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

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Sun Aug 10 19:29:28 UTC 2008

Matthew writes,

> 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.

Well I think a peal of Major with an extent of Minor in it is probably a
false peal. Certainly a peal of Triples with an extent of Singles in it is.
However, no cut-off we can devise is going to be perfect. If someone rings a
Minor+Major peal, why then it can be looked at (by some body like the
Central Council), and accepted as a true peal if there's a consensus that
that's the right decision.

What I'm saying is, establish a strong standard of proof that allows the
vast majority of what we would call true peals to be rung. Then have a
mechanism via which exceptions can be accepted.

What I'm saying we *shouldn't* do, is establish a standard of proof so weak
that blatantly-false peals can be rung within it.

Doesn't that sound reasonable? It's certainly not a good idea NOT to have
a strong standard of proof - the idea of leaving it up to individual bands
is just a cop-out. Most ringers want some reasonable guidance.

> ... just count some rows of Grandsire as doubles, and some as minor by
> including the cover... I would also allow individual rows within a lead to
> be counted as different stages.

OK, well this is back to the "pick individual changes" approach! In which
you can take a false peal at one stage and (some of the time) take out the
duplicated changes and say they are rung on a different stage. That's a weak
standard of proof - pretty much equivalent to having no standard at all.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list