[r-t] Pick and mix rules

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Wed Aug 13 22:05:47 UTC 2008

Mark Davies wrote:

> So here's the pick-and-mix ruleset. Remember it's only talking about what
> makes a true peal, not other conditions unrelated to truth!

Well, I can't pick any of your rules because I fundemetanlly 
disagree with your basic definitions.  And without agreeing 
with them there's no point in discussing things derived from 

> First some definitions:
> A touch is a block of changes beginning and ending in rounds.

I'm not sure I like the beginning and ending in rounds bit, 
but I'll let that pass.

> A touch is true if every change is unique.

But I can't let that pass.  Under this definition a 240 of 
Grandsire Doubles is necessarily false.  This is a far to 
restrictive a definition of truth.

> A touch is an extent at the stage being discussed if it contains every
> change in the extent.

Now you are confusing 'change' with 'row'.

> A touch is a true extent if it is true and if it is an extent.

No arguments there.

> Stage is the number of bells considered to be ringing in the methods of the
> peal, and hence involved in determination of proof. (Bells covering or
> leading for the entire peal have no effect on proof or stage).

You are defining 'stage' in terms of a method.  I don't 
object to that per se, but the combination of a strict 
definition of 'method' (a 'type (1) definition' in Don's 
terms) and a definition of 'truth' and 'extent' that depends 
on 'stage' means that you have defined truth and peals in 
terms of strictly-defined method.  I find that fundamentaly 

> The stage of a method is the number of changing bells in a lead of the
> method.

What does 'lead' mean for Dixons?  Or for a non-treble- 
dominated Dixonoid?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list