[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Ben Willetts ben at benjw.org.uk
Sun Aug 10 15:39:34 UTC 2008

> Under Iain's definition, you can then complete the Minor extent
> by picking individual changes from the Triples ...
> So you've turned a false peal into a true one.

Thinking about this, if we're going to allow mixed-stage Minor and Triples
with a partially-completed extent, then we could have the following peals:

1.  A complete extent of Triples and a partial extent of Minor with the 7th

2.  A partial extent of Triples, and a partial extent of Minor with the 7th
covering, such that all 5040 rows on seven bells are rung at least once,
those that are rung twice have the 7th behind, and none are rung three or
more times.

It would be possible to arrange things such that these two peals *contained
exactly the same rows*.  We then have the situation that the first is
clearly a peal, but the second might not be.

Then, this means that whether it is a peal or not depends on how you
describe it, and I thought that it was the intention to avoid this sort of
artificial ambiguity.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list