[r-t] Proof of twin-stage peals [was Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something]

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Sun Aug 10 11:32:44 UTC 2008

> As to what is good enough, I'm not yet sure. I thought individual leads> would be OK, but possibly this is a bit weak, too. Is there a precise way of> saying the extent must be embedded in the whole as a touch in its own right?
What exactly do you mean by "embedded in the whole as a touch in it's own right"? I presume that you don't mean it has to be a continuous block, nor just as letting it be in individual leads.
> 2. With two stages A and B, we must have an unambiguous way of separating> the changes into two sets A and B before applying rule (1) to both. The> trouble is, there is no concept of "stage" at the level of the individual> change. So I believe you need some coarser-grained unit against which the > stage split is made.> > The two-stage issue is important. If you don't attempt to solve this, then> you are accepting pretty much anything is true. For instance, you could give> me a blatantly false peal of Triples, with loads of repeated changes, and I> could say "Well this is actually a true peal of Triples and Minor. This set> of changes is unique, and they are the Triples changes; and these changes> you thought were duplicates, well actually they're Minor changes, and true> against each other. So this is a true peal."> > That really is bollocks isn't it!
Yes, that isn't what we want, although it would have to be very carefully constructed to be able to lift out whole extents of minor.
Can i also just note my (continued) disagreement to limiting this to 2 stages (but that's another issue).
> So I think that, although interleaving Minor and Triples changes throughout> a peal should be perfectly acceptable, it needs to be done in such a way we> can tell what the Minor changes are and what the Triples changes are. Since> peals are (currently) comprised of methods, checking this at the level of> the lead seems the finest-grained approach we would want to take.> > If you don't like the idea of having to rely on leads, can you suggest> something else?
I know it's not paticularly nice, but could you embed the stage in the definition of a method? Then all the rows of that method are at that stage or higher, so you can still split it all up at individual rows, but they can't be counted as being at a lower stage, stopping you counting the false rows of your triples peal as minor unless you acually define the methods as minor.
Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080810/dd65a16c/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list