[r-t] Re: Decisions

[Richard Smith]

Robin Woolley wrote:

> I have no strong views either way on Methods - but I've
> been interested in extension for about 15 years.  The
> current decision is unworkable for two reasons: (G)B1 -
> [...] the impossibility of proving that indefinite
> extensions do not exist for large in in every case.

I don't believe this to be impossible.  There is only a
finite number of ways of extending a given method.  All
you need to do is construct proofs for each of these
demonstrating that they can never produce legal extensions.
This is perfectly possible, albeit fairly time consuming.

> Therefore, I propose:
>
> Replace decision G with its previous version as obtaining at 1st May 2002,
> with certain additions:
>
> To each of the notes (i) starting 'Wherever...', add a sentence of the form
> 'If the first such place is found in position 'X' of the parent, then the
> last possible extension route is SXy' (The effect of this is to re-introduce
> the interpretation aids extant in 1971/2 but omitted since)

I'm not convinced by the need for this as it is implied by
the rest of the decisions.

>     i) Extensions at the next lowest stage always take precedence. An
> example of the effect of this is to allow Roker S. Royal.

So you'd prefer a extension from Major to Royal over a
hypothetical extension that works on 4n bells?  To my mind,
the indefinite extension is much more likely to feel like
the "natural" extension.

>    ii) Competing extensions at the next lowest stage - choose the one which
> gives more extensions.
>
> These changes will re-confirm the decision as it was believed to be by, for
> example, Roger Bailey in 1995.

If you are refering to Roger's guide to method extension, I
don't believe that states anywhere that an extension on
fewer bells (your (i)) is preferable to an indefinite
extension.  And I don't believe that in 1995 the CC
decisions said that.

> I have no philosophical objection to modal extension, but I believe that
> static/expanding should take precedence over extension by other modes.

Much of the time, I agree -- a static or expanding
extension is better than one of the other modes.  But I'm
not convinced that there couldn't be a situation where one
of the intermediate modes produced a "better" extension.

> Does anyone
> apart from members of the MC like these [modes]?

Yes.

I think the reworking the decisions in terms of modes has
helped to clarify and unify the old decisions without making
major changes to them.  To my mind, this is a good thing.

Richard