[r-t] Double Cambridge cyclic bob Minor

[James Smith]

Apparently not so - it has to be an extent (based on experience).  Unless of
course it is in a peal, in which case there is no need even for a block as a
single lead will do it (someone else can speculate about whether half-leads
can define a double method in the context of different types of
doubleness).

Apologies if this is cross-posting - I get the digest.

James


> Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 10:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Alexander Holroyd <holroyd at math.ubc.ca>
> To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> Subject: Re: [r-t] Double Cambridge cyclic bob Minor
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1105191033390.15750 at pascal.math.ubc.ca>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> One can ring a true 1440, which I think is a legal way to name such
> things, but I don't know whether that is what was done.
>
> On Thu, 19 May 2011, edward martin wrote:
>
> > Please forgive me, but  how was this method officially accepted & named
> when
> > others of similar falseness have not been accepted and named?
> > Eddie Martin
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20110521/06c12e04/attachment-0004.html>