[r-t] Philip's new Decisions, including Wiki page

[Philip Earis]

Hi Don,

I've replied to your earlier points on the wiki.

You then say:
"I'm confused by "should be explicitly mentioned in the notation." It seems 
to me from my reading of your proposal, cover bells are *not* so mentioned 
in the notation. You define the stages by the number of "changing" bells 
which would seem to allow, say, caters to be rung on any number of bells 
greater or equal to 9, with as many leading or covering bells as desired"

Regarding so plain bob caters, I'd classify the notation for this as 
"&90.10.90.10.90.10.90.10.90, 1290". The notation is the information you 
need to write a method out, and this includes the information that there is 
a bell continually making 10ths. I wouldn't call this foolish.

This way is clear, neat and unambiguous. It removes precisely the sort of 
messing around with cover-bells, etc that afflicts the current decisions.

Under my terminolgy, Plain Bob Caters rung with what you would call 1 cover 
bell would be a different method to what you'd call plain bob caters with 
three cover bells.

This isn't really a great conceptual leap - indeed, under the present 
Decisions plain bob doubles rung with one hunt bell is considered a 
different method to plain bob doubles rung with two hunt bells (Grandsire 
Minor).

Mark - I'll have a think about your points.  To your question, "Do you 
really
want someone to be able to name the method &567890ET.14567890ET,+12567890ET
"Scooby-Doo Maximus"?", I would say that I have no problem at all with this 
method.  But you couldn't ring a whole peal of it by itself without 
affecting the back bells, as you've only got 24 changes with the front 
bells...




----- Original Message ----- 
From: Don Morrison
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [r-t] Philip's new Decisions, including Wiki page


On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Philip Earis <pje24 at cantab.net> wrote:
> - A new thing I've done is to remove all reference to cover bells, etc.
> This leads to lots of mess in the existing Decisions.  Fundamentally, if
> something is rung with a cover I've come to think that this should be
> explicitly mentioned in the notation. This also makes my decisions much 
> more
> consistent and elegant. Whilst formally this would lead to very few peals 
> of
> "caters" etc being rung, the method would formally be reclassified 
> according
> to the rules.  The common name wouldn't need to change though, and the
> existing pages of "triples" principles, etc in the Decisions could be
> preserved.

I'm confused by "should be explicitly mentioned in the notation." It
seems to me from my reading of your proposal, cover bells are *not* so
mentioned in the notation. You define the stages by the number of
"changing" bells which would seem to allow, say, caters to be rung on
any number of bells greater or equal to 9, with as many leading or
covering bells as desired. Or, indeed, with bells in the middle that
don't move (yes, this seems possible: jump changes are one way, though
a more straightforward one would be simply two partitions essentially
ringing lower stages at the same time).

In any case, the "formally this would lead to very few peals of ...."
seems antithetical to what I would hope would be an implicit goal,
which is making the decisions record things closely the way to Joe
Average Ringer really rings them. Pretending nearly all peals of
caters are "formally" royal is exactly the same sort of foolishness as
pretending Malakoff is formally something other than a straight
forward, Mx, alliance maximus method.


-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"It's amazing how people define roles for themselves and put handcuffs
on their experience and are constantly surprised at the things a
roulette universe spins at them."       -- Terry Pratchett, _Hogfather_

_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net