[r-t] Changes to decisions again
richard at ex-parrot.com
Mon Jan 23 23:33:25 UTC 2006
Philip Earis wrote:
> "I'm not sure there's a particularly fundamental difference between
> jump-changes and cylindrical"
> This is clearly wrong in my view. One can be described by a framework
> of true permutations. The other cannot.
Defining changing ringing to be the ringing of any true
sequence of changes is no less elegant (and arguably
better in that it uses the term "changes" which will be
familiar to all ringers, rather than "permutations" which
perhaps has more mathematical connotations). Starting with
this definition means you don't necessarily require jump
changes to be included; but equally it doesn't preclude
Whilst I'm in favour of jump changes being accepted, I think
you would do much better if you proposed something slightly
less controversial that stands a chance of being accepted,
rather mixing a few radical changes into your proposal with
the likely result that none are accepted.
> I'm well aware of this link. Like you, I'm also well aware of the
> ringers. When I discussed this alleged performance with you some time
> ago, we were both extremely sceptical (to say the least) that the band
> had rung what was described.
That is not in the least bit accurate. I expressed genuine
curiosity about the quarter peal -- what it was like, how
easy they found it, whether they had had many attempts, and
so on. It may have been a bit rough, or it may not have
been -- I've no idea; but I've no doubt that they rang what
And even if you did misinterpret my comments to mean what
you say, I'm disturbed that you thought it appropriate to
(mis)quote them in this way on a public email list.
More information about the ringing-theory