[r-t] Candidate definition #10
ted.steele at tesco.net
Wed Aug 13 21:04:02 UTC 2008
Don Morrison wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Ted Steele <ted.steele at tesco.net> wrote:
>> 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.
> That is exactly my intention. If a block contains varying cover bells,
> they are *not* non-changing bells.
> Perhaps a concrete example would help.
> 1 block of Stedman Variable Cover Doubles. This is a block, of stage
> 6, and with no non-changing bells. If it is to be complete it must be
> of length 720, or a multiple thereof. If it is of length 720 or
> shorter, to be true each row, viewed as a six bell row, must be
> distinct. In our hypothetical peal it is a 720, perhaps the one
> attributed to Thomas Thurstans. It is true and complete.
> Does that help clarify things?
No, I am afraid that it doesn't. I do already understand very clearly
what you intend. I still maintain that it is not what your definition
Take the Stedman Variable Cover doubles. In your terms the bell acting
at cover is not a non-changing bell. I would say otherwise, that it is a
non-changing bell, at least while it is acting as cover; at other times
it is a changing bell; but that is really not relevant and does not
affect proof, which has to be at the six bell stage whatever way you
understand what the bell in sixth is doing. However, it is plain that
the bell in sixth place (call it whatever you like) has to alter from
time to time in a variable cover block; but your definition implies
(unintentionally, of course) that it cannot alter because it has got to
stay there for "each and every row" of the block.
You need a form of words that makes clear that different bells can take
it in turns to ring in a particular place and stay there without joining
in the change-making until required to do so by a call, at which point
another bell takes over the cover role. As I have said before, it is
just wording. Talking about proof and changing or non-changing bells
just confuses the matter. An individual bell cannot both ring in the
same place in each and every row of a block and at the same time swap
with another bell and start ringing changes.
I see that some other folk have taken issue over other aspects of your
definition number 10 and that a revision is to be expected. It is thus
rather pointless for this particular point to be argued any more. I know
that it is extremely difficult to do but perhaps you could try to find a
form of words that is totally unambiguous.
More information about the ringing-theory