[SPAM] RE: [r-t] What's the meaning of a method having a particularfalsecourse head
I.Fielding at rbht.nhs.uk
Fri Apr 22 11:01:25 UTC 2005
I guess we can do away with "cps" then!
From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net
[mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net]On Behalf Of Richard
Sent: 22 April 2005 11:08
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: [SPAM] RE: [r-t] What's the meaning of a method having a
> Don's 3rd point is correct. If should only be used when
> methods are false in the plain course, then it is refering
> to internal falseness. If you apply it methods which are
> not false in the plain course, you are refering to the
> external false course head - every single method will have
> this property - Plain, Alliance etc. It tells you nothing
> useful and will just add confusion.
I think Glint has hit the nail on the head with the phrase
"internal falseness". All methods have A falseness; only
methods that are false in the plain course have *internal* A
falseness. The question is simply whether we choose to
quote total falseness or internal falseness.
I tend to suscribe to (what I consider to be) the more
purist approach -- that just because "external" falseness is
less useful, it being the same for all methods, doesn't mean
it should be excluded -- so I've been quoting total
falseness. This is also a reflection on the fact that I
consider the idea of falseness to more fundamental than the
division into internal and "external" falseness.
Glint, I think, has a more pragmatic stace and would rather
see just internal falseness quoted as this contains more
information than the total falseness.
Which approach is best is not only subjective but also
dependent on the context in which you are using the terms.
I think both have their place.
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory