[r-t] Lyme at al.
Robin Woolley
robin at robinw.org.uk
Wed Apr 12 09:45:40 UTC 2006
There are at least two drawbacks to only getting the digests of this stream.
One is that I don't know what's been said and the second is that there's
always the temptation to reply before an idea is fully formed. This is
basically a version of my thoughts yesterday afternoon.
As regards the Alliance question, there are two points here which have been
conflated.
The first is this: Is it true that a true composition for a method obtained
by truncating a surprise method when the treble makes its second blow in
7ths place, and the removed place notation element is either 'x' or a
contiguous place set, i.e., {12, 1234, 1256, ..., 56}, can be obtained
simply from a standard composition for the method? I believe the answer is
YES. The reason is all that is happening is two true changes are being
removed.
The second is: What can it be called? The answer to this is based on the
fact that there is no Decision in such a case, so any name will do.
Interestingly, 6 of the standard 8 have had this treatment (ex. L, R), but
only Yorkshire retains its name.
A sub-point might be: In which methods is it reasonable to keep the same
name? This is where I am at variance with Richard. It is, of course,
impossible to have conflate the 34.7 parts of the place notation, but what
about ending 4.34.7? What is the 'job' of the 34 element. It is to move the
treble back into 8ths place. This is not necessary in the Alliance.
Therefore, the 34 may be removed. (Moving it one place earlier converts
right places into wrong, so that's another reason for discarding this
version). It is also true that, given one fewer change in the half-lead
leads to fewer methods overall. I understand there are, of the order of, 11M
TD major methods. There will be fewer of those truncated at change 15,
rather than change 16.
Best wishes
Robin.
More information about the ringing-theory
mailing list