[r-t] Fwd: FW: Proposed definition of a peal

[Don Morrison]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Iain Anderson <iain.anderson at talentinnovations.co.uk>
Date: Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:16 AM
Subject: FW: [r-t] Proposed definition of a peal
To: Philip Earis <pje24 at cantab.net>
Cc: Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>


Philip

I suspect my contributions are being bounced because my email has changed
from iain at ... to iain.anderson at ...
I've just re-subscribed to see if that makes a difference, but in the
meantime here is my latest effort.
I like (most) of the way things are going by the way.  Great work.

Iain

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Anderson [mailto:iain.anderson at talentinnovations.co.uk]
Sent: 06 August 2008 09:07
To: 'ringing-theory at bellringers.net'
Subject: RE: [r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

Don Morrison wrote:
8) A piece of change ringing, if of multiple stages, is called true as
  follows. All the stage fragments contained in the piece of change
  ringing that are of the same stage with the same non-changing
  bells, are grouped together, and tested for truth as for a single
  stage. If all such groupings are true, then the overall piece of
  change ringing is called true.

I think we may need to tighten this definition up a little bit for things
like Spliced Bristol Maximus and Stedman Cinques, which I am interpreting to
be a piece of change ringing of multiple stages.  Clearly it isn't
sufficient to have the group of Bristol rows true separately from the group
of Stedman rows.  In this case we really need to define the Stedman as a
maximus method and have the cover bell as part of the method ...!

If only I didn't abhor the idea of including cover bells in the method so
much.