[r-t] FCHs

[Mark Davies]

GACJ writes,

> Why? The rows where the treble is in the same position on the way down to
> the way up are related (transposed) in an identical way to the leadheads and
> leadends. If the leadheads and leadends are from distinct sets and are
> unique, then all the other rows must be too.

Yes, indeed, that's why plain methods work. It's fairly easy to see, but 
you still need to think about it.

But here's my point. If you *didn't* think about it at all, you might be 
worried that changes inside your lead of say Plain Bob are false against 
another.

Similarly, if you *didn't* think about Trebledodging, surely you'd be 
worried about falseness inside the lead. And then if you *did* think 
about TD, you'd find you *still* need to be worried. So what's this 
halfway stage, where you think about plain methods but not about TD?

I just find it hard to imagine a person clever enough to work out that a 
symmetrical plain method doesn't have internal falseness, but stupid 
enough to think the same argument works for TD. Especially when these 
people are capable of composing true peals of Grandsire and Stedman Triples.

MBD