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

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Mon Aug 11 00:04:55 UTC 2008

Mark Davies wrote:

> 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.

So we have something that is not a true peal of triples, but 
is a true peal of singles and triples.  I don't have a 
conceptual problem with that.  As a result, a band ringing 
this false peal of Stedman Triples cannot send it up as a 
peal of Stedman Triples.  If they really want to ring it, 
they need to use a contrived name that reflects the 
contrived description in terms of two stages.  I contend 
that this will both put people off ringing it and also make 
it clear to others that something out of the ordinary has 
been rung.

> Even RAS doesn't like the idea of the extents of Singles 
> in the peal of Triples.

And nor do I like peals of Rutland, or mini-rings, or yellow 
salleys, or Whitechapel mark II profiles.  But it doesn't 
mean I want to see them banned them.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list