[r-t] Norwich Axioms

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Sat Jul 19 17:52:11 UTC 2008

Don writes,

> 1) They appear to suffer from the same problem with singles in Grandsire
> as the current Decisions. Am I reading this correctly?

Err, not sure. What's the problem with singles? Just that it's one call
which affects multiple changes? I guess this is simply nomenclature, isn't
it. It seems to me that a Grandsire single is really two calls for the price
of one, but I can't see why collections of "technical" calls can't be
grouped together and given a single name for practical calling purposes. No

> 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.

Yes, dixonoids are clearly something different to methods as we know them.
They're rule-based constructions, not round-blocks. It just means they go in
a different category. No-one would have a problem with that, surely?

> Does this mean that you (Mark Davies) agree with the Council in implicitly
> deprecating such methods?

No, absolutely not. As I said in my last mail, I think anything like this
should be recorded and catalogued, and awarded the same status in that
respect as any other type of ringing.

> 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?

No no and no again! The peal was true, it's a peal. It's maybe not a peal of
methods-as-we-know-them, but all I'd do would be to describe any dixonoids
or other non-methods it contains in a separate category, as explained above
and before.

> Also, Mark, I have a formatting suggestion.

Yes, it's pretty rubbish isn't it. I'll probably ditch the "revision" idea
at some point and just put the axioms up on their own.

Graham writes,

> How would you describe Brain Price's 5090 Cambridge S Major when rotated
> then?

Hmm, well it's clearly the same composition, but I agree you'd have to
describe the two changes at the end a bit differently if you rang any other
rotation. Calling it One-Spliced Cambridge would be fine by me - I don't
really see why you can't start a new method wherever you want in spliced.
Yeah, that's quite good isn't it. Why should we only be allowed to have the 
discontinuity at the end of the peal?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list