17:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It seemingly is that similar, judging from the contents of Fink's doctoral dissertation. All in all Fink & Mao's mathematical ponderings on tie knots appear in several publications: Fink 1998: 6, 112-128, Fink & Mao 1999a: 136-139, Fink & Mao 1999b, Fink & Mao 2000.

FINK, THOMAS M. A. 1998. Inverse protein folding, hierarchical optimisation and tie knots. Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Available online: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~tmf20/DOCUMENTS/thesis2.pdf

FINK, THOMAS M. A. AND YONG MAO. 1999a. The 85 ways to tie a tie: The science and aesthetics of tie knots. London: Fourth Estate.

FINK, THOMAS M. A. AND YONG MAO. 1999b. Designing tie knots by random walks. Nature 398(04 March 1999): 31-32. Available online: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~tmf20/TIES/PAPERS/paper_nature.pdf

FINK, THOMAS M. A. AND YONG MAO. 2000. Tie knots, random walks and topology. Physica A 276: 109-121. Available online: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~tmf20/TIES/PAPERS/paper_physica_a.pdf

zeph (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The paper is in fact in Physica A: Thomas M. Fink and Yong Mao, `Tie Knots, Random Walks and Topology,' Physica A, 276, 109 (2000). The cover in use is the US hardback. More common now is the UK paperback cover, which is also the cover available to US Amazon buyers.

Here's a link to a publicly archived paper: Tie Knots, Random Walks and Topology Thomas M.A. Fink, Yong Mao, 2000. Maybe someone can add a reference?

It's now linked at the bottom of the article to a pdf version.

Just added the correct reference. zeph (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

New knot?
How about Li Co Li Ro Ci Ro Li Co T ? this is a perfectly fine and balanced knot. Why isn't it included, anyone know?

This is a variation of the Windsor knot, see the Wikipedia article on that knot, where it is listed.

Incidentally, the knot pictured in the Windsor knot article is patently knot a Windsor knot.

Hi. That one is listed here: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~tmf20/tieknots.shtml

35    Li Co Li Ro Ci Ro Li Co T   co-Windsor3

A self-releasing cousin of the Windsor.

But there are other not listed, I guess because they use more than 9 moves. Check the wonderful Merovingian/Matrix Henry Hu knot: http://xirdal.lmu.de/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/ Ri Co Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ci T

and

Ri Co Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Co Li Ro Ci T

Even a more complex one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3X_t7fysLA

Fair use rationale for Image:The 85 ways.jpg
Image:The 85 ways.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move limit
I think the 85 knots should be clarified as a consequence of assuming knots greater than 9 moves are too big for a standard tie. Thoughts? 140.163.254.157 (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Knot Representation
The knot representation section needs more information as to what each move specifies, or perhaps an explanation of tie tying terminoligy. At least include some diagrams. This page is however, a useful resource for the novice tie tie'er. Jonoerik (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's says "tie knots can be described as a sequence of five different possible moves" but i count 7: Li, Lo, Ri, Ro, Co, Ci, T. Someone should correct or explain better. --Chenshak (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Unknown symmetry?
I'm not quite sure where the 'unknown's are coming from in symmetry column the table of knots. I haven't found any such uncertainty in the book, and I'm not sure what the citation to the homepage is trying to convey. Any reason to not complete that column in accordance with the data in the book? JamesLucas (" " / +) 13:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Flagging with
This article appears to promote this book. The inclusion of so much extraneous information regarding its authors and publication is a red flag. I'm not disputing its notability, but many of the very specific claims are not specifically referenced. The implication appears to be that they are covered/proved in the book or articles. If I buy this interesting looking book in order to write a reasonable article, who will have won? ;) --Dfred (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Visual or mathematical symmetry?
At least two knots, #1 and #4, have visual symmetry opposite the mathematical symmetry. Which one should the Symmetry column indicate? Or should there be a column for each? Or add an asterisk and note to specify that the knot is visually (as)symmetrical, opposite the mathematical symmetry? Sbowers3 (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)