[r-t] What is a method? (long message, sorry)

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Fri Aug 8 23:00:31 UTC 2008

Don writes,

> Excellent. You and I appear agree on this. You want there to be a class of 
> methods called Dixons'es. It would make good sense, just as you seem to be 
> implying, to partition the one universe of all methods, including those 
> that do not fit the Norwich Axioms, into classes, much as we do today.

Ah, sorry, must have completely misunderstood your previous post then! Yes, 
I agree exactly with the above.

> It's unfortunately that Dixon's will need a class appended, since Dixon's 
> without a class would be a principle (according to current naming schemes, 
> which it would be silly to upset), but that seems a small price to pay for 
> some valuable continuity.

Well, you could certainly append a Dixonoid class. I'm not sure it's 
essential though - the two namespaces could be implicit. We could have 
"Dixons" and "Dixons", one being a principle and one a Dixonoid, and people 
would find ways to distinguish them. "Dixons the principles" and "Dixons the 

This is ringing - it doesn't need to be too perfect!


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list