How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:

Lynn wrote:
This defintion of accessory variant regarding crease III, implies that accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II
doesn't it?

Accessory II in the Suwon is most likely a lot longer than the II part of II + III as it is probably a fairly normal PTC or head line. (but that isn't in the report either ) Obviously not criteria.

No Patti, this is not 'most likely' at all:

Because your assumption here directly violates the requirement regarding: '...more than half of the length of...'.

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:

Lynn wrote:
This defintion of accessory variant regarding crease III, implies that accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II
doesn't it?

Accessory II in the Suwon is most likely a lot longer than the II part of II + III as it is probably a fairly normal PTC or head line. (but that isn't in the report either ) Obviously not criteria.

No Patti, this is not 'most likely' at all:

Because your assumption here directly violates the requirement regarding: '...more than half of the length of...'.

But I recognize how your 'reasoning' here is a direct result of where you located the connections in the Korean Suwon exmple + the example which Lynn re-introduced earlier this evening.

You probably don't realize that Lynn is saying the opposite of what you are saying.

She is saying the Accessory II crease needs to be longer than 1/2 of the II part of II+III. (If you think about it, that is pretty short)

You are stating that the II part of the II+III needs to be more than 1/2 the length of Accessory II.

But, I'm glad to hear that you are both in agreement with each other.

Patti... obvouisly you didn't notice that I responded to your comment only.

And it is very obvious that you are assuming here something that is not explicitely said by Lynn at all. Because she only talked about 'half the length of II':

"This defintion of accessory variant regarding crease III, implies that accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II"

Which means that Lynn is only saying: the head line part in the fused line is more than half the length of II. Actually, I recognize, Lynn's word choice was probably a bit confusing by using the 'acessory' to refer the II part of the II+III.


While you assumed her that she said:

"Accessory II crease needs to be longer than 1/2 of the II part of II+III"

Which is not was Lynn described at all, because she was only 'translating' the guide from figure 5 from the III line to the II line... but she did not mention the the II+III at all!!!

EDIT:

(But I admit, Lynn's 'direct' translation became a bit confusing, because she did not explicitely mentioned that when using the words 'accessory II' in that context ... that she was not referring there to the 'accessory II' part of the Suwon crease.)

And Patti, because you didn't notice that... it no longer made sense how you started applying the length criterium on the 'accessory II' part of the Suwon crease by comparing it to the II-part of the II+III. Again, Lynn made here comment resulting directly from what is written in figure 5. And the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! Not half of the length of the II part in the II+III.



... Again, I was only responding to your comment - not Lynn's comment!

(I understood what she tried to say, as she was clearly referring to the only passage in the Korean article where the length of an 'accessory' crease is discussed... in the perspective of a normal III)

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:

Lynn wrote:
This defintion of accessory variant regarding crease III, implies that accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II
doesn't it?

Accessory II in the Suwon is most likely a lot longer than the II part of II + III as it is probably a fairly normal PTC or head line. (but that isn't in the report either ) Obviously not criteria.

No Patti, this is not 'most likely' at all:

Because your assumption here directly violates the requirement regarding: '...more than half of the length of...'.

I don't see what's wrong with Patti's statement, or how it violates any requirement about length. ??

Lynn, the problem here is that Patti 'mixes' various perspectives by taking your words out of context:

Let me explain this by detail...

In the article the requirement regarding the length of the 'accessory III' line is putten in the perspective of a normal 'III' line.

But in the Suwon crease we really need to adjust the criterium to the perspective that we are discussing, because in the Suwon crease the 'accessory II' line... can be described as the normal 'II' line...!!!

I hope this makes sense so far?


Now, in the perspective of the Suwon crease Patti is trying to put the 'length' criterium on only the 'accessory II'... but that concern the normal head line!

My point is: that it in the Suwon crease it does not make sense to put the length criterium for the 'accessory II' in the perspective of the II part of the II+III... because obviously, that is not a normal 'II' at all!!!

'Capice?' ...


PS. In my former post I explained how Patti made herself an assumption based on a small confusing element in your words, because you wrote: "accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II" ... but I understood that you only talking of an 'accessory II' in the perspective of the guidelines for figure 5.... and that you were not talking about the 'accessory II' of the Suwon crease!

So, we really NEED to 'adjust' the vocabulary to apply the criterium described in fig 5 to the Suwon crease... otherwise this leads to nonsense!

My point is: that it in the Suwon crease it does not make sense to put the length criterium for the 'accessory II' in the perspective of the II part of the II+III... because obviously, that is not a normal 'II' at all!!!

'Capice?' ... wave

Lynn wrote:No Martijn, that wasn't what I was saying!! It seems that I have misunderstood something. Martijn, you misinterpreted what I was saying, Patti understood what I was saying!! I was indeed referring to the II part of III+II.
After all, that is the only II in a suwon crease - the headline is accessory II.

My point is: that it in the Suwon crease it does not make sense to put the length criterium for the 'accessory II' in the perspective of the II part of the II+III... because obviously, that is not a normal 'II' at all!!!

'Capice?' ... wave

Yes absolutely, it seemed a ridiculous thing to say when I wrote it!
If they are talking about accessory creases only in the perspective of being additional to the normal creases (ie 'sister lines') that makes perfect sense - as Patti already said before.

As the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! then we can't transfer the statement in fig 5 to a suwon crease, because II is not a full line. I don't seehow we can start 'adjusting vocabulary'. That would mean changing II to accessory II.

Sorry I have not contributed anything at all useful to this discussion! I thought I understood it, but it seems I am very confused!!!

Okay Lynn, thanks for explaining your thoughts + what you exactly had in mind. And great to see that you were able to confirm that there indeed was a (small) mistake in your words.

But I think you have not much to worry about... because I clearly recognize how this 'new' problem for your... is a direct result of how the Korean authors choose their vocabulary to describe the Sydney line and the Suwon crease!!


Actually, you know what... there is one more thought that I did not share yet during all our discussions about the Suwon crease... but now I have found the appropriate moment to share it:

I observe that that Korean researchers have made one (little) fundamental mistake in their vocabulary!


From the beginning when I introduced the Korean article (summer of 2010) - I was not happy at all with how the Korean authors defined both the Sydney lines AND the Suwon crease:

Because there is a very strange element in their vocabulary choice, which relates directly to how they described in both definitions a NORMAL CREASE as an ACCESSORY crease...!

This 'choice' simply doesn't make sense at all!


But only now I see... that this is element that CREATES unnessary problems... and the problem that you are faced with (which you've described exellent in your post), is a clear illustration!


For, IF the researcher simply had used the following definitions:

Sydney lines = 'II+accessory III' plus 'III'
Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II'

... then we would not have been confronted with the problem that you described at all!


However, because I understand that your problem is directly resulting from this 'strange element' in the vocabulary of the Korean researchers.... I think you actually understood their guidelines properly (regarding the 'length' criterium), but now you appear to be a little bit confused - only because of the problem that you described.


Lynn, I can only hope that you recognize as well... that 'your problem' would not have existed if the researchers had not made the FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE in their vocabulary!




PS. Thank you very much for pointing out this problem, no I finally see that the problematic aspect of the Korean article:

They have presented formulas which may 'appear' beautiful... but both include a 'confusing element', which could even be described as a fundamental mistake:

The Korean researchers defined: Sydney crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory III'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Sydney crease = 'II + accessory III' plus 'III', because it is simply realistic)

and:

The Korean researchers defined: Suwon crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory II'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II' , because it is simply more realistic)

Patti wrote:
I was well aware that Lynn meant that Accessory II was the Normal Head Line. If you actually read my words it's pretty obvious. We had this discussion earlier as to why the normal head line was called Accessory.

No sense of humor around here?

It was just funny to me that the actual words written were opposite and there was all this arguing and red letters over other minute details and this was overlooked.

... Thanks for pointing out how you meant to present your comment, but Lynn was trying to point out a point seriously.


By the way Patti, I also see no indication that you had spotted the 'little mistake' in the vocabulary of Lynn's argument; you also assumed that I made a wrong assumption, but at that moment I had not responded to that comment from Lynn at all!


PS. In my last post I have pointed out that there is a fundamental mistake in the Korean vocabulary... and I have described a rather simple solution, which solves Lynn's (small) problem directly!

Lynn wrote:No Martijn, that wasn't what I was saying!! It seems that I have misunderstood something. Martijn, you misinterpreted what I was saying, Patti understood what I was saying!! I was indeed referring to the II part of III+II.
After all, that is the only II in a suwon crease - the headline is accessory II.

My point is: that it in the Suwon crease it does not make sense to put the length criterium for the 'accessory II' in the perspective of the II part of the II+III... because obviously, that is not a normal 'II' at all!!!

'Capice?' ... wave

Yes absolutely, it seemed a ridiculous thing to say when I wrote it!
If they are talking about accessory creases only in the perspective of being additional to the normal creases (ie 'sister lines') that makes perfect sense - as Patti already said before.

As the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! then we can't transfer the statement in fig 5 to a suwon crease, because II is not a full line. I don't seehow we can start 'adjusting vocabulary'. That would mean changing II to accessory II.

Sorry I have not contributed anything at all useful to this discussion! I thought I understood it, but it seems I am very confused!!!

As the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! then we can't transfer the statement in fig 5 to a suwon crease, because II is not a full line. I don't seehow we can start 'adjusting vocabulary'. That would mean changing II to accessory II.

Patti wrote:

Patti wrote:...

Sorry I have not contributed anything at all useful to this discussion! I thought I understood it, but it seems I am very confused!!!

Thank you Lynn!!
Actually this is a great contribution (from my point of view )

I agree:

As the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! then we can't transfer the statement in fig 5 to a suwon crease, because II is not a full line. I don't seehow we can start 'adjusting vocabulary'. That would mean changing II to accessory II.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:No Martijn, that wasn't what I was saying!! It seems that I have misunderstood something. Martijn, you misinterpreted what I was saying, Patti understood what I was saying!! I was indeed referring to the II part of III+II.
After all, that is the only II in a suwon crease - the headline is accessory II.

My point is: that it in the Suwon crease it does not make sense to put the length criterium for the 'accessory II' in the perspective of the II part of the II+III... because obviously, that is not a normal 'II' at all!!!

'Capice?' ... wave

Yes absolutely, it seemed a ridiculous thing to say when I wrote it!
If they are talking about accessory creases only in the perspective of being additional to the normal creases (ie 'sister lines') that makes perfect sense - as Patti already said before.

As the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! then we can't transfer the statement in fig 5 to a suwon crease, because II is not a full line. I don't seehow we can start 'adjusting vocabulary'. That would mean changing II to accessory II.

Sorry I have not contributed anything at all useful to this discussion! I thought I understood it, but it seems I am very confused!!!

Okay Lynn, thanks for explaining your thoughts + what you exactly had in mind. And great to see that you were able to confirm that there indeed was a (small) mistake in your words.

But I think you have not much to worry about... because I clearly recognize how this 'new' problem for your... is a direct result of how the Korean authors choose their vocabulary to describe the Sydney line and the Suwon crease!!


Actually, you know what... there is one more thought that I did not share yet during all our discussions about the Suwon crease... but now I have found the appropriate moment to share it:

I observe that that Korean researchers have made one (little) fundamental mistake in their vocabulary!


From the beginning when I introduced the Korean article (summer of 2010) - I was not happy at all with how the Korean authors defined both the Sydney lines AND the Suwon crease:

Because there is a very strange element in their vocabulary choice, which relates directly to how they described in both definitions a NORMAL CREASE as an ACCESSORY crease...!

This 'choice' simply doesn't make sense at all!


But only now I see... that this is element that CREATES unnessary problems... and the problem that you are faced with (which you've described exellent in your post), is a clear illustration!


For, IF the researcher simply had used the following definitions:

Sydney lines = 'II+accessory III' plus 'III'
Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II'

... then we would not have been confronted with the problem that you described at all!


However, because I understand that your problem is directly resulting from this 'strange element' in the vocabulary of the Korean researchers.... I think you actually understood their guidelines properly (regarding the 'length' criterium), but now you appear to be a little bit confused - only because of the problem that you described.


Lynn, I can only hope that you recognize as well... that 'your problem' would not have existed if the researchers had not made the FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE in their vocabulary!




PS. Thank you very much for pointing out this problem, no I finally see that the problematic aspect of the Korean article:

They have presented formulas which may 'appear' beautiful... but both include a 'confusing element', which could even be described as a fundamental mistake:

Sydney crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory III'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Sydney crease = 'II + accessory III' plus 'III', because it is simply realistic)

and:

Suwon crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory II'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II' , because it is simply more realistic)

Martijn (admin) wrote:Okay Lynn, thanks for explaining your thoughts + what you exactly had in mind. And great to see that you were able to confirm that there indeed was a (small) mistake in your words.

But I think you have not much to worry about... because I clearly recognize how this 'new' problem for your... is a direct result of how the Korean authors choose their vocabulary to describe the Sydney line and the Suwon crease!!


Actually, you know what... there is one more thought that I did not share yet during all our discussions about the Suwon crease... but now I have found the appropriate moment to share it:

I observe that that Korean researchers have made one (little) fundamental mistake in their vocabulary!


From the beginning when I introduced the Korean article (summer of 2010) - I was not happy at all with how the Korean authors defined both the Sydney lines AND the Suwon crease:

Because there is a very strange element in their vocabulary choice, which relates directly to how they described in both definitions a NORMAL CREASE as an ACCESSORY crease...!

This 'choice' simply doesn't make sense at all!


But only now I see... that this is element that CREATES unnessary problems... and the problem that you are faced with (which you've described exellent in your post), is a clear illustration!


For, IF the researcher simply had used the following definitions:

Sydney lines = 'II+accessory III' plus 'III'
Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II'

... then we would not have been confronted with the problem that you described at all!


However, because I understand that your problem is directly resulting from this 'strange element' in the vocabulary of the Korean researchers.... I think you actually understood their guidelines properly (regarding the 'length' criterium), but now you appear to be a little bit confused - only because of the problem that you described.


Lynn, I can only hope that you recognize as well... that 'your problem' would not have existed if the researchers had not made the FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE in their vocabulary!




PS. Thank you very much for pointing out this problem, no I finally see that the problematic aspect of the Korean article:

They have presented formulas which may 'appear' beautiful... but both include a 'confusing element', which could even be described as a fundamental mistake:

Sydney crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory III'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Sydney crease = 'II + accessory III' plus 'III', because it is simply realistic)

and:

Suwon crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory II'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II' , because it is simply more realistic)

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:

Patti wrote:...

Sorry I have not contributed anything at all useful to this discussion! I thought I understood it, but it seems I am very confused!!!

Thank you Lynn!!
Actually this is a great contribution (from my point of view )

I agree:

As the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! then we can't transfer the statement in fig 5 to a suwon crease, because II is not a full line. I don't seehow we can start 'adjusting vocabulary'. That would mean changing II to accessory II.

I have already described the necessary 'adjustment' to solve this problem (+ other problems!):

In one of my earliers post I have describe the following improvements for the Korean formulas:

The researcher defined: Sydney crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory III'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Sydney crease = 'II + accessory III' plus 'III', because it is simply realistic)

and:

The reseachers defined: Suwon crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory II'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II' , because it is simply more realistic)



PS. Patti, just mentioned that she had already discussed this 'irrationality' in the Korean article about that the researchers had decided to call a NORMAL head line: 'accessory II':

Patti wrote:
I was well aware that Lynn meant that Accessory II was the Normal Head Line. If you actually read my words it's pretty obvious. We had this discussion earlier as to why the normal head line was called Accessory.

Patti wrote:
We all did discuss this aspect from the very beginning and complained that a somewhat normal DTC or PTC should be labelled as Accessory.

...

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:
We all did discuss this aspect from the very beginning and complained that a somewhat normal DTC or PTC should be labelled as Accessory.

...

Sorry, I don't remember you complaining about that aspect at all.
And I am wonderingl... who is the 'we'?


What I remember was that everybody - including myself - experienced problems in understanding what the Korean researchers had described in their article, and those problems related to both their words and their pictures.

Lynn wrote:
This has confused me from the start. Six months ago on the thread where you introduced the Suwon crease, I said
" I don't understand why they are classing main headline as an accessory. ie why it is 'accessory II' as opposed to (main) II "

re great to see that you were able to confirm that there indeed was a (small) mistake in your words.
erm,,, Did I confirm this? What mistake did I make in my words?
yes I am seriously confused!

Lynn, if you simply adopt the recommendation that I described for the formulas... your problem regarding how to apply the 'length' critirium is immediately solved.

I hope you will try... and report the result!

'Simples'!


PS. Yes, I see that you probably have not yet recognize how by applying the vocabulary presented by the researchers for the 'length' criterium (quotes from figur 5C):

"(C): III is accompanied by accessory palm creases which are parallel and more than half of the III length."

...directly made you write the following sentence:

"This defintion of accessory variant regarding crease III, implies that accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II"


But it is crucial to notice here that figure 5C only mentions 'accessory palm creases' in the perspective of a NORMAL crease; and therefore I explained why in the perspective of the Suwon crease this criterium really has to be 'transformed'!

Because it would be 'unintelligent' to apply this criterium litterally to how the researchers defined the Suwon crease, because obiously, in their definition of the Suwon crease the 'accessory II' IS the NORMAL head line... and formally it can not be described as an 'accessory palm crease' at all, because it IS the NORMAL crease!


Again, Lynn... my proposal solves your problem (+ your confusion) permanently!

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:
We all did discuss this aspect from the very beginning and complained that a somewhat normal DTC or PTC should be labelled as Accessory.

...

Sorry, I don't remember you complaining about that aspect at all.
And I am wonderingl... who is the 'we'?


What I remember was that everybody - including myself - experienced problems in understanding what the Korean researchers had described in their article, and those problems related to both their words and their pictures.

I answered you here:

https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t199p225-report-korean-researchers-discovered-the-suwon-crease-only-observed-in-males#9181

Thanks! - Then my 'proposal' also solves your earlier complaint ...

By the way, regarding the comment that was posted by Lynn, that is only one of the many issues that she wondered about ... I can hardly call that a complaint


Anyway, I think I have described in my earlier posts why it is NECESSARY to 'correct' this minor issue in the vocabulary used by the Korean authors... in order to solve multiple problems all at once.

Lynn wrote:Martijn, You previously said that I think we better simply focuss on the facts as described in the article,.........
Any 'argument' that moves away from those facts as presented in the article... can fairly be described as a speculative 'opion'.

Yet now you are saying that we need to transform something that they said. Is that a speculative opinion??

Lynn, this sounds like a 'rethoric question' only

(EDIT: Regarding the comment that you are referring to, I made that comment in the perspective of the fact that Patti had started making considerations which went far beyond the contents of the article... and meanwhile she was not even willing to acknowledge the relevance of the criteria described in the article, specified to the guideline for figure 5c).


Remember... what is relevant here is that we all experienced at least some problems with that the researcher described as normal head line as 'accessory II'.


And don't you think that it would be a very sensible choice... if we can agree on the implications of my suggestion... to simply adopt that suggestion, especially since it solves multiple problems at once!

The picture below would then be the result... and it would be quite 'stupid move' (I have never used this word before)... to disqualify this 'formal' improvement - solely with 'rethorics'!


So, I observe that your 'rethoric question' might not be relevant here.
Does this make sense?



PS. You can study the details in this new picture by clicking here:
https://i.servimg.com/u/f25/15/45/02/10/common12.jpg

Lynn wrote:Yes it makes sense to change it. All along I have not understood why they used their temrinology "accessory II" for main headline. I / we always thought that the main headline should be II and the part joined to the heartline should be accessory II.

Patti wrote:

I'll leave you two to develop the "VanMensvoort Improved Analysis of Palm Creases"

Lynn wrote:Yes Martijn I recognise how it makes the length requirement more sensible.

However in making these changes, we are using a different vocabulary to the researchers. I feel sure that normally you would never advocate doing such a thing!
It could even make the discussion more complicated (eg in instances when talking about accessory crease II - are we discussing your new definition or the researchers definition.)

Okay Lynn, thanks again for your feedback.


Yes you are right... I would not advocate such a thing easily. But I am not really introducing a 'different vocabulary': because if the researchers had not used the word 'accessory' in their two examples for the Sydney line and Suwon crease, I think we would not have been confronted with this problem at all.

Because in their writtings they only speak an: "... accessory II", which could be read as a '... a second II'; but we - in our discussions - started talking about 'accessory II', while the researcher have not done that explicitely.

Afterall, it tooks us about 9 months to find the clues provides in figure 5C... and some of us have read the details in the article over-and-over again (I am thinking about Patti).

So, I think we should make the Korean article more important than it really is. Their name 'accessory II' for a normal head line, and 'accessory III' for a normal head line... could easily be described as a servious fundamental mistake in their vocabulary... and I think this explains why their definition of the Suwon crease is so confusing... that some of use here think that they are observing Suwon creases in many hands (I am not only thining about Patti, others have also presented examples of relatively common hand line variants... which they assumed that it could include a Suwon crease).


Therefore...

For me, after being confronted with the problem that you described earlier today - directly resulting from their guidelines for the accessory crease in fig.5C - I could even speak about a CLEAR 'contradiction' in the Korean guidelines.


And after saying this... I can also report a few other 'contradictions' in how they presented their materials:

- Because by fact, in figure 3 they have defined the Sydney line as: 'II+III' plus accessory III, illustrated with a picture which shows a Sydney line compose by two line parts which each clearly have a different structure.
- But in figure 4 they have presented their no.1. Sydney variant as just one 'extended head line'. It would have made more sense it they had presented their 'Sydney 2' variant as the no.1 variant - because only then that would confirm the Sydney line formula.

(And I could describe a likewise problem regarding their illustration of the simian line: both example in figure 3 and the first Simian line variant in figure 4 do not confirm the formula)


And finally... that they also sort of re-defined the Sydney line in this article: by describing it with the formula:'II+II' plus 'accessory III. They should have mentioned that this concerns a RE-DEFINITION of how a Sydney line can be understood properly.


However, I also would like to add that I really do admire their efforts + their new method.

But unfortunately, from my point of view... after 9 months of discussion their vocabulary has not survived the 'test of time'. Simply because it is rather confusing in how they used the term 'accessory crease' in the perspective of both the Sydney line and the Suwon crease.

Anyway, I will continue to use their method to discriminate a simian line, from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease... but now it no longer makes sense for me to continue using their 'accessory' concept for a normal head line and a normal heat line.

Because obviously, they have followed the classic approach for defining an 'accessory crease' (described in figure 5C)... but then they did have not succeeded to INTEGRATE that classic approach properly in their new concepts for both the Sydney line and the Suwon crease.


Let's hope that, if the Korean re-definitions are adopted in new studies... then we should hope that the researchers will not follow that aspect of their Korean vocabulary.

Anyway, great to know that that my 'proposal' does make sense for you... but I don't expect any new problems. Instead, this actually solves a significant part of the problems that we have been confronted with in our discussions so far!