[r-t] Extension

edward martin edward.w.martin at gmail.com
Sat Jul 26 20:49:06 UTC 2008

2008/7/26 Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk>

> Eddie wrote:
> > The C.C.'s classification of its 'Twin Hunt methods' is inadequate and
> > (again as I've tried to point out) based on a lie, or at best a false
> > interpretation of how these methods work and are constructed. There is
> > nothing 'old fashioned' about this.
> It is easy to criticise, but suggesting satisfactory alternatives is not so
> easy. All I can suggest, Eddie, is that you propose your own set of
> definitions that solve the problems you perceive. At least then we can say
> whether we like those definitions better.
> Graham

Well, I have suggested that Grandsire is better defined as a (what was it?)
'differential hunter'.  ie the bobbed block Is a structure symmetric about
the treble's lead, unfortunately similar bobbed blocks do not exist for the
majority of so-called twin hunt methods.. To be honest I don't know how best
to define them all, however, in each case it is possible(or so I believe) to
encounter what would have been recognised as a 'New' or 'Inverse' variation,
which obviously (to me) needs to be defined simply because it could exist in
a true composition and since it could exist, needs to be named to
distinguish it from what else is being rung.
It  certainly is easy to criticise, particularly if there is a legitimate
moan - which, of course is what I think I have , but a solution to the
problaem is not so easily thought out as is discovering the problem

The true extension of principles so as to retain the principle is a
particularly knotty problem perhaps without solution, but to admit as much,
in my opinion, is far better than trying to force rules of extension where
these rules do not even try to reflect the actual principle involved.
Perhaps this isn't helped by the (what I think to be a particularly) dumb
definition of what a principle is. At present, all that seems to be required
is that there are as many divisions, or lead blaocks as there are working
bells, whether or not there is any perceptible PRINCIPLE behind the
workings. Tony's (again reasonable) answer is that in the case of numbers
below 8, if the principle is not capable of actually working then it can't
be pealed & therefore won't be named. This is evading the problem, but I
can't blame him for that.

Thank you for your interest

Eddie Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080726/febb5937/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list