[r-t] Peal of Spliced, anyone?

Philip Earis Earisp at rsc.org
Mon May 10 16:27:09 UTC 2010

"That's what I always thought, but I notice that previous methods from the Earis/Smith stable have quoted "A" as well, but I can't remember their reasoning behind this"

We've been through this before.  I don't think there's a consensus.

Some people regard A falseness as a method being false in its plain course.

Others take A falseness to mean the plain course is false against the coursehead 23456, ie itself, ie all methods have the property. 

I prefer the latter interpretation, as to my mind it fits in better with the explanation of what other falseness groups correspond to.


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