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

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 11 00:16:14 UTC 2008

> Matthew Frye wrote:> > > I must admit that i do see the logic (and beauty if you > > want to call it that) in the 2-length system,> > Genuine request, then... could someone enlighten me?
[snip]> But perhaps I'm reading too much into your choice of words > 'logic' and 'beauty'.
Firstly, i think that beauty isn't really the right word for here.
I don't think that the logic for it is anything more that what's already been said here before and isn't paticualrly convincing. There's no way to get away from the fact that a peal originates from the extent of triples and also it is nice to have a number with some relevance apart from the artificial importance given to it by our decimal number system, if you look lower than 7, it's all nice and you just use multiple extents to get to the same length, however once you get above 7 bells, that standard no longer has any meaning so we must find another kind of meaning to base another standard on, which is where our artificial base 10 numbering comes in. 
So taking the definition of a peal from an extent on 7, logically extending it up or down gives you different definitions.
I did say that it wasn't paticularly convincing...
Win a voice over part with Kung Fu Panda & Live Search   and   100’s of Kung Fu Panda prizes to win with Live Search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080811/29727a4c/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list