[r-t] What's the meaning of a method having a particular falsecourse head

[Philip Earis]

I might have got this round my neck, but I thought it's obvious that all
methods have A falseness, as Richard says.

Using treble-dodging major methods and keeping the tenors-together, I
thought the whole point of falseness groups was to group up the courses
beginning with any of the 60 in-course leadheads by falseness against
the plain course. Now 12345678 is an in-course leadhead, and so any
method where this is false against the plain course will have 'A'
falseness.  Trivially all methods have this property.

"It would seem that having a definition where every method must contain 
A falseness means it doesn't add any information"

It's the identity case, but I don't think that means it doesn't add any
information.  Following similar logic, would you abolish the number zero
because this doesn't add any information?



-----Original Message-----
From: Don Morrison [mailto:dfm at mv.com] 
Sent: 20 April 2005 21:01
To: Ringing Theory List
Subject: [r-t] What's the meaning of a method having a particular
falsecourse head

The recent correspondence about methods with particularly heinous 
falseness has often used A falseness as something present in every 
method. Which raises a question:

What, precisely, do we mean when we say a method has a particular 
falseness? Does it mean that there are two different rows in the 
course, so related? Or that there are two rows, possibly the same, so 
related? Or something else entirely?

In the first case, above, A falseness would only be present if a method 
were false in its plain course.

In the second case, which I believe Richard has used in his examples, 
every method must contain A falseness. Or at least, every method with 
at least one row in its plain course :-)

Or is there a third possibility?

It would seem that having a definition where every method must contain 
A falseness means it doesn't add any information, whereas having it 
mean the method is false in the plain course does add information, and 
may be a preferable convention.

Is either interpretation widely used to the exclusion of the other?


-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at mv.com>
"We are well aware from the history of science that ideas
universally believed are not necessarily true."
                     -- Jane Jacobs, _The Economy of Cities_


_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

DISCLAIMER:

This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening.