[r-t] How much of a method do you need to include? (was Proof of twin-stage peals)
matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Sun Aug 10 16:19:47 UTC 2008
> As part of his reply Matthew Frye wrote:> > I know it's not particularly nice, but could you embed the stage in the> > definition of a method?> > I think this is completely reasonable, and not in any way un-nice, so> long as you adopt the "type (2)" definition of "method", the one that> says a method is any process for generating rows. You can't if you
I thought that the intention was to define what a peal was and truth etc. without refering to methods. I guess that was possibly a bit idealistic or maybe i just misunderstod.
> I think those folks that want to set a lower bound on the amount of> something different you include are worried about people otherwise> "abusing" the rules to get effects they'd prefer not to have included.> > But if you try to legislate it out, you're not solving your perceived> problem, your just forcing people to be clever in contriving ways> around it.
If you take the stage from the method would limit this problem to quite a large extent if not completely prevent it, for example you couldn't split off bits of an accidently false peal of stedman to a singles extent as there would be no way of forcing it into a singles method without having 4 cover bells not moving for a whole six, at which point it becomes extremely contrived in ringing it rather than just describing it.
Make a mini you on Windows Live Messenger!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ringing-theory