[r-t] St Remigius Bob and extension

[Tony Cox]

>>Tony Smith wrote:
>>There are six possible extensions of St Remigius Bob Doubles, of which number
>>iii. is possibly the most attractive. 

Tony Smith has again interpreted the letter of the law without asking himself 
whether the results it gives are what an ordinary ringer would want and expect. 
While Sam's extensions is logical it does have a problem with the lead end. 
If you want an extension of St Remigius that has the right lead end and 
is a logical progression from the doubles, what's wrong with 
Doubles: 345.1.125.3.5
Triples: 34567.1.127.3.7.3.7
Caters:  3456789.1.129.3.9.3.9.3.9
etc
or even
Doubles: 345.1.125.3.5
Triples: 34567.1.127.3.127.3.7
Caters:  3456789.1.129.3.129.3.129.3.9
etc
other than, of course, they doesn't comply with the CC decision on extension, 
because contiguous places aren't allowed to multiply. 
Both these capture the essence of the doubles without introducing alien features. 
So why aren't they allowed?

The main problem with the CC decisions does appear to be that the underlying 
assumption (that the lowest member of a series can be used to derive the higher 
members) is flawed and dispensing with the idea of extension and replacing it 
with the more general idea that methods belong in families does solve most of the problems 
of `extension' in one go. To be part of a family the same clear relationship should hold 
between all members and there is actually no necessity for all members of a 
family to be of the same class (and also no need for all the tables and 
petty bureaucracy in the current decisions). 
For instance, Bristol S Major is the child member of the Littleport Family
Bristol S Major:      mx -58-14.58-58.36.14-14.58-14-18
Littleport L S Royal: mx -50-14.50-50.36.14-14.50-14-18
Littleport L S Max:   mx -5T-14.5T-5T.36.14-14.5T-14-18
but is also the parent of the Bristol family
Horton S Minor:   h  -56-14.56-12.36-12-16
Bristol S Major: mx  -58-14.58-58.36.14-14.58-14-18
Bristol S Royal:  g  -50-14.50-50.36.14-70.58.16-16.70-16-10
Bristol S Maximus: j -5T-14.5T-5T.36.14-7T.58.16-9T.18-18.9T-18-1T
At first sight it may not seem that Horton S Minor is related to Bristol S Maximus, 
but closer examination will show it is. 

Similarly Durham Minor and New Durham Major and Royal are in the same family
Durham S Minor:     a -36-14-12-36.14-34.16
New Durham S Major: a -38-14-12-38.14-14.38.14-34.18
New Durham S Royal: a -30-14-12-30.14-14.30.14-14.30.14-34.18

It is only by examining the relationships between two different pairs of methods
that will show whether all three form a family.

I think it's time to step back from the ever more complex 
(and still highly flawed) decision on extension and take a 
wider view that encompasses extension and contraction on equal 
terms in a more general perspective.

Tony