[r-t] Candidate definition #10

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Wed Aug 13 01:02:43 UTC 2008

Mark Davies wrote:

> Indeed. The problem with the "blocks" idea is it doesn't allow some really
> good stuff (interleaved multi-stage extent blocks) but it allows rubbish,
> like
>     row          pn
> 1   1234567
> 2   1243567  12567
> 3   2134657  7
> 4   1234657  34567
> 5   1326475  1
> 6   1326457  12345
> repeat ad nauseam
> being treated as a true peal of Triples, because it is composed of
> true-and-complete 2-change blocks (rows 1,2 and 3,4 and 5,6 etc).

Re-reading Don's proposed definitions, both the first set 
and the new set, I realise that there is something that I 
think is indended to be present, and that I had implicitly 
read into them, but that isn't actually stated.

This is that a non-changing bell has to be in its home 
position.  So, if you are talking about ringing on 7 bells, 
and want to include an extent of minor as a block (or stage 
fragment), then the covering bell must be the seventh.

This doesn't preclude variable cover extents, but it means 
that a variable cover extent must proved as the higher 
stage.  It means you can ring a peal of minor on seven bells 
with the 7th behind to each extent.  Or you can ring it with 
a different bell behind to each extent.  But you cannot, for 
example, have the 4th covering to four extents and the 7th 
to three.

It also kills your example.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list