[r-t] Poll on consecutive blows in the same position

[Alexander Holroyd]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014, Matthew Frye wrote:

>> how is a dixonoid not a finite sequence of place notations?
>
> If differs in conception and (usual) description. Dixon's Bob would 
> usually be described by a set of rules, not a sequence of place 
> notation.

I really don't understand the distinction.  A sequence of place notations 
can be described in many different ways, but it is still the same 
sequence.

Perhaps the related concept of composition would be illuminating here. 
The standard 3-part extent of Cmabridge minor can be described in many 
different ways, among them: Wrong Home Wrong ; 3 5 3 ; pp-p-pp-pp. 
Perhaps the first is "observation-based", etc.  But they are all the same 
composition, surely?  A band whose conductor who thinks of it in the 
observation-based way is surely not ringing a different extent from the 
others?

> I would define lead as a set sequence of place notation (possibly 
> limited by certain criteria currently under discussion), a lead-based 
> method would be a method obtained by ringing a certain lead (repeatedly) 
> until a suitable end-point, or until there is some form of call/change 
> of method.

Again, it seems that under that description either includes everything of 
does not include lots of standard things, depending on how the ambiguities 
are resolved.  If "(repetaedly)" allows ringing a lead only once, then 
dixonoids are included.  If not, then compositions of spliced in which 
only one lead of a method appears are no lead-based.

The apparent failure (so far) to give a workable definition of 
"lead-based" suggests to me that the idea is not useful.

Why not just define a method to be a finite sequence of place notations?