# [r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Wed Aug 6 13:07:23 UTC 2008

```Don writes,

> This straw man proposal replaces (D)A.1, (D)A.2, (D)A.3, (D)A.11, and all
> of (D)B. in the current Decisions. That's over 1,500 words that would be
> replaced in the proposal by under 500. Looks to me more like a three fold
> shrinkage, not ten fold growth.

Does it? Oh well, that doesn't sound too bad then. Yes, I guess some of it
looks a bit wordy, but let's get the sense right first then we can work on
making it neat and succint.

Some random thoughts on truth and stages:

1. Higher numbers are already different (in a practical sense) from lower.
You can't ring a peal of Minor without repeating changes, but no-one is ever
going to ring a multi-extent peal of Maximus.

2. On higher numbers, if you ring a multi-stage peal (e.g. Cinques+Maximus,
whether that's spliced or variable-cover makes no odds) then the "strong"
definition of proof, where the set of changes rung have to be true at the
higher stage, is I think vital. If you relax this, you'll open up a second
"weakly true" class of compositions, which are "not as true" as current
Cinques+Maximus compositions. I don't like that at all. We want to know "is
it true or is it false", not have varying levels of truth. That would be
rubbish.

3. However on lower numbers, you already have this sort of relaxation. Why?
Because peals are multi-extent. On 6 and below, truth is determined within
the extent (or multi-extent round block), not over the entire peal. This
seems reasonable, if maybe inconsistent with higher-numbers policy.

4. I suppose the trouble is in the middle. What would a true composition of
"Minor and Triples" look like? (I don't see why you shouldn't be able to
ring one).

MBD

```