[r-t] Parity

[edward martin]

I don't understand what you are saying.

With 15 in 1-2, the correct sequence should be
15234 -
15243 +
15324 +
15342 -
15423 -
15432 +
= as I said, - + + - - +

mew

On 19/06/07, Matt Dawson <m.d.dawson at student.liverpool.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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.
>
> matt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>