[r-t] Grandsire Triples (was old methods)

[edward martin]

How's this:
The 5040 can be set out in 60 blocks where every lead is a common single.
The problem then is to link these 60 blocks without using bobs or any other
device other than  plain leads.
Because plain leads exist in sets of 5, it seems to me that we are once
again up against the old q-set difficulty of adding an even number to an odd
wch can never result in the total being even. I think it brings me back to
my old gripe about 'New Grandsire' For, as I recall (& I don't recall things
too well) when I was looking for as many all singles as poss, I came up
against blocks which cannot be rung to Grandsire (start with 7ths and end
with 3rds) but would be ok if we called this 'New Grandsire'.
But, on the insistance of the current Methods Committee Chairman, 'New
Grandsire' is really Grandsire.

Having initially called "Go Grandsire", when the conducter came to the (New
Grandsire) biits, what would he call other than an expletive?

Eddie

2008/7/16 edward martin <edward.w.martin at gmail.com>:

>  I am truly flattered Don.
> It is possible to get 5040s of ANY twin hunt triples method, only
> using Holt's singles. From a ringer's point of view they are nasty, but from
> a composer's point of view they directly link two leads with no other
> complications.
> but, young Ben raises a question which right now I don't have time to look
> into. I rather think that it is not poss but am at that stage of life where
> I can't remember where I last put down my spectacles let alone proof of such
> interesting topics... must go now
>
> Eddie
>
> 2008/7/16 Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>:
>
>  On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Ben Willetts <ben at benjw.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> Is it possible to have an extent of Grandsire Triples using only one
>> >> kind of call, which I presume would be some sort of funny single?
>> >
>> > I take it that it is not, then, possible to get an extent with just
>> ordinary
>> > singles.  Why not?
>>
>> I conjecture that it is likely not possible, based on none having
>> been published, to the best of my knowledge, but there being at least
>> one published by Eddie Martin that appeared to be trying to maximize
>> the number of singles used. But I really don't know.
>>
>> But then, twenty years ago such a conjecture would have applied to
>> bobs only Stedman Triples, too, wouldn't it?
>>
>> Certainly an ordinary singles only composition would be a better
>> solution than a funny singles only composition.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
>> "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful,
>> is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I
>> say that there is plenty more stupidity than hydrogen, and that
>> is the basic building block of the universe."       -- Frank Zappa
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ringing-theory mailing list
>> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
>> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080716/550baf9d/attachment-0004.html>