[r-t] Re: Hodgson

Robin Woolley robin at robinw.org.uk
Tue Sep 21 15:42:38 UTC 2004

Clarrie & Graham may have a point when it comes to Hodgson's paper. I did
not find it easy reading.

This may be because the author was not very good
at explanations or because he tried to restrict himself to in-course
tenors together falseness which meant he had to jump through quite a few
hoops on the way. This 'simplification' caused a lot of trouble here,

As Graham points out, falseness should be understandable
by most people with 'O' level maths. Having told myself this and decided it
wasn't me but Hodgson at fault in his way of doing it, I did it myself from
first principles. I even published a book. I was especially pleased to find
a proof of the fact that a symmetric section only has one type of falseness
as does the section when inverted, but this is not 'necessary & sufficient
as it is possible to have an asymmetric section with just one type
falseness. I even found a relationship between incidence of falseness.
As regards obfuscation, there is a lot of it about. It probably comes about
in one of the following ways (in increasing order of frequency)
a) failure to understand the problem.
b) unintentional,
c) intentional - as Newton was prone to do.

Penultimately, as Graham said earlier today, the MC MUST use software to
extensions and this needs to be made available. I am quite happy to use
MS-DOS programs - being of a certain age!

Finally, in my last, I meant "the 'corresponding' (3-4) section."

Best wishes

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list