[r-t] Erin Minimus

[Robert Bennett]

	Erin Minimus should be called something else like Erinnnnnn. 

	Same objection should apply to Bob Triples and Grandsire Minor.

Isn't it nice to have exceptions to our rules? 

  
----- Original Message -----
 From:ringing-theory at bellringers.net
To:"Ringing-Theory Mailing List" <ringing-theory at bellringers.net>
Cc:
Sent:Sun, 28 Dec 2014 14:28:35 -0500
Subject:[r-t] Erin Minimus

Erin Minimus (-34.14.34.14.34) is a perfectly sensible and
straightforward way to generate the extent on four bells, and is an
obvious and natural contraction of Erin Doubles, which ordinary
ringers can figure out without any difficulty from the method at
higher stages.

Why, then, does the Central Council allow it to be so named?

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :-) But seriously, how come it does not fall
afoul of the extension decisions (which I freely admit I've never been
able to understand properly)? It seems to flaut both

(G)B.6. The extension of a method must not have a bell making more or
fewer consecutive blows than are made at the related position in the
parent.

and

(G)B.8. Wherever the parent has working bells making adjacent places,
this characteristic must be retained in all extensions.

Please note that I am +not+ arguing to rename this perfectly
delightful little principle--I think its name is sensible and the
Leibnitzian best possible. I'm just trying to understand why it has
been allowed to be so sensible.

-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
'The Panglossian pessimist says, "Isn't it a shame that this is, after
all, the best of all possible worlds!"'
-- Daniel Dennett, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20141229/3dc59652/attachment-0004.html>