[r-t] Peals of spliced / methods committe query

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Mon Dec 20 00:49:06 UTC 2004

Mark Davies wrote:

> Two days ago I wrote,
> > You can ring more methods if you don't splice them.
> > Something wrong somewhere, surely.
> Hello? Anyone there?

In body.

Yes, you can, of course, have more methods not spliced than
spliced.  Take any peal of spliced and tack an extent of
Bedford on the end and it's no longer spliced.

Actually, this raises a (slightly) interesting question.
Suppose I take an extent of one method and insert an extent
of a second method in the middle of the first one, this
produces a trivial double extent of spliced.  But if I
put the extent at the end, it no longer counts as spliced.
This seems a little inconsistent.

It gets even more silly if I take something like a Bankes
James 2160 and insert an extent of somthing else when it
comes round in the middle.  Locally, you cannot tell whether
or not the peal is spliced or not.

It would be nice if a future set of CC decisions might
require peals of "spliced" to never go for a whole extent's
worth without a change of method.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list