[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods

[Alexander Holroyd]

Very interesting point, Richard.  But are you sure?

According to C1 your method has two principal hunts (and their definition 
does not depend on the rotation).  Therefore according to C2, "cross 
section" and "Surprise" etc are defined with respect to _both_ principal 
hunts.  It's not quite clear what this means for "cross section" (B1d), 
but I guess it is a change where both principal hunts pass from one 
dodging position to another.  So then there is no problem (except I'm not 
sure what "dodging position" means in general).

Personally I still think the Surprise / Delight / TB is rather a waste of 
time though!

Ander

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Richard Smith wrote:

> Actually, they're not: they're contradictory.
>
> Take the following assymetric treble dodging major method.
>
> 34-34.4.56-56.6.2-2.3.34-34.5.56-56.25.34-34.3.2-2.6.56-56.1
>
> So far as I can see, this is a perfectly legal method (albeit undesirable in 
> a number of ways).  What class is it? There's a 18 place notation at the lead 
> end, but otherwise there are internal places across each division end.  Given 
> that Bristol is a surprise method and that has a 18 lead end, this cannot 
> matter.  (And (E)B.1(d) would appear to confirm this.)  So this method is a 
> surprise method, according to the CC decisions.
>
> What about this one?
>
> 56-56.6.2-2.3.34-34.5.56-56.25.34-34.3.2-2.6.56-56.1.34-34.4
>
> Well, we have a 18 place notation as the treble comes down to 1-2, so it must 
> be a delight method.
>
> But these two methods are simply rotations of each other, and, being 
> twin-hunt methods, they both have the treble as the hunt bell.  The CC would 
> have us believe that methods which are simply rotations of each other are in 
> fact the same method (c.f. the whole Helen Bob / Arlesey Bob nonsense).
>
> That means these two methods must have the same name and class.  But we've 
> just established that they are of different classes.  So we have a problem in 
> the decisions.
>
> RAS
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>