[r-t] Minor

Alexander Holroyd holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Tue Sep 4 12:06:33 UTC 2012

Oh yes, good point.  Perhaps it's time to stop this discussion before 
someone brings up New Grandsire... ;-)

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012, Don Morrison wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Alexander Holroyd <holroyd at math.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Don Morrison wrote:
>>> How silly of me. What I meant (for some loose meaning of the verb "to
>>> mean") was "sub-extent length, true touch of a single symmetric, plain
>>> minor method."
>>> Of course I'm being equally silly again, as I'm sure there are plenty
>>> of further unstated assumptions I'm making, as well as likely mistakes
>>> in my reasoning. Sigh.
>> Well of course you could have a call affecting the treble...
> Nope. Got that covered. My original formulation, elided in the above
> but still implied, began "you can't (with normal calls) get a...".
> Well, covered, until you start disagreeing about what "normal calls"
> are, I suppose.
> -- 
> Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
> "No language can rival the capacities of music for plysemic
> simultaneities, for manifold meanings under pressure of
> untranslatable forms."
>          -- George Steiner, _The Poetry of Thought_
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list