[r-t] Re: apologies

[Ben Willetts]

Robin:
> it's me who should apologise to Richard since when checking
> the decisions, I didn't observe (G)B2 at the bottom of RW04/731.

... which states that "the extension of a method must have the same symmetry
as the parent."

Apologies if I've missed something blindingly obvious here, or if this has
already been discussed.  What would be the extension of Duffield Major
(x36x-18) to Royal and Max under the new Decisions?  Is there, in fact, no
possible extension?

I can see three possible extension routes:

1.  --> x36x-10 --> x36x-1T.  This is what has been rung and named, but as
the extensions are no longer double, would this extension still be valid?

2.  --> x38x-10 --> x30x-1T.  The Royal method turns into a differential (as
would 16, 22, 28, ...) but the Maximus works.

3.  --> x38x38x-10 --> x30x30x30x-1T.  Presumably the problem here is that
the division length changes, although it is still recognisably a derived
method.

Any thoughts?

Ben