[r-t] Unprinciple extent!

Alexander Holroyd holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Sat Jul 16 01:29:03 UTC 2011

I think everyone agrees that the below is in an accurate description of 
this particular 720, and it is probably how one would most commonly expect 
it to be described.

The only debate (if there is one at all) was over whether a touch "SHOULD" 
be described in a particular way, just because one or more osbervers think 
that is "simplest".  I would say emphatically not (and I thought that was 
Mark's view too).  Graham seemed to be arguing otherwise (but maybe he 
didn't really intend to).

cheers, Ander

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011, Mark Davies wrote:

> I have to say I agree with Graham. The way Ander has written out the place 
> notation for his method makes it pretty clear. It would be a lot simpler to 
> think of it as the following much shorter and far less samey twin-hunt 
> method:
> 	&-4-, 23
> With a 234 bob the 720 becomes simply 4x(pp-p).
> So this example is, again, in some sense reducible to a smaller 
> non-unprincipled method.
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list