holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Thu Jul 7 03:07:22 UTC 2011
Nice. Are there any minor examples? There are false ones such as
suggesting that there is no fundamental obstruction.
Regarding practicality, we tried a course of my example last night, and it
was reasonably fun. There are 180 mutually true courses (half of the
in-course ones with 78 fixed), giving 5760 (I haven't tried to join them
together, but it should be possible). I suspect there are better
unprinciples out there though...
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Matthew Frye wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2011, at 13:33, Matthew Frye wrote:
>> As I understood it, the defining feature is the pair of bells hunting
>> from the back down to the front, the remaining bells making places in
>> their positions till disturbed. (Naturally, this alters the length of
>> the lead between stages and so wouldn't be recognised as the same
>> method my the cc, for those that care about such things.)
> Argh! Wrong way of looking at it. I implicitly assumed the pair of bells
> hunting down to the front put a length on the lead and the places simply
> had to fit around that (precluding this working on 4n-2 bells) when
> infact the length of the places can be set arbitrarily and the bells
> hunting down just come at the right time. For Royal then:
> x145670x123450x123890x167890. Max now gives us a second similar method
> with a shorter lead: x16789Tx14567Tx123450ETx123890ET.
> I've also looked at having the hunting bells doing treble bob, this changes the places into something of the form dodge place dodge place dodge and gives a method with all bells dodging at the same time, I think it's time to branch out and start looking at other structures. Changing the offset of the 2 lines within this structure I don't think will be possible.
> MF _______________________________________________ ringing-theory
> mailing list ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory