[r-t] Candidate definition #10

[John Camp]

At 20:06 on 12 August 2008, Graham John wrote:

> JEC wrote:

>> You may need mathematicians to carry out this exercise
>> (if you've yet decided what it is), but the ability to
>> use the English language unambiguously would also come
>> in handy.

> Absolutely! We will need your services to rewrite it in
> English when they have finished, which could be a long
> time yet. 

No thanks!

But (and I'm being serious) I can't see how this debate is going to get
anywhere.  It is actually about people's thoughts on what meanings they
personally would like to give to concepts such as change-ringing,
methods and peals.  In order to say what meaning you would like those
words to have, it is necessary to attempt some definition.  But what is
being defined is an individual's view of what's in and what's out.  It
is serious category error to suppose that what you're doing is defining
these concepts in any general way.

Ultimately, it is going to be necessary to submit the details to a
representative group of some sort (whether the CC or something else), if
it is to gain general acceptance.  And, as someone pointed out a while
ago, there's fat chance of that, especially if the proposals seek to
overthrow traditional notions.  And, of course, what is proposed needs
to be understandable by non-mathematicians.

JEC