[r-t] Parity

[Leigh Simpson]

> On 19/06/07, Matt Dawson
> <m.d.dawson at student.liverpool.ac.uk> wrote:
> > here's a counterexample:
> >
> > 15423 -
> > 15432 +
> > 21345 -
> > 21354 +

> 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, - + + - - +

You've both got the correct sequence. The system works
very nicely when you have n-4 bells fixed on the
front.

I was hoping to find a quick way to find the parity
based on finding an index of the row and analysing
that index. Since the parity doesn't behave nicely
that avenue seems prohibitive.

Leigh


      ___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/