[r-t] Decisions decisions
I.Fielding at rbh.nthames.nhs.uk
Mon Dec 6 11:38:09 UTC 2004
Well, Since you ask:
>I think there is, really. To me, single-lead methods are interesting
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
I was trying to help answer you question about how we might want to define
method in the rules.
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??
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory