[r-t] Covering bells as degenerate hunt bells

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Sun Aug 3 21:17:44 UTC 2008

Philip writes,

> It boils down to a claissification problem.  Your method (a) is plain bob
> major. I'd list (b) and (b*) (which are the same method) in the major
> lists as "Plain Bob Triples". So the absolutely formal name I suppose
> would could be "Plain Bob Triples Major", but it would still universally
> be known even under the current name.

Hmm. I don't really like this. Sorry Philip! It sounds too much like bending
what we know as changeringing to fit some ideogically pure but actually
inessential formalism. Plain Bob Triples is Plain Bob Triples regardless of
how many covering bells there are. Covering bells really aren't part of a
method, I don't think. If I was composing a Triples method, I wouldn't want
to have to worry about specifying sets of covering bells.

I think all we need is a para saying that methods may be rung on higher
stages with one or more covering bells. The definition of "call" could allow
for covering bells to be moved into the method; seems the simplest way of
coping with variable cover. I feel that anything like variable cover should
be treated strictly in the realms of the composition, not the method.

The latest drafts of your Decisions are beginning to look most excellent,
though. Still very neat & succint. I like the classification scheme now, in 
section D(C) and (D), however, what about Little methods? Any thoughts on my 
comments last time? I think "Little" and "Differential" should be described 
as qualifiers of methods, possibly with the former as an official part of 
the method name. Also selection of primary hunts of multi-hunt methods 
should I think consider Littleness.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list