[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something
mjclists at gmail.com
Mon Aug 11 17:29:11 UTC 2008
Just a thought, and I'm expecting to be sneered at (especially by those that complain of not being taken seriously) but how about:
On seven or more, ring each change at the highest stage n or n+1 times (or maybe at a stage equal to t e number of bells). The true changes are there, so ring them. That's peal ringing.
On six or fewer, ring extents, MEBs, or mixed stage blocks true at the highest stage. (This is less clear). That's peal ringing, but a bit trickier.
From: Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com>
Sent: 11 August 2008 18:06
To: Ringing Theory <ringing-theory at bellringers.net>
Subject: Re: [r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something
Sorry, Ted, but I disagree with almost everything you've
The type of 'truth' you are talking about ceased being the
whole story about a hundred years ago. Ever since E. Banks
James first produced a 2,160 of minor which didn't result in
rounds after each 720, we have been moving inexorably away
from your black-and-white model of truth.
These days, almost all innovative compositions of minor are
not true in the limited sense you describe. Things have
moved on, and we cannot turn the clock back on this any more
than we can make go back to requiring peals on 8+ bells to
have at least 5040 changes.
This more sophisticated model of truth is necessary for us
to get the rich variety of interesting compositions that
currently exist on lower numbers. Within the framework of
conventional methods (which, for better or worse, ringers
like), the requirements for individual, true extents
severely curtains what can be achieved. The standard 41 in
7 extents, for example, is out of the question. That's why,
over the years, we've traded in certain aspects of truth in
order to buy additional flexibility.
The result isn't as simple, but it's much more exciting!
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory