[r-t] Compositions of the decade - minor - addition
edward.w.martin at gmail.com
Wed Feb 3 12:23:35 UTC 2010
On 3 February 2010 11:55, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk> wrote:
> RAS wrote, in reply to Dave Sullivan:
>> Enumerating the possible results is the easy part
>> of a computer search. The hard bit, and the bit
>> that is often ignored, is processing the results
>> of the search to extract anything interesting from it.
> Absolutely agree with this. The job becomes one of choosing which
> compositions are distinctive, have intrinsic value, and are worth ringing,
> and publishing just those ones.
This touches on a point that bothers me when I look at the CCCBR
Online Collection and note such compositions as say for method x, by
Don Morrison No 43632, even when it may be accompanied with method x,
by Don Morrison No 43633, if I can see no logical progression, ie have
no clue as to what Don had asked his computer to search for.
I have no doubt that Don sifts out the best from his computer's output
but as a strictly pencil & paper bloke who wishes to encourage others
to try their hand at comps for method x, simply for the fun of doing
it - similar to solving crossword puzzles, how can I say have a go
without knowing what Don's computer has found or more specifically was
set to search for?
More information about the ringing-theory