[r-t] Asymmetric Doubles

[Matthew Frye]

On re-reading I fear I may have missed the point I was intending to respond to, which was that his big single may more accurately be described as a triple than as a double.

I shouldn't write emails while not properly awake.

Matthew

On 6 Aug 2010, at 04:22, Matthew Frye wrote:

> Surely the origin of the term "single" is from single change? Presumably originally minor where it is essential (for extents in many methods), actually a single change and would also have been rung widely around the time the term was coined.
> In that case 3/4 of the doubles "calls" could be legitimate singles, and singles on major are actually "doubles". Needless to say, even if this was the origin, convention had it's own ideas.
> 
> And what does all this tell us?
> Nothing much…
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 5 Aug 2010, at 23:58, Graham John wrote:
> 
>> MBD wrote:
>> 
>> 1344 Yorkshire Max comp MBD
>>  53246
>>  64235 Big single Home
>>  64352 Middle
>>  63542 Half-lead bob Home
>>  35642 Wrong
>>  35246 Half-lead single Middle
>>  34256 Single Home
>>  42356 Half-lead bob Wrong
>>  64235 Big bob Before
>>  53246 Big single Home
>> 
>> I'm afraid that your Big single does not conform to the "nature" definition
>> of a single, so it is really a type of bob. Nothing to stop you using a
>> different name though - my preferred term for this type of call (pn123456)
>> is a Double (i.e. two simultaneous singles).
>> 
>> Graham
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ringing-theory mailing list
>> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
>> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net