[r-t] Parity

Matt Dawson m.d.dawson at student.liverpool.ac.uk
Tue Jun 19 17:48:44 UTC 2007

here's a counterexample:

15423 -
15432 +
21345 -
21354 +

and by extension (adding more trebles to the front of the row), leigh's 
claim is false for all numbers of bells greater than four. i would attempt a 
proper proof, but it's too close to dinner time.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list