[r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11

King, Peter R peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Fri Feb 10 12:28:26 UTC 2012

OK I stand corrected. However, terms like symmetric, having plain bob lead ends are unambiguous. Defined the conventionally "irregular" is largely useless. If I'm told a method is irregular I don't know which criterion (criteria) it fails, so I am no better off. I think it is useful to know whether a method has plain bob lead ends or not and think it would be useful to have a term that expresses that. Regular may not be appropriate because it carries too much baggage, but it works for me.
From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net [ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] on behalf of edward martin [edward.w.martin at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:20 AM
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11

On 10 February 2012 09:55, King, Peter R <peter.king at imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
> calling it an assymetric regular method  might help as the standard calling is only guaranteed for symmetric regular methods
> ________________________________________

It's quite a while back now, but I think that this thread started by
someone asking how does one define a 'regular' method?
I don't know where or by whom the standard calling is only guaranteed
for symmetric regular methods  (which of course begs the question what
is a regular method? ) but I believe that the standard 720 can be
successfully applied to any Treble dominated Minor method (plain or
treble bob) whose lead block is symmetric, it doesn't matter whether
the plain course has Plain Bob leadings or not. If this is indeed the
case, then it would seem to me that for Minor methods, the primary
condition of a 'regular' method would have to be that its lead block
is symmetric.


ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list