[r-t] Ben Constant's Yorkshire Royal

[tom willis]

> Message: 5> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:55:14 -0000> From: "Mark Davies" <mark at snowtiger.net>> Subject: Re: [r-t] Ben Constant's Yorkshire Royal> To: <ringing-theory at bellringers.net>> Message-ID: <082301c9764f$c108c080$0400a8c0 at markx2>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> > Philip writes,> > > Eg is Chandler's 23-spliced a simple re-arrangement of Smith's 23 spliced?> > Are they identical even? Would you refer to either as Arr. from trad?> > There are several levels of "composition identity", the first couple of> which are surely unarguable:> 
>[snip]> 4. Level 4 is fairly similar to level 3, but here we allow differences other> than insertion or deletion of idempotent blocks. For instance, MB gives the> same transformation as 2W. A composition whose calling is identical to> another's, with the exception of MB versus 2W, would be a variation under> this rule.
Taking this to its logical extreme (as I tend to do), then surely any two peals of triples in a given method are the 'same', because you've just replaced one block of 5040 with another...
Personaly I think those compositions obtained by transformatiosn (rotations, reflections) should be 'arrangements', while those obtained by alterations, however small, are new compositions. This would fit in better with teh definitions for methods - after all, if I take Twiddly Surprise Max, and replace one set of dodges with one set of places, then I have a new method that I can name. The annals of bell history will rightly say where I got my inspiration, but the new method would still be created by me.
Tom
_________________________________________________________________
Cut through the jargon: find a PC for your needs.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/130777504/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20090114/26331941/attachment-0004.html>