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

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Sun Aug 10 23:15:45 UTC 2008

```Matthew writes,

> 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

Argh... no... that's exactly what we're saying. You're ringing Stedman
Triples, all the rows are at stage 7, except 6 (or 12) of them are repeated.
You now make those rows into a true peal of "Singles and Triples" as I've
described. Same peal, same rows, still false, but by describing it as a
two-stage peal you're getting away with pretending it is true.

> 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.

I don't think many people are comfortable with the idea of sticking a 120 of
Doubles in the middle of a peal of Max, hence repeating changes at the
higher stage, and calling it a true peal. Truth has little meaning if you
can do that, has it? Even RAS doesn't like the idea of the extents of
Singles in the peal of Triples. Of course, let people ring that sort of
stuff if they want to.

> 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

My apologies Matthew... I probably owe you a beer...

MBD

```