[r-t] The null change

[Tim Barnes]

On Dec 30, 2014 12:52 AM, "Mark Davies" <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> We are getting off track. The current discussion is interesting, but we
should focus on the task in hand. Let us just concentrate on β methods, for
the time being.

Let's do both in parallel: finish the debate on restrictions on what is
allowed as a β-method and move on to calls and stationary bells, while also
continuing the debate on how the full method universe is defined.

Don has given us the very helpful term β-method to refer to the >99.9% of
things that are rung today.  Hopefully it's clear enough that the 5
restrictions we've voted on to date (falseness in plain course, lead
divisibility, single lead courses, rotation, number of consecutive blows)
referred to restrictions on β-methods.

For the consecutive blows poll, new votes coming in have now practically
stopped (total votes = 27 at present, with the result still conclusive).
Clearly a week is longer than needed for a poll to be open - 48 hours
appears to be enough.

I won't change the current poll, and will post results on Sunday as
previously indicated, but let's start the debate on the null change.
Should this be allowed in a β-method's sequence of changes?  Clearly this
produces repeating rows, but the method could still be used to generate a
true multi-extent round block.

TJB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20141230/96ed0399/attachment-0003.html>