[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

[Matthew Frye]

> 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.
What about spliced minor and doubles, would extents of doubles (on thier own, not part of a mixed stage block) be allowed? Would they be allowed with a bell other than the tenor covering? Would extents of minimus or singles be allowed?
 
> 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.
I don't think that anyone could have a problem with it being to low, but i think this threshold of truth is a bit too high. As i am reading it would disallow the following example (given by me yesterday):
"One use (off the top of my head) would be if you had a treble jump minor method where the trebble hunted but just missed 5ths place, and had a doubles method where the trebble made 4 blows behind, you could ring a 600 of the minor method and 5 x 144s of the doubles with a different bell behind for each one (not the trebble) and count 2 rows from each lead of the doubles as minor with the cover, which would make up the 120 missing rows of the minor and give you a true (imho) 1320."
I know it might not be to everyone's taste to be taking rows from the middle of a doubles extent and counting them as minor, but i don't see that it's drastically different from some multi-extent blocks atm, you take rows from the middle of leads to count as being in another extent.
> 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.
 
I agree here, the rotation of a peal should make no difference to it's truth. I don't think this is a major problem, you just don't require the extents, MEB and mixed stage blocks to be complete round blocks and let the leads (or whatever) be mixed however you want.
 
 
Overall, i think this is mostly a very sensible suggestion. The rules for 7+ are probably a good idea as i think we may have been getting tied in knots a bit trying to get solutions for both over and under 7. As for 6 and less, in addition to what i've said above, I would still like to be able to ring partial extents of minor.
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile from Vodafone 
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571435/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080811/0ac3a0a3/attachment-0004.html>