[r-t] Major Extents (2)

Robin Woolley robin at robinw.org.uk
Sat Nov 13 10:23:37 UTC 2004

Thinking about it a bit more, ecision (D)B2(b) says:

"Round blocks of two or more extents in which each of the possible rows at
that stage occurs the same number of times."

('Truth' is defined, imnplicitly, in (D)B2(a):

"Extents, in which each of the possible rows at that stage occurs once and
only once.")

Firstly, this applies to peals on seven or less. But why is it necessary? It
must be because there are those out there who would quite happily ring round
blocks where they have cherry picked the most musical changes. Taking a
simple example, we could ring a 240 of Grandsire with queens & tittums
ocurring  4 times each instead of the regulation twice.A round block of more
than 120 doubles can never be true, in the sense an extent is 'true and
complete', but they are 'acceptably false'. (In a sense, as Price's 5090 of
Cambridge is 'acceptably false' - see RW88/1227 - not exactly the same, I

Having replaced 'true' by 'acceptably false', we can then decide what is
'acceptably false' means on eight bells or more. The significant point here
is that the decision on eight or more has no subsections, it simply says

"Peals of Major, Caters, Royal, etc. shall be rung on eight, nine, ten, etc.
bells respectively, or on nine, ten, eleven, etc. bells with the tenor as
cover, and shall consist of at least 5000 true changes."

The rules for eight or more have to be different - if they wern't, no peals
of nine or more would have been rung.

It may be that the complete extent argument would win the day, but it's not
necessarily correct within the ethos of ringing, is it?

I'm also reminded of comments at the start of October concerning a 40432 of
DNCBM. You didn't mention the multi-extent requirement then, Ben.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list