[r-t] Reply to Richard of 11th January

[Philip Saddleton]

I've been away for the weekend and have come home to 583 emails, so I 
don't propose to answer all of these points, but I can't let some of 
them go.

Robin Woolley said  on 06/02/2005 09:35:

>Having done Latin at school, here's a simile for you. My wife once told me
>she had to write a piece of code to convert a calendar date into a Julian
>date (or vice versa). The Julian date is simply a number increasing by one
>every day. 1st January this year was 2453370.5. This is an example of an
>infinite counting system and is analogous to indefinite extension. The
>corresponding finite system is to use January 1st 2005 and is analogous to
>saying that indefinite extension is irrelevant in practical ringing.
>  
>
Just when will the Gregorian calendar run out?

>This is not to say that, if ringing was an infinite-arithmetic situation, I
>would be the first to agree with Richard's "I think that much of the time,
>an indefinite extension series will have a more "natural" feel to it than a
>single extension.". To see this, just look at the extensions of York, etc,
>both in the collection and Method 300.
>  
>
No one is arguing that methods should be rung on an indefinite, or even 
a large finite set of bells. An indefinite extension rule is a 
demonstration that the rule is sensible.

>Something I have said before, but is worth repeating is that if indefinite
>extension is correct, then the logical consequence of this has to be that no
>new method can be allowed which is not indefinitely extendible.
>  
>
I fail to see any logic in this statement, however many times you say it.

>Richard's work on the extension of Plain Minor methods has led
>to the following place notation, x1x6x1x1x1; 2nds being a perfectly
>acceptable extension of Plain Bob Minor to royal (4ABCD/5FG). For any one to
>say "this is purely academic because PB Royal has been rung" is beneath
>contempt. The fact that could be allowed at all is the point of interest.
>For those who don't like this, try x4x23x25x5; 2nds as an (unrung) extension
>of Buxton Bob (4AB/2EF). Both of these parents have plain hunting above the
>treble whilst the allowed extensions do not. This gives a counter argument
>to pabs w.r.t. Cromer Alliance. 
>
The example of Cromer Alliance was carefully chosen. Plain Bob is not 
only plain hunting above the treble.

-- 
Regards
Philip
http://www.saddleton.freeuk.com/