[r-t] Hudson stuff

[Graham John]

Richard Smith wrote:

> I think this is rather unfair -- you make it sound like
> "direct application of group theory" and "original analysis
> and thought" are mutually exclusive.

Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that, and I recognise that there are a
significant number of highly qualified mathematicians on this list. In fact
I fully understand that mathematical notation provides a concise means of
communication. Furthermore if you have studied group theory, your knowledge
of it would contribute to your understanding of and application to ringing
theory, whether consciously or not.

I guess that my frustration, and I assume Clarrie's, is that references to
mathematician's theories and the associated notation does not mean anything
to me because I haven't studied it, although it may be referring to
something quite straightforward. When I first read Maurice Hodgson's paper
on symbolic treatment of false course heads, I felt the same way. While he
was proposing a consistent notation for transposition, for
non-mathematicians the result can obfuscate what was actually quite a
straightforward process.

It is also worth noting that I find most of Richard's explanations posted to
these lists over the last few years extremely clear and illuminating. 

So please don't stop - but do try and add the occasional explanation for
Clarrie and me.

Graham