[r-t] Principles

[Simon Gay]

I interpreted Don's question to mean that *all* the bells should do the same work. This wouldn't be true for an arbitrary principle (actually it would be a differential) with lead end 46281735.

For example: 34x34.18.56x56.18

The work of 1,4,5,8 is not the same as the work of 2,3,6,7.

Simon



On 04/07/2011 12:11, King, Peter R wrote:
Since 8 is not a prime number any principle with lead end of leads 2, 4, 6 of original would also have this property. Also, unlike the example of x18x18 it wouldn’t be more natural to describe in some other way (ie plain hunt)

From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net<mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net> [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of Simon Gay
Sent: 04 July 2011 10:26
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net<mailto:ringing-theory at bellringers.net>
Subject: [r-t] Principles

Don Morrison asked:

---------------
This does raise a question, though: is it possible to have a method
with no hunt bell(s) where all the bells do the same work, but there
are not the same number of leads as bells? The Council's definitions
appear to be carefully addressing such a case, but it's not clear to
me that it can arise in practice. Can someone provide an example of
such a method?
---------------


What about taking two leads of Original to be a single lead of a new principle? For example, on 8, we get x18x18 as the place notation of a lead; the course consists of 4 leads; there are no hunt bells; and all the bells do the same work, i.e. plain hunting on 8.

I suppose this would be a differential rather than a principle.


Simon Gay


________________________________
The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401


________________________________
The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20110704/c87218ed/attachment-0004.html>