[r-t] Candidate definition #10

[Iain Anderson]

DFM :

> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> A block, B, is a sequence of rows. Every bell strikes exactly 
> once in each row. During the performance of B no bell strikes 
> except as part of exactly one of the rows of B. The number of 
> rows contained within B is its length. One or more bells may 
> ring in the same position in each and every row of B, and 
> such bells are non-changing bells. The stage, S, of B, is the 
> number bells ringing that are not non-changing bells.
> 
> Consider a block B of stage S. There are S factorial possible 
> different rows, which are called the extent at stage S. B is 
> true if every possible distinct row of the extent at stage S 
> occurs at least N times in B and no more than N+1 times, for 
> some N>=0. B is complete if every row of the extent at stage 
> S occurs exactly N times, for some
> N>=1. B is incomplete if it is not complete.
> 
> A touch is a sequence of one or more blocks, rung in order, 
> all on all of the same bells, with no bell striking that is 
> not a part of exactly one block. The length of the touch is 
> the sum of the lengths of its constituent blocks.
> 
> A touch is a peal if it has length >=5000, and all its 
> constituent blocks are true, and no more than one of its 
> constituent blocks is incomplete.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------

On first reading, it looks like a good compromise.

My interpretation of it is that it allows a 2 block peal:
B1 is a 4320 of triples, B2 is a true 720 of minor.
Together they are not a true 5040 of triples.
I thought the consensus was mixed as to whether that was acceptable.

It also stops a 5040 of triples being split in two with something added in
the middle, which I guess is the price to pay for simplicity.  It would be
nice to have a way of allowing the first and last blocks to join if the
start and end rows are the same, or does that open up more than some people
want?