[r-t] Candidate definition #10

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Wed Aug 13 21:35:18 UTC 2008

Apologies. I sent this after replying only to the first paragraph,
having forgotten to reply to the following one.

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Ted Steele <ted.steele at tesco.net> wrote:
> 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.

No, there is deliberately *no* such form of words or specific notion.
There is, from the perspective of what a true and/or complete piece of
ringing is, absolutely no difference between such a bell and an
ordinary working bell. This definition has no explicit notion of a
varying cover bell as anything special, and in particular it is not a
covering (that is non-changing) bell.

> 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.

Correct, it cannot. If it rings in the same place in each and every
row of a block it is a non-changing bell. If it swaps with another
bell and starts ringing changes it is *not* a non-changing bell.

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Making an assumption is something completely different than assuming
something. Assumptions are conclusions, and assuming is a
pre-conclusion. I don't think you can say that something is an
assumption when you've assumed it." -- an anonymous IT consultant

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list