[r-t] Pick and mix rules
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
What does 'lead' mean for Dixons? Or for a non-treble-
More information about the ringing-theory