[r-t] How much of a method do you need to include? (was Proof of twin-stage peals)

[Don Morrison]

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Matthew Frye <matthew__100 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

All depends what you mean by "method". If you mean "methods as defined
by the current CC Decisions, or by the Norwich Axioms" (that is, type
(1) use of the word), then I do think using that in your definition of
truth would be unfortunate, since you can have change ringing without
them, and I believe you should be able to have peals without them. The
canonic example such a thing is Dixon's.

If you mean "method" in the type (2) way I assert is a better choice,
as simply a process for generating rows, then it is reasonable to
assert you are generating changes by some kind of method. It may be
completely unlike what we mean by "method" in the Type (1) sense,
though.


-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"There is really nothing so odd about life as its variety."
               -- Paul A. Colinvaux, _Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare_