[r-t] Non-distinct fragments

[Philip Saddleton]

Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk> wrote at 00:58:50 on Sun, 21 
Nov 2004
>The problem is that C.1 prevents us ringing something like Double 
>Cambridge Cyclic and DNCB Major half-lead spliced for no obvious 
>reason.

There is perhaps a case for allowing half-lead spliced to included 
situations where the other half of a lead can be inferred by symmetry 
other than conventional symmetry about the half-lead - but I think we'll 
wait until the demand for such compositions has been established.

>It would also allow you to ring Cambridge, Primrose, Ipswich, Norfolk, 
>King Edward, Queen Mary etc S Minor half-lead spliced, provided that 
>you had sufficient fragments of the methods to justify that they were 
>distinctly defined.

How many methods would this be? There are six fragments and nine 
possible leads - but all of the fragments are contained in only three 
methods. Currently you can claim to have rung nine methods spliced at 
the lead end (which some might dispute), but can't claim it as half-lead 
spliced. This seems reasonable to me.

-- 
Regards
Philip
http://www.saddleton.freeuk.com/