[r-t] Shades of truth

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Thu Oct 1 00:10:38 UTC 2009

> >  "We should prescribe the minimum that we need to call it 'ringing', for
> >   example what changes, rows and truth are, and just describe the rest."
> >
> > Why do we include truth in that list?

Why do we include changes or rows in that list? Why do we have a list at all?

> > I'm certainly happy to have it be a thing that varies with 
> > time and purpose. I suspect some others may be more 
> > uncomfortable with that.
> I'd be interested to hear from those who are unconfortable 
> with the idea.  Yes, I can guess what some of the objections 
> might be, but I would like to actually hear them.  Last year 
> Martin Cansdale said "I don't think the solution for this is 
> to recognise as a peal [...] any old rubbish."  And of 
> course the problem with this is that we almost certainly 
> cannot unanimously agree on what constitutes "any old 
> rubbish".  By having multiple standards of truth we're 
> recognising that people disagree and allowing people to see 
> immediately what standard of truth applies to what 
> performance.

I am not opposed to having different standards of truth, but I think that there should be, there must be, some minimum standard and certainly agree that we should not recognise "any old rubbish". I think that the main issue would (should?) be to set this minimum standard (at
whatever level) then the categorisations could be drawn within that,
hopefully without much controversy. Most people won't mind/know if what they're ringing is in class [U] or class [C] or class [Q], they'll just want to know if it's classed as "true" or not.

As I remeber, much of the discussion last time was about how to deal with multiple stages and/or "cover" bells/variable cover/similar, none of which has been touched on this time (and which I am not going into now).

Personally I believe that the minimum standard should be set at (for a simple single stage):
>    [Q] there exists an integer n such that every possible row
>        either occurs n times or (n+1) times.
Which I believe is more or less the widely accepted general version of truth currently used. I don't think that it could be any tighter (as it would start disallowing things currently allowed) but can't be any looser or you very quickly get to a situation where you could ring 84 plain courses of bob minor (with no calls) and call it a peal (which I would suggest constitutes "any old rubbish" and should not be recognised as being true in any way).

Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20091001/3da28a6f/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list