[r-t] Principles

[Alexander Holroyd]

Nice.  Are there any minor examples?  There are false ones such as
-1-1-1.34.1.34.1.34.1
-23-1-45-123456
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 
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>