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

[Mark Davies]

Matthew writes,

> Same rows, different peal because the rows come in a different order. At 
> this point you are acually changing what is rung and not just the 
> description/interpretation

No: this is the point you've missed, I think. The rows come in the same 
order. The peal looks exactly like Stedman Triples, is rung like Stedman 
Triples, and is a false peal of Stedman Triples. But the thing is, you can 
look at isolated changes - say change numbers 523, 525, 527, 2246, 2248 and 
2250 - and make an extent of Singles. Due to the structure of Stedman, look 
at changes 524, 526, 528, 2245, 2247 and 2249 and you've got another extent 
of Singles. You've now "extracted" two false sixes, so look at the rest of 
the peal and it's now true.

Unless you add some rule about partitioning into stages by methods, or 
blocks, or structure of composition, then what I've described is possible, 
and is a means of "proving" a false peal and saying it's true against 
multiple stages.

MBD