[r-t] Lead-based methods [was: Poll on consecutive blows in the same position]

[Tim Barnes]

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:


> > > There is an amusing tension between wanting to have a descriptive
> > > apparatus broad enough to allow for future growth, and a not
> > > unreasonable desire to at least converge quickly on +something+ less
> > > arbitrary and baroque than what we have today even if only covers what
> > > is rung today. I have no idea how best to accomodate these somewhat
> > > contradictory desires.


Yes, there is that tension.  We should try and give time to answering both
the over-arching questions, as well as the easier questions such as the
limit on consecutive blows.

But I would caution against spending too much time aiming for perfection in
a new set of rules such that they cover every remotely imaginable situation
in the future.  This leads to the major risk of making the problem so great
that nothing is then actually achieved.  Certainly we should make a new set
of rules as generic as we can achieve in a reasonable time-frame.  I
originally hoped we would complete this debate by year end - clearly that
was optimistic.  But as the next CC meeting is in May, I suggest we pick up
the pace in the first quarter of 2015 and try and vote on as many questions
as we can by the end of March.  It would be disappointing if next May
people were able to say the r-t list went on and on about rules for nearly
a year but produced nothing, and then use this as an excuse not to do
anything about the current rules because we've proved it's too difficult.

On the current poll, we had 15-20 votes within an hour or two of posting,
so it looks as though we could get through at least 2 or 3 votes a week.

Here's the link to the consecutive blows poll again for anyone who would
like to vote but hasn't yet done so.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/S9NH8Z7

So far one option has attracted a little over 50% of the votes, so it
appears this poll will have a conclusive outcome.

On the interesting question of whether dixonoids are a class of methods, it
seems most people think they are, and that there is a need to have a class
for rules-based methods that is separate to lead-based ones.  It seems to
me that even though a dixonoid can be written as a one-lead method, the
fact that the blue line for, say, 2nds place bell changes depending on the
row you start from, is enough to make this a separate class.  Can we take
this as agreed, or should we have a poll?  If at least one person replies
saying they'd like a poll, I'll do one as it's quick and easy.

If we're agreed dixonoids are a class of method, then we need terms for the
two method classes.  Are lead-based methods and rules-based methods the
best terms, or can these be improved?  Static methods and dynamic methods?

Then we need definitions for each class.  I liked Graham's, but Don pointed
out cases that Graham's rule-based definition wouldn't cover.  Can Don or
someone else provide a more generic definition of a rules-based method?
I'm interested to find out if Don is as good at proposing solutions as he
is at pointing out flaws ;)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20141229/d9a6219d/attachment-0004.html>