[r-t] Poll on consecutive blows in the same position
moikney at gmail.com
Sun Dec 28 23:37:59 UTC 2014
> On Dec 28, 2014, at 6:34 PM, Alexander Holroyd <holroyd at math.ubc.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2014, Mark Davies wrote:
>> Don writes,
>>> If we're talking only about lead-based methods, just say so, it's
>>> not hard.
>> OK: we are just talking about lead-based methods.
Though for what it’s worth, my reading of this thread to date was that we were talking about very general methods, not just lead-based methods. if others were afflicted by the same confusion then our polls may mean rather less than we’d hoped.
I think this does reflect one difficulty; the choices of rules we consider can’t be made independently. I’m sure MBD and Don both have coherent notions of “method” in their heads. I strongly suspect that taking half the rules from one set and half the rules from the other set would lead to goobledegook.
>> And will likely continue to do so for some time...
> Can someone explain to me what a lead-based method is, and how it differs from a non-lead-based method?
Something generated by a finite sequence of place notation? Plus some other junk if desired to make it be a “method"?
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory