[r-t] Grandsire Minor

[Richard Pullin]

>Message: 2
>Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 00:48:05 -0800 (PST)
>From: Alexander Holroyd <holroyd at math.ubc.ca>
>To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
>Subject: Re: [r-t] Double Grandsire Minor
>
> One small clarification here: Since Q-sets have 4 members, even adding one
> Q-set changes the parity of the number of round blocks.  Parity per se is
> not the issue.


Quite so, I ought to have been more precise about that really.

>There is no bobs-only extent of Grandsire Minor, unfortunately - I once did
>an exhaustive search.


When composing the 720 of Grandsire (ordinary) Minor I had a memory of
reading a similar statement made on this list once by Philip
Saddleton. Thus, my main aim was really just to maximise omits and
minimise singles; I was already pretty sure a bobs-only extent
couldn't be had. Despite that, though, it was still certainly exciting
when I accidentally broke the blocks into magic number four!

On a similar wavelength, I'd be interested to know if anybody has ever
come up with a 5040 of Grandsire Triples made up of five unjoinable
bobs-only blocks. Or perhaps as the Q-sets are wholly In-Course in
Triples, the anti bobs-only law doesn't allow events to get this
'near' to a bobs-only extent, unlike in Minor where the feature of the
Q-set altering the nature of the rows can cause the added obstacle of
needing to arrive in the blocks 'in the right direction'.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20130217/b69f183d/attachment.html>