[r-t] Definition of a call

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Thu Jun 9 13:41:38 UTC 2011

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:54 AM, edward martin <edward.w.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2: I agree with Graham in that “a call is a means of passing from one course
> of a method to another” would be more practical if changed to read “lead” or
> “row”. As I’ve pointed out numerous times, to no avail whatsoever, 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!!!

While I don't necessarily disagree (or agree) with your conclusion
that using "lead" or "row" might have been better, I don't understand
your reasoning at all. If the official "plain course" of Grandsire
Doubles is a specious construction because there is no way to
partition an extent into a set of such courses, doesn't the same
argument apply to Cambridge Major? Indeed, isn't Cambridge even worse
since there is no obvious call that allows construction of some other
building block into which the extent can be partitioned? Do you
believe Cambridge has no plain course?

Also a further observation about Grandsire Doubles: it *is* possible
to construct a multi-extent block out of whole courses. Since I don't
understand your reasoning, I don't know whether or not this is germane
to the argument, but I suspect it might be.

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Things always change....You can fight it or you accept it. The only
difference is, if you accept it, you get to do other things. If you
fight it, you're stuck in the same spot forever."
       -- David Wroblewski, _The Story of Edgar Sawtelle_

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list