[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Wed Aug 6 00:41:24 UTC 2008

> > I think the second sentence is ambiguous and should be changed to:> >> > "The total number of bells that change position between rows is called the> > stage."> >> > ------------------------------> >> > So cambridge minor is at stage 4 and 6, depending on which bit of the lead you're in?> > This is why I phrased my original version as awkwardly as I did, and> why I think we need to come up with a better alternative than Chris> has suggested.> > Most bands ringing Cambridge minor would view the whole thing as of> stage 6, of course. But if someone really does want to think of> Cambridge Minor as a spliced minimus method-like-entity with a minor> method-like-entity, in really tiny chunks, we have no grounds for> stopping them, any more than we have grounds for stopping them today> claiming that their extent of Cambridge Minor is really an extent of> Original Minor with four different kinds of call, with one at every> division end.
For determining the stage being rung I think that some reference to leads is needed rather than arbitary undefined block of changes:
3. The number of bells that change position in a lead is called the stage. It is an integer...
Which may also help to clarify/restrict later "rules" about using multiple stages by preventing you splitting things up into arbitarly small fragments.
This would cause problems with Dixonoids (or anything else without an obvious "lead) or if you aren't ringing whole leads of things. Maybe the stage needs to come as part of the definition of a method.
Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080806/0d015c08/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list