[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Mon Aug 11 18:41:10 UTC 2008

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Martin Cansdale <mjclists at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I don't see how anyone could think this is sneer-worthy. It's a
perfectly sensible position to take, and perhaps close to the best
compromise that can be had between the two camps (neither of which is
homogeneous in its views anyway). And it does have a strong flavour
redolent of the status quo, which makes it seem an easy step to take.
That is, it is similar in outlook to the current Decisions, slightly
liberalised. It differs from the status quo in at least the following

- It allows triples between 5,000 and 5,040.

- It allows minimus of 5,016. If Singles is also allowed (it is silent
  on that point) it would allow that to be 5,004.

Of the ways many, though by no means all, of us would like to see
things liberalised, it omits this one:

- You can have funny lengths for triples on up, but not for minor and
  below. E.g. while you can have a 5,025 or a 5,100 of Triples, you
  can't have a 5,100 or 5,041 of minor.

Some points it leaves unaddressed include:

- How many covering (or otherwise fixed) bells are allowed. If
  multiples are allowed, as seems to be implied by your use of
  "highest" instead of "higher", it further liberalizes what can go
  into a mixed stage peal: for example, you could ring extents of
  minimus, doubles and minor all in the same peal, or stirred together
  in an MEB.

- It doesn't address how you mix triples and minor. I'm guessing it
  implicitly treats it as triples for purposes of truth. Is that correct?

- It doesn't say whether the only fixed bell(s) is/are covering.
  This could get awkward if you can ring a single stage, but with
  varying fixed bells (e.g. sometimes covered, sometimes continuously
  led). However I think your notion of truth for mixed stages can
  probably be easily extended to cover this case.

Virtues include:

- How you treat mixed stage round blocks is clear and unambiguous,
  even for more than two stages. And it is a pretty high threshold of
  truth, that I suspect even Mark wouldn't object to.

Worries include:

- It violates my intuition, in that a rotation of an acceptable peal is
  not necessarily acceptable. Of course, it may be my intuition that
  is at fault here. Certainly the current Decisions do not preserve
  this invariant.

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"We do not receive wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves.
     -- Marcel Proust,  _À la recherche du temps perdu_,
        tr. C. K. Scott Moncrieff

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list