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

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Sun Aug 10 12:31:03 UTC 2008

> > What exactly do you mean by "embedded in the whole as a touch in it's own> > right"?> > I didn't say that! I said "embedded in the whole as a touch in its own> right". Makes much more sense. ;-)
Sorry, my mistake!
> I think the touch idea may be a bit too restrictive, in fact. You have an> extent of Minor, you want to embed it in a peal of Triples. Does it have to> be extractable in some fashion as an extent touch in its own right? Well you > could argue that, but it is a restriction. It would be nice to be able to > ring extents of Minor which form into two or more blocks that can't > ordinarily be linked, by embedding the blocks into the Triples. No?
I can't think that anyone (here at least) would disagree with that.
> > 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.> > No, not if we allow one partial extent in a peal. You don't want to exclude> that, do you?
No, i won't expand on this here as RAS has since provided a much better explanation that i could.
> > Can i also just note my (continued) disagreement to limiting this to 2> > stages (but that's another issue).> > Not limiting methods to just two stages, remember - only the process of> proof. If you allow multiple stages for proof, you have the Triples and> Singles problem, and open up the field to obviously false peals again. So> the 2 stage rule is not stopping you ringing what you want to ring, it's> just ensuring that whatever you do ring has a reasonable standard of truth> applied to it.
I know it opens up the singles and triples problem, but what if i want to embed an extent of minor into a peal of major?
It's been said before, but you seem to be more worried about preventing thing you don't want rather than allowing things you do want.
> > 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> > Yes, that's what I originally meant I think. So that, if you ring Grandsire> Doubles, Plain Bob Doubles and Plain Bob Minor, all the rows in the> Grandsire Doubles and PB Doubles are treated at the lower stage.> > This is quite neat, but it would prevent certain things: you couldn't ring a> Doubles extent of Grandsire Doubles, and also use variable-cover Grandsire> Doubles as part of an extent of Minor. Are we bothered? Yes, probably - this> seems a valid thing to want to do.
I don't see why you couldn't do that, you just count some rows of Grandsire as doubles, and some as minor by including the cover. I meant that the stage of the method is the lowest stage it can be counted at, not the only stage it can be counted at. I would also allow individual rows within a lead to be counted as different stages.
Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080810/416792d3/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list