[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.
RAS
More information about the ringing-theory
mailing list