dfm at ringing.org
Thu May 27 20:20:58 UTC 2010
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk> wrote:
>> For Warwickshire Surprise or Minsmere Surprise above the treble
> Isn't there a risk of this statement misleading people, Don? Numbers 4346
> and 2421 are not true to Minsmere itself!
Hmm. It's funny, folks are comfortable talking about Cambridge above,
and not assuming something with a certain property for Cambridge above
methods is necessarily true to Cambridge itself, aren't they? Indeed,
4346 is not true to Cambridge. I wonder why less familiar backworks
seem more likely to provoke confusion of this sort?
I've now changed them to cite the place notation explicitly, I hope
reducing the chance for embarrassing error. Thanks for pointing it out!
And thanks for the statistics on how many methods things are true to.
Frightening that I'm finding this all downright entertaining!
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"No one ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence
of the ... people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."
-- H L Mencken, _The Chicago Tribune_, 19 Sept 1926
More information about the ringing-theory