[r-t] Foundational definitions (was Lead-based methods [was: Poll on consecutive blows in the same position])
mark at snowtiger.net
Tue Dec 30 23:41:09 UTC 2014
> 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.
More information about the ringing-theory