[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Fri Aug 8 13:09:34 UTC 2008

Matthew Frye wrote:

> If it makes mixed triples and major false, then it's a 
> step backwards as it's allowed at the moment

Actually, it's not allowed at the moment.  Mixed peals up to 
minor and triples have to be in whole extents (or 
multi-extent blocks).  Mixed peals of triples and major, or 
above, are proved as peals on the higher stage.  A 5040 of 
triples followed by a 5056 of major doesn't conform to 
either of these as the 5056 isn't a whole extent, and the 
triples is false against the major (both contain rounds for 
a start).

> 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.

A peal of Stedman Cinques and Bristol Max is, so far as 
Don's definitions are concerned, 'just' a peal of Max.  The 
reason that his definitions don't mention this is that it 
concerns methods and they haven't yet been touched.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list