# [r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Sun Aug 10 12:01:53 UTC 2008

```Mark Davies wrote:

> I think Iain's recursive definition of truth and Don's "sets" definition
> both suffer from this problem: they work at the level of individual changes,
> and individual changes don't have a stage. Hence by pretending to ring
> multi-stage peals you can ring any false stuff you like.

No, not "any false stuff you like".  Not even remotely.
Iain requires that the rows on all but the highest stage
form a complete extent.  Don, as modified my me, requires
that the rows on all but one stage form a complete extent.
I don't think anyone (Don included) is championing Don's
original version that allowed incomplete extents on all
stages: that was a minor oversight which was quickly
corrected.

So yes, you can ring a whole extent on the higher stage
(say, triples) plus a few scattered rows on the lower stage
(minor, perhaps).  But this is just a special case of
one-plus-a-bit extents of triples.

Or you can ring a partial extent of triples plus a whole
extent on the lower stage.  But if you do that, then all of
the repeated rows must have the same non-changing bells.
This is what your contrived touch of triples and singles
does.  But in practice, with real-world 'accidentally'-false
touches, the repeated rows just don't form one or more
extents on lower numbers.  Don has already pointed out that
his definitions require the stage to be greater than one, so
we can't have n extents on one bell, one per repeated row.
I wouldn't object to increasing this to require the stage to
be greater than two, if it'll make you feel more
confortable.

Consider a false touch of Plain Bob Triples with a repeated
lead.  You can't mould these 14 rows into a set of extents
on any number -- you just don't have enough rows with fixed
bells.  Perhaps there's a whole repeated course?  The
rows with the treble in 1-2 form 12 extents on two with
five covers.  But I can't do anything useful with the
other 60 rows.

Show me a false touch that isn't clearly contrived and that
can be described as true under the mixed stages rule.  Then
I might take this objection a bit more seriously.

RAS

```