[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

[Don Morrison]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> 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).

In fact you can ring one today, under the current Decisions.

It has to be either

a) a 5,040 meeting the "higher stages defintion of truth"

b) or at least 5,760, incorporating at least one extent or MEB of
   covered minor and at least one extent or MEB of either triples or
   of triples and minor meeting the higher stages definition of truth

(at least that's how I read the current Decisions; if I'm mistaken I
look forward to being corrected)

Curiously what is not currently allowed is a peal of Triples and Major
consisting of an extent of each. While I can't imagine wanting to do
that myself, it's well within the realm of physical possibility, and
seems conceptually no different than what is done today with doubles
and minor.

I wonder if the way out of this maze of special cases somehow involves
treating zero occurances of a possible row as triggering the higher
standard of truth?




-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"None ever wished [Paradise Lost] longer than it is."
                -- Samuel Johnson, _Lives of the Poets_