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

[Matthew Frye]

> Matthew Frye writes,> > > 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.> > No, as RAS has just been discussing with me, you can easily spawn off two> extents of Singles from a touch of Stedman Triples:> > Six one is:> > 1234567> 2135476> 2314567> 3215476> 3124567> 1325476> > and six two is:> > 1324567> 3125476> 3214567> 2315476> 2134567> 1235476> > Put these together *at the level of individual changes* and you get the two> extents of singles:> > 1234567> 2134567> 2314567> 3214567> 3124567> 1324567> > and> > 1235476> 2135476> 2315476> 3215476> 3125476> 1325476> > Do you see the problem now?
Yes i see the problem, it's that you don't understand.
 
Under the suggestions as i understand them with all the various suggested revision so far, if you are ringing Stedman triples, then the stage is defined as being triples, therefore any rows in that method are defined as being of stage 7 (or above if you want) and therefore cannot be defined as being stage 3 so can't be broken off into the 2 singles extents you describe above, silly method definitions wouldn't help you here either as they would also have to have bells dodgin at the back, unless you were to have 5 bells covering for the whole 6. Stick with the plot Mark. :-)
> You also wrote:> > > On the compositions side, on higher numbers could you use extents on low> > numbers to turn the back bells between positions? If you're ringing 12,> > have an extent of PB doubles on the 7-E and insert max/cinques round> > blocks method at the appropriate points. I am not much of a composer so> > don't know if this idea has any value, but there may be uses for these> > things.> > Yes, this is perfectly reasonable. But the point is, the Doubles changes> would have to be treated as Max/Cinques rows, and proved against the rest of> the peal as such. If you don't do this, the peal is false.> > Have a sit down and think about it Matthew...> > MBD> 
You say "would have to" when what you mean is "would have to under the MBD rules" under the more liberal suggestions you could define it as an extent of doubles and not have to prove it agains the rest of the rows. Now i've thought about it, the composition i've described probablydoesn't have much value, but the point is that there may be other posssibilities which neither you nor i have thought of.
 
Also, i would appreciate not being patronised. I have thought about this quite a bit, i may even have been sitting down at the time, though i could easily have been standing up. I may not be the oldest, most experienced or cleverest person here, but i would still apreciate a bit of respect for my opinions.> Don Morrison wrote:> > >> Does no-one other than me see the beauty of this two-length system?> >> > I sure don't.> > Me neither.> > RAS
I must admit that i do see the logic (and beauty if you want to call it that) in the 2-length system, unfortunately i don't agree with it, if it matters so much to people then they'll follow it without anyone telling them to, I personally wouldn't want to ring a peal of triples that wasn't 5040 without a good reason, but neither would i want to be limited to only be able to do that.
> P.S. You'll be pleased to know I'm off on a work trip for a couple of days, > so sadly will not be able to misrepresent other posters, for a bit. ;-) > > MBD
 
Well thank god for that, we might stop going round in circles for a while.
_________________________________________________________________
Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571440/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080810/0c62ccae/attachment-0004.html>