[r-t] Restriction #4

[Tim Barnes]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> A bell that remains in the same place for a whole lead is a cover bell,
regardless of whether it is internal or external. It is not part of the
method. Consequently, if you have an internal cover bell, you must be
ringing a separate method either side of the cover bell. The question then
is how to describe ringing two or more methods simultaneously and the
assessment of truth with respect to the complete row, and is not a problem
of method definition per se.

Yes, I agree with this.  Since traditional cover bells are an established
part of change ringing, it seems better to extend this concept to internal
static bells and bells that continuously lead, than to say an internal
static bell is part of the method.  In my example of dual covered doubles,
it's inconsistent to say the 12th is a cover bell but the 6th is part of
the method.  The variable cover concept can be extended to change an
internal static bell, including moving a bell that's initially part of the
front method to be first an internal static bell, and then be a bell that's
part of the back method.

As already noted, this would need to be described in the new rules, but can
be part of the cover bells discussion, and truth can be considered when we
get to compositions.  While there might not be much interest in using
internal static bells, on the premise that the new rules ought to be
capable of describing all sets of true rows in a simple, consistent and
generic manner, it seems we should allow for all the various forms of cover
/ static bells.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk
> wrote:
>
> The topic of cover bells is a difficult one and so is the related topic
of non-overlapping groups of bells that are created by ringing methods on
top of one another e.g. Grandsire Triples on top of Plain Bob Minor to
create rows of Cinques. From a method definition perspective, the methods
are already defined, so is it necessary or desirable to create a Cinques
method definition to define the combination?

This might suggest there's a potential restriction #7, that if a method
comprises two or more non-overlapping groups of bells, it can't be named as
its own method, but must be the smaller methods rung simultaneously.  Our
old friend Magenta Little Place Max comes to mind, and Don gave the example
of 'Dual Bob Minimus', which today is a valid major method.  At first blush
this seems quite restrictive, although I see the aim of not separately
naming Grandsire Doubles rung with Bob Minor.

(This is a separate question to the consecutive blows restriction, so we
should probably conclude on #4 before going too far with #7.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20141202/69a6e363/attachment-0004.html>