[r-t] Crambo

[Alexander Holroyd]

Are you saying that you can prove it's always possible to get an extent in 
this way from any in-course extent?  If so I don't get it.  Obviously 
there are lots of ways to resolve the double changes into pairs of single 
changes, but one has to do it in such a way that the 60 out-of-course rows 
so introduced are all different.  Most ways fail to achieve this, e.g. 
turning 3.1 into 345.123.123.145 !

ander

>> All of them are strange and unsymmetrical, so what is really going one
>> here?  I don't know.  E.g. can you prove or disprove that any in-course
>> extent of doubles can be treated in this way?
>>
>
> I wpuld have said yes in that if you have an extent of pure doubles
> (say Grandsire or Rev Grandsire called P B P B P B or the plain course
> of Stedman or Rev Stedman or Carter's or Rev Carters) then, since each
> row is produced by a double then two singles are bound to accomplish
> the same thing. Thus if we compare the backstroke rows of Crambo we
> get: