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

[Dale Winter]

On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Alexander Holroyd <holroyd at math.ubc.ca>
wrote:

> 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.
>

My objection is that the "place notation" for Dixon's depends on the lead
end at which you start it. If I ring one lead of plain bob and then splice
into Dixon's  then I ring one place notation for the Dixons part; if I ring
two leads of plain bob then splice into Dixons I need a a different place
notation. There is no fixed place notation that a deaf and blind ringer
(with perfect rythm) can learn that will successfully produce dixons
whenever they are instructed to ring it (in spliced).

Certainly we could define a method to by a cycle (or path) in some
appropriate Cayley graph. Maybe mathematically that would be easier, but I
don't think it would be descriptive of how people ring. Rightly or wrongly
we seem to care about that. By which I mean I think a majority of the list
does, and if not then a) I'll quiet up abot this and b) I really don't
understand anything that has been said here for quite a while.




> 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?
>

it's a fair point.  We do seem to care about how people ring things, we
don't seem to care about how conductors learn compositions. It's not a
distinction I'd care to defend as logical.

>
>  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?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141228/2431177e/attachment-0004.html>