[r-t] Changes to decisions again
richard at ex-parrot.com
Mon Jan 23 14:38:25 UTC 2006
Philip Earis wrote:
> By permutations, I mean each bell sounding once and only once in every
> row. That's fairly obviously implied, even if it is not stated.
Perhaps so. I still think you should make it more explicit,
> I've no objections to people ringing 'cylindrical', tunes etc. I just
> don't think you can describe it using the same framework as conventional
> change-ringing. I guess you could say it falls outside my reduced
> requirements for change ringing of 'true permutations'.
> Jump changes are entirely different, and could be categorised easily.
I'm not sure there's a particularly fundamental difference
between jump-changes and cylindrical. Both are probably
outside of what the majority of ringers consider to be
change ringing. And I think if you attempt to include
either in your proposal, you will fail to get enough support
to carry it through.
> Anyway, there's never been any cylindrical rung, ever.
Yes there has:
> This is something that David Brown allegedly gave up on as
> it was too weird.
A hundred years ago, no-one believed it was possible to ring
London Major in hand. Now the country's top ringers are
ringing the likes of Orion and Rigel in hand.
More information about the ringing-theory