[r-t] Candidate definition #10a

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Tue Aug 12 23:03:30 UTC 2008

> Right now there is a little ambiguity that just> needs resolving if we want the definition to be solid.
To me the way to resolve it is to count the rows generated by a change, ie. discount row 0 and count row 5040 (or whatever)
Whichever way round you do it, i think you should count one but not both. Unfortunately if youdefine which one to use, then you potentially lose reversbility.
One thing that just occured to me, under these rules i think that it is still possible to ring a peal of max with a course (or several) of minimus(or singles) just attached on the start or end, so you could ring 1 course of original max and then enough extents of minimus to make up the length, do we really want to allow this? To be honest at higher stages i preferred the approach of "there are more than enough changes, so use them" and just prove everything at the highest stage. I feel this is simple, unambiguous and i can't imagine anyone having major problems with it.
Make a mini you on Windows Live Messenger!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080813/eb979bcf/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list