[r-t] FW: Definition of a peal

[Philip Earis]

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Anderson [mailto:iain.anderson at talentinnovations.co.uk] 
Sent: 18 July 2008 15:31
To: Philip Earis
Cc: dfm at ringing.org
Subject: [r-t] Definition of a peal

Philip

I tried sending the following this morning, but it doesn't seem to have
made
it.
Thoughts and opinions welcome.

---------------------------------------------

Graham John:
"Everyone who criticises the current decisions underestimates the
difficulty
of coming up with a replacement set."

Philip Earis:
"... I think we only need to go to the lowest common denominator of what
is
change ringing.  As such, the decisions need only to be based around two
words: "true permutations"."

I agree that change ringing should be the basis of any definitions, but
I
disagree that change ringing implies either truth or permutations.  If
people want to ring false peals, let them.  If people want to ring
methods
that have a bell ringing at the beginning and end of the same row, let
them.
Ultimately, the decision as to whether a piece of ringing is a peal
should
be left to the band that rang it.

Here are my definitions.  I invite you to add/change/ignore them as you
see
fit.

Row:
On N bells, a row is a block of N consecutive bells (not necessarily
distinct).

Change:
A change is when two consecutive rows are different.

Peal:
1) 5000 or more changes
2) Each bell rings at least once.
3) The band that rang it, declare it to be a peal.

If a band wants to ring something that you personally wouldn't consider
to
be a peal, don't ring with them.

Iain Anderson

Iain Anderson
Talent Innovations Ltd
01923 266880
07852 162352
www.talentinnovations.co.uk





DISCLAIMER:

This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening.