[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods

[edward martin]

2009/3/26 Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
>
> 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"
>

Not according to my understandong of

"C. Classification of methods with two or more hunt bells
1: Each hunt bell is either a principal hunt or a secondary hunt."

> 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".

Not according to my understandong of

"C. Classification of methods with two or more hunt bells
1: Each hunt bell is either a principal hunt or a secondary hunt."

Obviously (to me that is) what they mean is there is but one 'principal hunt'

Cheers
Eddie Martin