[r-t] parity

Michael Schulte michaelfschulte at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 9 21:46:54 UTC 2005

--- Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> Come on Michael, that's a row.

Of course it's a row! The question at hand is how to find the parity of a given *row*! Why would I
start with a coursing order if I want to know the parity of a row? Harumph! (Feigning

> To convert to a CO of course you need to know
> where it appears in the touch you're ringing;
> basically, whether at a -ve or -ve [sic] treble
> position in the method. Usually you do know this...

You wouldn't necessarily know this, though, if someone merely asked you to identify the parity of
a given row with no reference to method or treble position. When you said "1. Convert to CO" in
your algorithm, you gave no further information as to how to do it. I responded with two different
ways of giving a coursing order from the row 16732845, and without knowing anything further, I
could come up with two different results while still correctly following your algorithm. Hence
more information is needed for your algorithm to be complete, specifically *how* to convert to
coursing order.

If you made step 1:

1(a) Identify the method
1(b) Identify the treble position in the method
1(c) Convert to CO

Then your system would work, *if* you knew the method and treble position, and of course, why
those bits of information are useful for converting to coursing order. What if, as before, I
simply give you a row at random? Should I assume I have a backstroke row in Plain Bob?

> The system still works on rows though, as I said,
> and is much quicker than John David's method,
> although you may need to use that to start with to
> clear out extra bells:

I think that, once you apply your system to rows instead of coursing orders, you are using the
same system (or at least conceptually a very similar one) that John David is using. You are just
able to stop sooner because you recognize that 16324578 is a negative row. Someone who did not
recognize this would have to keep going.

If you admit this system works for rows, why add the unnecessary step of converting to a coursing

That's really what I am asking.


Mike Schulte
Sewanee, Tennessee, USA

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list