[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

[Mark Davies]

RAS writes,

> 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.

Nope, doesn't help! Suppose you have two incomplete extents, one Minor and 
one Triples. Under Iain's definition, you can then complete the Minor extent 
by picking individual changes from the Triples (if you've got more than a 
few thousand changes of Triples it's possible this would work by chance, 
certainly easy to construct). So you've turned a false peal into a true one.

> But in practice, with real-world 'accidentally'-false touches, the 
> repeated rows just don't form one or more extents on lower numbers.

Err no, depends on your method doesn't it! Imagine you're ringing Stedman, 
and a couple of sixes are repeated. It's entirely possible they will form 
extents of Singles, isn't it? E.g. a touch where 1234567 and 2134567 are the 
repeated six heads?

I agree it's less likely with something like Plain Bob, but these 
definitions should work for any type of method, not just conventional 
treble-dominated methods. The idea of creating a method from extents at 
lower stages - like Stedman - is commonplace, and would immediately be the 
sort of thing that would cause you problems.

MBD