# [r-t] How much of a method do you need to include? (was Proof

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Sun Aug 10 20:55:13 UTC 2008

```Matthew Frye writes,

> for example you couldn't split off bits of an accidently false peal of
> stedman to a singles extent as there would be no way of forcing it into a
> singles method without having 4 cover bells not moving for a whole six, at
> which point it becomes extremely contrived in ringing it rather than just
> describing it.

No, as RAS has just been discussing with me, you can easily spawn off two
extents of Singles from a touch of Stedman Triples:

Six one is:

1234567
2135476
2314567
3215476
3124567
1325476

and six two is:

1324567
3125476
3214567
2315476
2134567
1235476

Put these together *at the level of individual changes* and you get the two
extents of singles:

1234567
2134567
2314567
3214567
3124567
1324567

and

1235476
2135476
2315476
3215476
3125476
1325476

Do you see the problem now?

You also wrote:

> On the compositions side, on higher numbers could you use extents on low
> numbers to turn the back bells between positions? If you're ringing 12,
> have an extent of PB doubles on the 7-E and insert max/cinques round
> blocks method at the appropriate points. I am not much of a composer so
> don't know if this idea has any value, but there may be uses for these
> things.

Yes, this is perfectly reasonable. But the point is, the Doubles changes
would have to be treated as Max/Cinques rows, and proved against the rest of
the peal as such. If you don't do this, the peal is false.

Have a sit down and think about it Matthew...

MBD

```