[r-t] Candidate definition #10

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Tue Aug 12 22:29:03 UTC 2008

> 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!
No, i am not am not am not happy with that at all. Aas i've previously implied/stated, i would like rather liberal rules about how you can mix up extents, you can freely intersperse rows from different extents at the same stage, so why should we limit ourselves with extents at different stages (which is what these proposals do). I am just not prepared to accept the need to keep extents/multi-extent blocks at different stages as separated round blocks. I think that i still prefer the oposite approach to grouping rows (ie. getting the rows and sorting into groups rather than starting with the rows (extents) and ordering them into touches) as it seems to fit more with the classifying what you're doing, not laying out what is allowed, but this difference may be minimal. Perhaps if i find time, i'll pull my ideas into some kind of coherent proposals.
> Does anyone have some other suggestions for a bell that never moves,> but is not necessarily in last place?
Well, the obvious one that springs to mind is "non-moving bell" Another possibility could be "static bell".
Either way, i think names and/or the technical (or not) language are probably only worth worrying about once we have some kind of consensus (or as close as we can get) on what exactly the proposals will say.
> As to the practicality, I suspect most of those contributing> substantially to this discussion do so because they enjoy it. Journey> versus destination kind of thing. It's certainly not less practical> than, say, constructing an extent of Yorkshire Max, and I'm confident> many folks on this list would not consider the time they spent> analysing such a thing wasted, if presented such a thing for> consideration.
Which leaves me wondering if we should all have better things to do with our lives ;-)Seriously, i think it is very useful and interesting to try to define things we sometimes take for granted, it shows up what we really think and the differences in underatnding of something as fundamental as truth. And possibly more importantly, it has got me interested in thinking about and acually ringing these kind of things, we've even managed a couple of courses of Dixons at practice nights recently.
Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080812/d1167017/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list