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

[Iain Anderson]

Don Morrison wrote : 

->  Could we liberalise the requirement at higher stages to mimic the lower
stage one? That's what my currently proposed wording allows.
->  Iain would appear to think we cannot do this, since he said
"clearly...". I'd have no problem with it,
->  but suspect I'm in the minority in that opinion, and Iain the majority.

Perhaps "clearly" was the wrong word to use.  I was trying to reflect what I
believe current thinking is rather than my thinking.  I am in the same camp
as Don in that (almost) anything goes.  Great progress is being made in
defining Rows, Methods, Truth, Peals, but I would still like to see a
widening of the definitions.

- This is how we define a permutation row, but your peal doesn't have to
made up of rows of permutations.
- This is how we define a method, but your peal doesn't have to made up of
methods.
- This is how we define truth, but your peal doesn't have to be true.

The vast majority of peals will be true compositions of methods consisting
of rows of permutations, but I have no objection to a band deviating from
any of these rules.  As far as I am concerned a peal is a peal because a) it
has some measure of length and b) the band says it is a peal.