[r-t] Lyme

Robin Woolley robin at robinw.org.uk
Tue Apr 11 10:06:23 UTC 2006

I don't think that Richard & I are necessarily comparing the same thing.

To put things in perspective, the last few changes of the p.n. of Lyme S. 
Major are 3.4x34.7.

If we do to Lyme that which was done Yorkshire S to get Yorkshire A, I 
interpret this as simply removing the '34' entirely and ending 3.4x7. In 
both cases, (Yorkshire & Lyme) the treble does 'cats-ears'.

This does, of course, beg the question as to what the new Alliance could be 
called. It could not be distinguished from Whitwick, Hookergate, Wildebeest, 
Griffin or Rugby although Lyme was rung first.

As to saying "...to become 14.34.78 - not very elegant", well there are all 
sorts of fashions. Some people use Netscape, some use Firefox, some use 
Explorer - it all comes down to personal choice. Some people like 65s at 
backstroke in minor, etc.... In some quarters, multiple places are the 
latest thing.

PJEs comments are interesting. There is a dichotomy between the liberallity 
of extension rules for non-little consisitent (i.e., plain or treble 
dodging) and the non-liberallity for inconsistent or little methods or 

The example of Anglia/Anglian Alliance is well-known to all afficianados of 
this chat-stream. There are other good example from the Alliance and Little 
areas. An obvious one of the latter is Penultimus. Another example of the 
former, which was given to me by another member of the stream, is Cotswold 
Alliance Max. This is of the form, in an obvious notation, PPPTTT. The p.n. 
of the first three sections is just x1x1x1 as it happens. It goes to Royal, 
of the form PPTTT but the major cannot have the name as it is of the form 
PTTT. I am told the method is indefinitely extendible.

There is a good reason for this - the major cannot extend to the Royal as 
you are adding a piece of work which does not exist, but turning the problem 
round and looking at it from large numbers down to small, lim n->0 in 
mathematical notation, then there is no problem. It is not a case of adding 
a work, but a piece of work disappearing. Given the need for indefinacy in 
extensions, this becomes a valid way of, at least, starting off a 
discussion. Think here not of parents of methods, but parents in family 
trees. In this way, Cambridge Minor is the youngest child of a whole set of 

I would never, however, go down the route of not preserving regular lead 

There's a few thoughts for you all.

PS - can anyone come up with a comp. for either of Richard's versions. The 
one ending x347 is a differential hunting method, not a true alliance.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list