[r-t] Definition of a call

James Smith james.smith5040 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 9 09:00:53 UTC 2011

One hesitates to query Eddie Martin, but I don't see how this is a
necessary implication.  For some methods there exist sets of courses
that do make up the extent, for others there don't.  Or am I missing


> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:54:22 +0100
> From: edward martin <edward.w.martin at gmail.com>
> To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> Subject: Re: [r-t] Definition of a call
> Message-ID: <BANLkTinPinJ6tXrdmM2pbLYXJXYSCQEZ0Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> ...
>> a call in Grandsire Doubles under this definition implies that there are
>> four courses equal in structure to the plain course which simply is not the
>> case The 120 cannot be set out in 4 mutually exclusive plain courses of
>> Grandsire Doubles; therefore in Grandsire Doubles a call cannot be said to
>> move us from the plain course to another!!!

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list