[r-t] Candidate definition #10

Ted Steele ted.steele at tesco.net
Tue Aug 12 19:35:13 UTC 2008

Don Morrison wrote:
> Based on all the past candidates and discussion, I propose
> consideration of the following:
> ---------------------------------------------------
> I have very probably misunderstood some of this but I don't mind 
> having it explained if so.

> 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.

*/*//*/*"each and every" seems to preclude variable cover. Is this your 
> A touch is a sequence of one or more blocks, rung in order 
Would "consecutively" be clearer. or is that not what you mean?
> all on all of the same bells, with no bell striking that is not a part 
> of exactly
> one block 
Should this not refer to "all blocks"? I am not sure what you are 
getting at here. Is it to allow variable cover or mixed stages? If so 
that appears to be precluded by the definition of a block.

The amendments proposed by Ian PArtridge seem appropriate,
> This definition captures a stringent definition of truth, that even
> Mark will be happy with. 
Or even me; if it means what I think it means.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list