[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

[Richard Smith]

Matthew Frye wrote (quoting me):

> > 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.

Well, Don was avoiding even using the word 'method' because 
it wasn't defined; I think he decided it wouldn't be easy to 
describe this without using the word 'method'.  Yes, I'm 
sure it would still be describes as Cinques and Max (we 
haven't yet touched on how to describe peals).

To clarify, under Don's proposal, when you ring on multiple 
stages, you have two options.  You can either ring whole 
extents of the separate stages, with at most one partial 
extent.  This is allowed under Don's definition 8.  Clearly 
this isn't practical with cinques and max.  Or you can ring 
a single round block that must not have any repeated 12-bell 
rows.  This is allowed under Don's definition 7.  For the 
purpose of evaluating truth (and only for that purpose), you 
use the fiction that both the Stedman Cinques is actually a 
maximus method.

> 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?

Correct.  But adding the 720 of minor doesn't change the 
fact that the cinques has to be true against the max.  In 
terms of Don's definitions, you would have two 'stage 
fragments' -- one on six bells and one on twelve bells.

RAS