[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Sun Aug 10 14:11:22 UTC 2008

MBD, quoting me:

>> 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.

Hmm. Let me check I have got this right.  You are concerned 
about a performance on seven bells that contains some rows 
once, some twice, and some not at all?  It needs both 
duplicates and omissions to be false in our intuitive 

Let's think about how we go about justifying this as mixed 
triples and some lower stage.  We know that cannot complete 
the extent of triples because of the omitted rows. 
Therefore we want to find one or more complete extents of a 
lower stage that between them mop up all of the duplicate 
rows.  To do this, the extent(s) on the lower stage must 
avoid all of the omitted rows.

In the case where we have a very small number of duplicates 
and a very small number of omissions, this seems most 
feasible.  And, as you suggest, Stedman is a good candidate 
for this.  Without using strange calls, either we repeat all 
of the rows in a six, or none of them.  Perhaps we have 
one duplicate six and consequentially one omitted six. 
Stedman is nice because each six pairs with a second six, 
and between them, they contain two extents of singles.  We 
would have to be very unlucky for the omitted six to be the 
one required to complete the extents of singles with the 
duplicated six.  So I'm happy to accept that a minimally, 
'accidentally' false peal of Stedman could quite likely be 
rescued in this way.

*But*, if you do this, you've no longer got a peal of 
Stedman Triples.  What you now have is a peal of Mixed 
Stedman Triples and Variable Cover Original Singles, or 
something of that ilk.  The very fact that the peal needs a 
silly title should itself warn people that the peal is a bit 
dodgy.  And if people choose to ring it anyway?  That's no 
skin off my nose.  I doubt I'll agree to ring.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list