[r-t] 23-spliced

[Richard Smith]

Graham John wrote:

> I also looked at this plan (since it was almost implied by Philip's original
> question) and reckoned that the following arrangement was optimal for
> musical possibilities (crus & runs). It is more difficult to fit methods to
> though, as it is false to Yorkshire.
>
> 23456   H
> ---------
> 34256   2
> 45362   4x
> 34562   -
> 53246   x
> 32546   2
> 24365   4x
> 43265   2
> 24536   x
> 52436   -
> 45623   x
> 64523   -
> 23456   3x
> ----------
> X=16

That plan works really well, Graham.  And I don't think the
fact that it isn't true to Yorkshire is particularly
relevant.  In fact, I wonder whether the extra little bit of
falseness helps my code find more varied methods.  For
example, the very first set of methods that my code produced
is below.  They're "every lead different" and the whole
composition has 88 CRUs and (unsurprisingly) no 87s at back
(sorry, MBD!).  (At the moment I'm not making any effort to
maximise music.)

m0 = &-5-4-5-3-4-5-6-5;
m1 = &5-34.6.5-5.36-34-5.34-2.3;
m2 = &34-5.4.5-5.6.34-34.5-56-1;
m3 = &-36-6.5-5.6.34-34.5.6-6.5;
m4 = &-5-4.56-56.3.4-2.5-36-1;
m5 = &-5-4-56-6-4-5-2-5;  // [Heydour]
m6 = &-36-6-2-3-2-3-56-7;
m7 = &34-5.4.5-5.36-34-3-4-5;
m8 = &5-5.4.5-5.6.34-34.5-4-7;
m9 = &5-36.4.56-5.6.34-34.5-6-1;
m10 = &-5-6-5-6-34-5-6-3;
m11 = &-36-6-2-6.34-34.5.4-6.7;
m12 = &-5-6-5-6-34-5-56-5;
m13 = &-3-6-5-3-4-3-6-3;
m14 = &-5-6-5-6-2-5-4-1;
m15 = &5-36.4-5-6.34-34.5.4-34.5;
m16 = &34-5.4.56-56.3-4-5-4-5;
m17 = &36-3.4.56-56.3-2-5-2-3;
m18 = &5-36.4.5-5.6-34-5-6-5;
m19 = &5-34.6-5-6-34-5-2-1;
m20 = &-5-4-5-3-2-5-2-3;
m21 = &-36-6-2-3-4-5-4-3;
m22 = &-5-4-2-3-34-5-4-3;

Richard