[r-t] Another straw man definition of "true"
richard at ex-parrot.com
Thu Aug 7 03:36:16 UTC 2008
Don Morrison wrote:
> How does the following work?
> A touch is called true if there exists a partition of the rows it
> contains into sets A0, A1, ... An such that (i) all the rows contained
> within any Ai are of the same stage, Si, with the same non-changing
> bells, and (ii) all the rows in A0 are distinct, and (iii) for i>0 all
> the Ai are extents on Si bells.
> Is it equivalent to Iain's recursive algorithm?
I'm fairly convinced that Iain's recursive algorithm, your
definition above, and my extensions to your original
definitions (in my post at 04:02 am) are all equivalent.
The main difference is that Iain's provides something that
could be coded into a peal prover, your's provides something
that is very concise but perhaps a bit abstruse, and mine
provides something that is quite verbose but probably easier
Assuming that multiple non-changing bells besides covers are
allowed, setting a peal proving program loose on this
without guidance is a recipe of disaster. All peals can be
described in terms of extents on 1 bell with (N-1)
I'm not necessarily using this to argue against allowing
multiple covers; merely to warn against coding Iain's
algorithm as the default proving algorithm in a peal prover.
More information about the ringing-theory