[r-t] All the work minor
holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Wed Dec 1 22:14:25 UTC 2004
Actually, decision E A 1 b seems rather strangely worded:
(b) A method is defined by the places made between successive rows of its
plain course, which shall be a true round block, divisible into equal
parts which are called leads. Starting the plain course from a different
change does not give a different method.
It's not clear what "equal" parts means - one would have thought the
intention was "having the same sequence of places made". If that's indeed
the case I don't see how one can interpret a one-lead method as having
anything other than all hunt bells.
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Mark Davies wrote:
>> You can't ring a 6ths place version of a group a method or a
>> 2nds place version of a group m, can you?
> I'm not entirely sure why not, Graham. Is a one-lead method not a method? If
> not, why not?
> The only strong argument I can see is that the term "method" implies some
> kind of internal structure (the course) which a single-lead method would not
> have (meaning, for instance, it would be hard to classify such methods per
> se). But if we accept that, then we must accept a corresponding breakage of
> symmetry: some methods have 2nd's and nth's place versions, some don't. I'm
> not sure, but I imagine when you are considering multi-spliced this is not
> an asymmetry you really want to be bothered with. It is certainly not
> important to the Grid view.
> Turning (if we must) to the current Methods Committee Decisions, the wording
> at first glance may seem to exclude one-lead methods, and I know from my
> correspondence with him over the Toyota Axioms that it was the intention of
> Tony Smith to exclude such methods. However the current drafting of the
> Decisions is quite lax in this area, and open to interpretation. Reading the
> current wording, we could interpret one-lead methods as having neither hunt
> nor working bells, and hence allowable since there are not fewer working
> bells than hunt bells.
> Someone should try a test case really...
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory