[r-t] Odds & sods

Leigh Simpson lists at simpleigh.com
Thu Jul 31 11:53:44 UTC 2008

> > Admittedly there's a problem in making sure that the description is
> > general enough to embrace all possibilities which might be rung,
> > concise, and unique.
> Would a more general notation be achieved by having a condition followed
> by
> the place notation to be applied when that condition is true. The sequence
> of the conditions would be important to determine precedence where more
> than
> one condition is true.

That seems like a good plan. I'd pushed out of my mind the idea of conflicts
between the rules, but probably shouldn't have. Though whether anybody would
either want to (or be able to) ring them remains to be seen...

Though there's an issue with the description of cyclic precedence rules,
e.g. A->B, B->C, C->A if we just put them in order.

Oh, and it'd be nice to be able to describe at least the 360 of PB Minor
using rules, which is how many people ring it ("call a bob when the tenor is
at the back unless the 5 is as well").

Both of these requirements mean that each rule needs to be able to describe
the positions of (at least) two bells at once.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list