# [r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Fri Aug 8 12:51:52 UTC 2008

```MBD:
>>> Consider for instance a peal of "Singles and Triples".
>>> The composition consists of two extents on three bells,
>>> so these changes are rung twice in the peal:
>>>
>>> 1234567
>>> 2134567
>>> 2314567
>>> 3214567
>>> 3124567
>>> 1324567
>>>
>>> The remainder of the peal is a true Triples touch of
>>> 5028 changes.

RAS:
> For example, if I ring a
> 10,096 of major and triples comprising two ordinary peal
> compositions, a 5040 of triples and a 5056 of major, rung
> back to back, is this 'true'?  Under my/DFM's definition, it
> is; under yours, it is not.

> If we want such a peal to be considered false, we can fix my
> version of Don's 8th definition to read:
>
> 8) A piece of change ringing, if of multiple stages, is
>     called true as follows. All the stage fragments
>     contained in the piece of change ringing that are of
>     the same stage with the same non-changing bells, are
>     grouped together, and tested for truth as for a single
>     stage. If all such groupings are true, and at
>     most one, which must be of the lowest stage present, is
>     incomplete, then the overall piece of change ringing is
>     called true.
>
> I.e. I've inserted "which must be of the lowest stage
> present" into the definition.  This renders the triples,
> quoted above, false; it also renders the mixed major and
> triples false.

If it makes mixed triples and major false, then it's a step backwards as it's allowed at the moment, and so i don't think that this option should even be considered. I agree that the triples and singles peal is not nice and i certainly wouldn't ring it, but the problem is that i can see no way of separating the two different examples given without resorting to special cases (or limiting cover bells), if you want to allow one (the triples and major) then you have no choice but to allow the other (singles and triples).
I may have just missed it, but is there something that would allow you to count rows as being a higher stage than they are? If you're only allowed 1 incomplete grouping then this would be essential for mixed stages above triples above triples.
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile from Vodafone
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571435/direct/01/

```