[r-t] Candidate definition #10

[Richard Smith]

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.

RAS