[r-t] Asymmetric Doubles

Philip Earis Earisp at rsc.org
Fri Aug 6 11:06:39 UTC 2010

"While I agree that using descriptive language is better than prescriptive
definitions, I don't subscribe to Philip's anarchic view of definition. If
you follow it to its logical conclusion, you wouldn't have method names,
names for the stages, or any other descriptions that immediately tell you
what someone is talking about.

I would concur with Ted's definition based upon nature. It is clear without
being too constraining"

The reason I find these discussions a bit silly is that it's trying to solve a problem that isn't there, and in doing so throws up silly contradictions and inconsistencies.

Describing a call as a "123456" bob, or "123456" single, or whatever doesn't make a difference.  It's the descriptive "123456" bit which is unambiguous - it doesn't need an adjective associated with it.

To illustrate a paradox thrown up by Ted and Graham's proposal, let's turn to our old friend Arlesey Bob minor (listed by the Methods Committee as &-16-16-1256, 16).

Under Ted's idea, a 14 leadend call would be a bob.

However, under the so-called CC's decisions, a method is invariant under rotation.  There is some logic behind this.

So Arlesey Bob could just as well be described as &-16-16-16, 1256).

Now, under Ted's idea, a 14 leadend call *in the same method* would now be described as a single.

So Ted's definition means that the same call at the leadend in the same method is called different things.  Hmmmmm indeed.


This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list