holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Tue Jul 5 22:21:59 UTC 2011
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
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?
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory