[r-t] Crambo - mystery solved(?)

[edward martin]

Well, I'm soon out of my depth when it comes to anything mathematical
but Ander said:
"Last week Robert Johnson discovered a marvellous proof that every
in-course extent of doubles can be cramboed up in at least one way."
which to me implied that some  can be cramboed in two ways but now I
see the error of my thinking
Suppose we had
12435 and 13245 as members of he two singles extents each giving
12345  as a member of the extent of doubles
we could then go on to have say
21345  and 12354 as members of the two extents of singles
B U T !!!   the relationship between either 12435 and 21345 or between
13245 and 12354
is that not of pure singles !!
Ergo I am an idiot

mew


On 8/24/06, Robert Johnson <r.johnson at qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
> I don't understand this. What do you mean by a crambo type method being
> flanked by 2 doubles methods? I read it to mean is there a crambo method can
> be obtained by cramboeing  more than one in-course half extent of doubles but
> this is obviously impossible.
>
> Robert
>
> On Thursday 24 Aug 2006 13:09, edward martin wrote:
>
> > I wonder if it is possible to have 1 crambo type in the middle flanked
> > by 2 different pure doubles methods  or if there is a side by side
> > string of  different methods alternating pure doubles & pure singles
> > If so how long does the string run & where does it get us?
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>