[r-t] Norwich Axioms

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Sat Jul 19 13:04:15 UTC 2008

This discussion has prompted me to go re-read the Norwich Axioms for
the first time in while. In doing so I was struck by two things:

1) They appear to suffer from the same problem with singles in
Grandsire as the current Decisions. Am I reading this correctly? If
so, that seems a shame. I'd think that whatever our descriptive
process is it should cope with the normal calls used in what is almost
certainly the second most commonly rung method (I'm not just talking
about in peals, where Grandsire is no longer anywhere near as popular
as it once was). As the current Decisions, and the Norwich Axioms,
read it does appear we have to make use of subterfuge by pretending
that when we say "single" we are actually making two different calls
at two different changes.

2) They appear to continue to exclude things like Dixon's. This also
accords with your summary description yesterday of a method being
composed of round blocks, I believe. Does this mean that you (Mark
Davies) agree with the Council in implicitly deprecating such methods?
If memory serves, the 7 different non-conformances peal to which
Richard Smith referred a day or two ago contained a rule based extent
such as this. Does this mean you agree with the Council's behavior in
using a pocket veto to keep this peal out of the Council's records,
since it included an extent of something you don't consider a method?
(Of course, that peal also included jump changes of which you don't
approve, too.)

Also, Mark, I have a formatting suggestion. It would be helpful if the
formatting for deleted and inserted material were made more distinct
from one another. Perhaps making one of them a different color. When
in red the struck out and underlined text look remarkably similar, and
trick the reader's eye. When reading it about six or eight times I
thought I had detected an inconsistency, and only on careful rereading
did I discover that a deletion was followed by an insertion I had
skipped over while skipping over the deleted text.

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"There is absolutely no substitute for a genuine
lack of preparation."             -- Author unknown

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list