[r-t] Candidate definition #10
richard at ex-parrot.com
Tue Aug 12 17:04:26 UTC 2008
Don Morrison wrote:
> In this definition we do have to give up those invariants that my
> intuition cries out for.
Yes, I noticed that too. To recap: your first invariant was
that if a peal is true, then any rotation of that peal
should also be true. This is a special case of your second
invariant, which was that if a peal is true, then any other
composition containing precisely the same rows is also be a
While I would have liked the more general second invariant
to have been true, I won't lose too much sleep over it. But
this definition also loses the first invariant, and that I'm
not happy about.
If I ring a 60 of Grandsire Doubles: pbpbpb, followed by
seven extents of Plain Bob Minor (WHW x6, s half-way and
end) but replacing the final single with a bob to bring up
132456, followed by 60 changes of Grandsire Doubles: pbpbps.
This is not true, per your new definition, because you have
two incomplete blocks of doubles. But if I rotate it so
that all of the Grandsire is together, it is now true.
And I'm not happy with that!
More information about the ringing-theory