[r-t] Definition of a peal

[Graham John]

Don wrote:

> There seems to me no value difference between that and ringing five
extents
> of Bob Minor, followed by five extents of Grandsire Doubles, followed
> by 60 changes of Grandsire rung PBPBPS, followed by an extent of Bob
> Minor starting and ending with the row 132456, followed by another 60
> of Grandsire picking up the missing 60 rows of doubles. But I think
> your formulation as a true round block would prohibit this.

Yes, it is change ringing, but is it true? You might be able to argue that
you have sandwiched an extent of Minor into a round block of Doubles, but
think about how you would write a program to test for truth. To be able to
do this you have to define the stage. I would argue that in variable cover
you have to give up the option to be true only at the lower stage, and in
Mixed Doubles and Minor, you have to ring discrete round blocks, alternating
stages and no variable cover. It is not so difficult to adhere to this, is
it?

I think we need to concentrate on extending the scope of the decisions to
cater for important liberalisation such as rule-based constructions, not
attempt to make everything valid in a peal. This comes back a bit, I think,
to Leigh's one step at a time.

Graham