[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

[Don Morrison]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> How about a peal is true if:
>
> 1. It is rung on one stage, and each change in the extent at this stage is
> rung either N or N+1 times in the peal, and no more, for N>=0.
>
> 2. It is rung on two stages, A and B, where |B-A|=1, and each change in the
> extent on A is rung M times in the peal, and no more, and each change in the
> extent on B is rung N or N+1 times, and no more, for M>0 and N>0.
>
> 3. Peals of methods at different stages may be rung as a single-stage peal
> as (1) above by considering the covering bell two be included in the change
> for methods at the lower stage.

It seems a shame to leave out the possibility of multiple non-changing
bells, as that does occur in practice. Mostly quarters today, but at
least one peal (not accepted by the CC, of course).

The argument someone made along the lines of "but with multiple covers
the covering bells aren't really change ringing, they're just ringing
rounds" applies equally to one cover, doesn't it? And no one is
proposing disallowing that--we'd have to go back and disallow that
peal of Bob Triples at Mancroft then, wouldn't we?



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Practice doesn't make perfect, nor is it supposed to.  Practice is
about increasing your repertoire of ways to recover from your
mistakes."                                          -- Joann C Gutin