[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Sun Aug 10 20:57:26 UTC 2008

RAS writes,

> 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 meaning.

Not exactly - because we have already accepted this is a perfectly legal
state of affairs. For instance, two extents of Minor and a 3600 of Triples
could produce this. You're not saying you'd reject that?

> So I'm happy to accept that a minimally, 'accidentally' false peal of
> Stedman could quite likely be rescued in this way.

I'm not. "Rescuing" false peals of Stedman. It's a bit shit Richard!

> 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.

You've put your finger on it - mixed Triples and Singles is dodgy!


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list