Sir
I have spent some time in front of a mirror studying the conclusions of the Fink-Mao analysis of tie knots. As my profession of lexicography involves close attention to terminology, I was interested to note the authors' restraint in not proposing names for the unnamed knots.
The first knot in the table, {3, 1}, which is even simpler than the common ‘four-in-hand’ {4, 1}, is presumably a ‘three-in-hand’. The ‘inside-out’ knot {7, 2}, after its introductory move, in fact consists of the same moves as the half-Windsor {6, 2}, but inverted left to right. It might be referred to as the ‘inverse half-Windsor’. The more complex knot {9, 3} bears the same relationship to the Windsor, and so might be called the ‘inverse Windsor’.
The knot {7, 3} concludes with the same winding sequence as the half-Windsor, but begins with an ‘LC’ move reminiscent of the full Windsor, and reproducing the beginning of the Pratt knot {5, 2}. I suggest it must be either a ‘three-quarter-Windsor’ or a ‘Pratt-Windsor’.
That leaves the curious {8, 2}, a superficially elegant knot which (as an Oxford man) I suggest calling the ‘Cambridge’, and the monumental {9, 4}, for which the name ‘Cavendish’ presents itself, in honour of the originating institution.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marshall, J. Sartorial simplicity is knot what it seems. Nature 398, 455 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/18957-c1
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/18957-c1
This article is cited by
-
Cancer fellowships awarded on merit
Nature (1999)