[r-t] Candidate definition #10

[Ted Steele]

Don Morrison wrote:
>> Don: "One or more bells may ring in the same position in each and every row"
>> of a block.
>>
>> Ted: To me this implies that one or more bells may remain in the position
>> where they started and stay there throughout the block. In relation to
>> the last position in the row that defines cover as we know it but it
>> precludes variable cover.
>>     
>
> Don: No. If it's a variable cover the bell ringing at the back is *not* the
> same bell all the time, and so it is not a non-changing bell. A
> variable cover is included with the other bells within the block for
> purposes of determining truth and completeness, just like the
> Decisions today require. It is only factored out completely if it
> never varies.
That's exactly my point. I know what you want to say, I just don't think 
these words say it. I think  that your wording factors it out 
completely. It's obviously not what you intend but it is what it says, 
to me at least. "One or more bells may ring in the same position in each 
and every row" means that, for example one bell, say the tenor may ring 
in the ultimate position in "each and every row" of the block. Thus no 
other bell may swap places with it because the tenor has got to be there 
for "each and every row". Whatever bell starts there has got to stay 
there for each and every row.

If you say that different bells may occupy the cover position in the row 
from time to time during the block but do not participate in change 
making whilst occupying that position, or words to that effect, then I 
think you have what you want, and of course you can specify that several 
positions may be "covered" if you so wish.

(When thinking of variable and multiple covers I think that the idea of 
a bell covering a position so that no other bell can occupy it is 
perhaps more helpful than the usual idea that the tenor is a cover over 
all the other bells),

Ted