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

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> Does a method at stage N have to be able to be applicable to any
> possible row of stage N? It's another one of those "doh, of course it
> does, oh, wait, maybe not, maybe it's just 'cause It Always Has?" kind
> of things.

Yes, a rule-based method may quite easily generate contradictions or 
paradoxes, which is one very good reason for ignoring them for the time 
being. Another problem with widening the scope of what we are 
considering (i.e. beyond nice simple β-methods) is that it's almost 
impossible to be completely general.

For example, if we consider non-β-methods, or methods with the null 
change or stationary bells, which make some of us think we are departing 
from change-ringing as we know it, why shouldn't we also consider jump 
changes? I think I'd be much happier ringing a jump-change quarter peal 
than I would something with the null change in it.

But if you consider jump changes, then the logical conclusion is to try 
and tackle *any* sequence of rows, no matter how they are linked. That 
might be exciting for some, but to me it's losing the plot. Let's still 
to change-ringing! The narrow task of specifying β-methods might not be 
so exciting, and we might have to rein our wilder instincts in, but it 
is the goal we are after.

MBD