[r-t] Grandsire, et al.

Robin Woolley robin at robinw.org.uk
Sun Apr 16 07:36:56 UTC 2006

In (partial) reply to Peter King, the standard answer as to why G(2n+1) 
should be the extension of PB(2n) is that neither PB(2n) nor G(2n+1) has no 
'4ths place at the back'. PB(2n+1) and G(2n) both do!


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list