[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods

[Don Morrison]

2009/3/26 Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk>:
> Having written the above, I started doing some more thinking. What do we
> mean by a 'Principal Hunt'? According to Decision (E)C1, both hunt bells in
> Grandsire might be seen to be 'Principal Hunts'.

No "might" about it. According to that Decision they clearly are both
Principal Hunts:

  "The principal hunts are all the hunt bells whose paths have that
   property"

Now, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with this Decision, and to
note that it might be historically a poor choice. But there is no
ambiguity in what the Decision says, at least in this regard, and if
one does choose to categorize methods according to the CC's current
Decisions, there is no ambiguity in the class of Richard's rotations*.
There is only disagreement about whether or not you like the CC's
current Decisions.

BTW, I believe that if you adopt the more ambiguous view of Principal
Hunts you are describing, it opens up the door to New Grandsire again.
The reason the CC can assert that Grandsire and New Grandsire are the
same method is that the two hunt bells are considered equally
"Principal".





* I sure am glad this is ringing-theory we're having this discussion
  on. I cringe to think what would be made of that turn of phrase on
  ringing-chat.



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on
no account be allowed to do the job."                  -- Douglas Adams