[r-t] 8 spliced atw 7com

[Ian Fielding]

I understand Mark's theoretical ramblings, but I really don't understand the point of them. 

If I went out and rang Rod Pipe's classic 9 Spliced TD Maximus peal (yes, I know it finishes at the snap - but let's pretend it finishes at the lead-end) then in the course of the peal I have just rung the method has been changed 8 times. What is the point of claiming 9 changes of method as a theoretical point when I have only changed it 8 times?

The argument seems to have been derived because in Mark's opinion it's the same composition so " Hence, it ought to have the same COM".

However, if I have just rung a rotation then it might not have.

 I've just rung 8 changes of method, the band have just rung 8 changes of method - let's send it up as 9.

Common sense really!

Ian Fielding
 
Chief Pharmacy Technician
North Bristol NHS Trust
0117 323 8846 (Southmead Hospital)
0117 340 3334 (Frenchay Hospital)
07872 995464 (Mobile)
-----Original Message-----
From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of Mark Davies
Sent: 29 March 2012 13:46
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] 8 spliced atw 7com

Alan writes,

> But isn't that a bit of a failure of the restrictive nature of a 
> "conventional composition of spliced" if compositions finishing at the 
> snap cannot be considered round blocks?

You may certainly consider a snap-finish as a round block. What do you get if you do? The resulting arrangement can be described in two ways:

1. A composition containing a partial lead of (one of) your method(s).

2. A composition with an additional method, the additional method being two changes long (in the case of a backstroke snap finish).

These are two valid ways of describing the same composition. In the latter case, we still have a "conventional" composition, just with an extra method spliced into it. The argument about COM is unchanged. For instance, the touch YYYY-L LYs(Y) becomes a composition of three-spliced with 5 com:

  Y->L
  L->Y
  Y->SY
  SY->Y

(Where "SY" is a new method consisting of the first two changes of Yorkshire). We could happily start the composition at the second course-end, ringing the 2-change lead of the "SY" method and then changing into Yorkshire.)

In the former case, we have to decide whether a "restart" of a lead of a method, without changing the method, is a change of method or not. 
Clearly the conductor has to make a call, so he may view it as a COM. 
But from the composer's point of view, I think it is not really a change of method. To see why, take the same touch as above: by my argument, viewing it as a round-block with lead-restarts permitted, this now has just 2 com:

  Y->L
  L->Y

If we start at the second course end it is still just 2 com:

  L->Y
  Y->L

This is because the "lead restart" of Yorkshire is not counted as a com (the method stays the same). But here's the thing - doing it this way means the composition can be started from any change, even mid-lead. You could for instance start at the half-lead of one of the London leads, and still ring the same touch, with the same COM. The fact that you ring two partial leads of London has no effect on this method of counting COM, and that is I think why it is the best approach.

(Note that the modified touch LY-L LYs(Y), treated as a round-block with lead restarts, gives 4 COM by this counting method, exactly as you'd expect for a "normal" round block.)

So that is how the method of counting COM can be generalised to round blocks containing partial leads. Very straightforward really (although, of course, not currently "allowed" under Methods Committee rules).

But overall, for "conventional" snap finishes, it is generally more sensible to say:

3. That we do not have a round block with respect to the leads of the methods included in the composition, and hence that the start and finish do not join up.

MBD

_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee.  Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised.  If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.  Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. Thank you.