[r-t] Changes to decisions again

[Richard Smith]

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,
though.

> 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:

  http://www.campanophile.co.uk/show.html?Code=30750

> 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.

RAS