[r-t] Truth (yet another definition)

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Mon Sep 1 17:20:14 UTC 2008

Wow this topic just stopped dead 18(?) days ago without anything resembling a conclusion, does anyone else feel like trying to bring a bit of life back into it?
Any thoughts on my last suggestions (copied below)?

From: matthew__100 at hotmail.comTo: ringing-theory at bellringers.netDate: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:33:00 +0100Subject: [r-t] Truth (yet another definition)

Hi all, as this issue has gone quiet (for the moment) I have pulled my ideas and opinions on truth together into something approximating a coherent set of rules for people to look at and disagree with. It is all a bit rough and will need re-wording, but i think it conveys my intentions ok, which i think is more important at this stage than the actual wording. Firstly, I will need a reasonable difinition of both row and change but I assume that everyone here will understand what i mean without defining them at the moment. Secondly, I am assuming that the stage of a method (used here in it's broadest sense) is established as part of the definition of the method itself. I will also lift the definitions of "true" and "complete" from previous definitions (true=every row N or N+1 times, complete= every row exactly N times) [notes in square brackets]  When ringing a touch, a number of bells equal to the stage of the method being rung must be allocated to ring the method. Any other bells are non-changing bells at that point and must ring in the same position in the change unless affected by a call. [i am not certain about this last bit, i felt that something was needed to say what a non-changing bell does (or doesn't do)] For proving truth, the stage/non-changing bells of a row are determined by the method the preceding change belongs to. [slightly confusing rule, but unambiguous once you read it i think. Also loses reversability (though retains rotatability)]Non-changing bells can be considered to be changing bells. A touch is true if the rows can be split into groups such that: a. within each group, all rows have the same non-changing bells in the same positions. [and therefore the same stage as well] b. each group is true within itself. c. At most 1 group may be incomplete, all others must be true and complete. Possible d. Where 2 or more groups are present, at least 1 group at the highest stage must be complete. [this limits doing silly things at higher stages but also prevents things like an extent of minor added into anything shorter than 5040 of triples]   I think that the main difference in there is the allocation of non-changing bells to individual rows, which allows you to be quite free with the groupings without allowing any nonsense in without a very careful and deliberate effort to defy the rules.

Get Hotmail on your mobile from Vodafone Try it Now! 
Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20080901/43d0e117/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list