[r-t] Decisions decisions

[Fielding Ian]

Well, Since you ask:

You sid:

>I think there is, really. To me, single-lead methods are interesting
because
they break open a gap between how we might want to define things in
theoretical terms, and how we actually experience methods and touches in the
tower. In some ways single-lead methods look no different from any other
type, the degenerate case obviously; but there are lots of reasons why we
might want to treat them with the same consideration as anything else.

>What I imagine there must be, is some underlying concept that makes
single-lead methods, despite all the arguments we can use for them, and the
symmetry they bring to leadhead swaps, useless to us.

My reply said:

>Maybe the rules should
allow methods with short courses if you can generate more than 1 lead of the
method without it running false without a call (l/e or h/l). This would
allow the short course LS methods that were rung at Birmingham a few years
ago which have some practical use, but weed out the worthless one lead
methods.

I was trying to help answer you question about how we might want to define
method in the rules. 

Glint

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Davies [mailto:mark at snowtiger.net]
Sent: 03 December 2004 19:26
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: [r-t] Decisions decisions


> but methods with only one lead are of no
> practical use whatsoever. 

Glint, have you not read any of this thread??

MBD

_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net