[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Fri Aug 8 15:25:26 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).

Sorry, i was clearly giving the current decisions more credit than they deserve. Either way, i can't see a good reason to disallow the triples and major.

>> 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.

So the Cinques parts are counted as Max, i don't see how this is a methods thing as Stedman Cinques (on it's own) would presumably be counted as Cinques and not Max. Just for clarification: if you were to splice Bristol Royal in with the Cinques and Max, it would still all be counted as Max (and proved all together), but if you added in 720 true changes of Minor then they could be counted as Minor and so those rows could be repeated in the Cinques/Max?
Make a mini you on Windows Live Messenger!

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list