[r-t] Candidate definition #10

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Tue Aug 12 23:24:17 UTC 2008

I'm back!

I see Don has written:

> Based on all the past candidates and discussion, I propose consideration
> of the following:
> [snip]
> This definition captures a stringent definition of truth, that even Mark
> will be happy with.

No, sorry Don, this idea is no good. It has several big holes in it:

1. It is far too strict. It doesn't allow mixtures of, say, Doubles and
Minor extents: for instance a 5160 containing seven extents of Minor and an
extent of Doubles sandwiched in the middle of the last extent of Minor. I
don't see anything obviously wrong with that.

2. For a similar reason to (1), it doesn't preserve invariance of truth
under rotation. I think you've already noticed this, but it is far from
ideal. (By contrast my definitions do preserve truth under rotation).

3. It is also too lax. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "all
blocks", but if you really do mean every set of blocks which could make up
the touch, then every touch is false; so I presume you mean the composer
gets to choose what the blocks are. Presumably then at any point I can
introduce two rows, say


and say that's a true and complete extent on 2 bells? I could do that quite
a lot in a 7-bell peal and end up with all sorts of rubbish!

Basically, I don't think you can split a touch up into "blocks" in order to
ascertain truth. I think the previous definitions we've had are all better.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list