[r-t] Principles

[Alexander Holroyd]

This example isn't a winked method, or even a simple variation of one - 
e.g. 78 don't come together at again until the end of the lead.  But it 
does seem reminiscent of winking.

Mark is right that the work of 1 and 2 is different if your definition of 
work includes what other bells are doing around you.  This must always be 
the case in such a method, I think (if "around" extends arbitrarily far 
away).

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Mark Davies wrote:

> GACJ writes, in reply to Ander,
>
>>> So it is.  However, my Major example -123458-1238-1678-145678 does not
>>> suffer from this problem.
>> 
>> Yes, that is a very interesting example. I had convinced myself that this
>> couldn't work without repeating the notation as in Philip's example.
>
> I've forgotten what "winking up" means, but isn't this an example of it, and 
> didn't someone else mention that as a general solution at the start of this 
> discussion? Basically this is a four-bell principle, hence four leads is what 
> we expect... ;-)
>
> My Toyota Axioms classified methods based on the smallest repeating sub-unit 
> of place notation, which I thought at the time meant I didn't need the extra 
> condition in the definition of principle, but Ander's idea might put the lie 
> to that.
>
> I'm still trying to work out in my mind whether the treble and the two really 
> do ring the same work in his method or not. Looking at the blue line they do, 
> but structurally that is surely misleading. For instance, a 1458 call would 
> only affect half the bells, and those bells are also the only ones who make a 
> place in 4ths over an unchanging bell in 3rds. If I were ringing the method 
> to handbells it would seem like there are two different sets of work, would 
> it not?
>
> MBD
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>