[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods
holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Fri Mar 27 13:33:03 UTC 2009
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.
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.
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...!
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, edward martin wrote:
> 2009/3/27 Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net>:
>> If you look at the method (Grandsire), there is absolutely no difference
>> between the two hunts.
> Of course there is.
> Grandsire Triples can be seen as having plain courses (traditionally
> with treble as Primary Hunt and a potential for six secondary hunts,
>> From rounds the secondary hunt is 2, after a bob at one, the secondary
> hunt is 7 and so on. The extent can be set out on paper in 72 mutually
> exclusive plain course structures with treble as primary hunt & each
> of the other bells taking turns as secondary hunt.
> However, although Grandsire Doubles has the same Primary Hunt and 4
> potentially secondary hunts, the extent of Grandsire Doubles cannot be
> set out in 4 true and equally structured plain courses (if you think
> it can then show me how) In fact there is no true 120 in which each of
> the 4 potential secondary hunts actually takes up the role, even for
> one lead. and no bell ever rings the full work of the plain course.
More information about the ringing-theory