[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods

[edward martin]

2009/3/27 Alexander Holroyd <holroyd at math.ubc.ca>:
> Eddie - everything you say here is true, but it would be equally true if we
> took the 2 as the "primary hunt" and used calls affecting the other bells
> (including the 1).  So I don't see how it is evidence of a difference
> between the two hunts.

Well yes but you cant have it both ways as MBD seems to want. In a
plain lead there are two hunts, however, to obtain the extent, thery
can't both be primary, although in between two singles, you might have
another primary, I haven't thought that out too well.but between
singles there will be one primary.
>
> The definitions of "principal hunts" etc in the decisions seem to be aimed
> entirely at the problem of classification, and do not seem to carry any
> implications about calls or composition.
>

I'm not a mathematician and seem to be verbally challenged, but I was
trained as an artist, & really find myself turned on by what I suppose
might be 'pure' 'innocent' maths - without knowing why

I agree that methods have to be defined somehow, and doing so by a
method's plain lead seems to be quite satisfactory until we come to
what I think is the unique category of 'twin hunt doubles' methods. In
this case, defining the method by a succession of plain leads is I
feel totally inadequte, even though this may well work on most if not
all other methods & principals.A more meaningful definition would, I
feel, have to include the alternation of plain & bobbed lead. This is
only in the case of Twin Hunt Doubles methods you understand, but,
nevertheless any definition by plain lead only is I feel totally
inadequate.

With 1 as the primary hunt
Grandsire Doubles Plain lead has        PN 3  15  15  15  15  1
Similarly New Grandsire Plain lead has PN 5  15  15  15  13 1
which truly is merely a rotation of Grandsire.
Both methods have: PN 3  15  15  15  13 1
However, if we look at the pn of alternating plain and bobbed leads
and compare the two ( again with 1 as the primary hunt) we get the
round blocks
Grandsire 3  15  15  15  15  13  15  15  15  13  1
new  gr    5  15  15  15  13   13  15  15  15  13  1

New Grandsire is no longer a trivial clockwise rotation, in fact it is
a reverse rotation and in my view is as valid a variation of Grandsire
as is Reverse Grandsire or Double Grandsire

> Are you suggesting that the classification of a method should be in some
> influenced by what types of compositions are possible for it?  That doesn't
> seem very practical - e.g. we might not have known what type of method
> Stedman triples was until recently...!
>
Yes...but only as far as so-called twin hunt doubles are concerned. I
believe this category to be unique.
According to past conversations with Tony Smith, the CC seems to want
it two ways
1: the method is defined by the succession of its plain leads
2: but doubles/minor/triples methods can only exist officially if they
have been rung to an extent

In the case of 2 and twin hunt doubles methods in particular, the
standard calling of alternating plain & bobbed leads suggest to me
that in this unique case, the bobbed lead has equal authority with the
plain and therefore should not be ignored.

I am intrigued by your  "- e.g. we might not have known what type of
method Stedman triples was until recently...!"

How recent was that then?
I have done considerable research on Stedman
Please tell more.

Eddie Martin