[r-t] FCHs

[Mark Davies]

GACJ writes,

> Yes, but perhaps it is because they had proved everything to their
> satisfaction with Minor, where the problem doesn't occur because of the
> nature of the rows. They then just applied the same logic of checking the
> leadheads and leadends.

Hmm, possibly. But I don't buy that either - the nature of the rows had 
been known for over a century, and they knew all too clearly that 
Grandsire Doubles was a completely different beast from Grandsire 
Triples (for example). Blindly applying rules from six bells to eight 
doesn't sound like something your average 18th Century hotshot should 
have done.

JT writes,

> in the process
> is managing to come across as rude and obnoxious

Yeah I know - a bit of obnoxiousness every now and then is important, 
just so you don't think I'm nice all the time. ;-)

There is a serious point here, though, which I'm trying to make. If 
you're a composer, you know how to get from one lead to another, yes? 
Most people work that out for themselves. It's called transposition. But 
then what do you do if you want to see what other leads your new lead is 
false against? It's the same process - you transpose one change by 
another, and you get a false lead head.

Since you're using the same skills for both processes, and you need at 
least one of them to be a composer at all, I don't get how you could put 
a touch together, but not be able to understand falseness (at least at a 
simple level of one lead against another).

Yes, understanding falseness groups, and why for instance some course 
heads are always found together in Major but can be separate in Royal, 
is a lot more tricky and requires a bit of mathematical thinking, 
perhaps. Having someone explain that is useful. But the basic idea of, 
I've got a lead with lots of changes in, let's find out what other leads 
have at least one of the same changes, seems fundamental to the way your 
mind has to be able to work if you are going to string a touch together.

Am I wrong?

MBD