[r-t] Falseness (was Re: The null change
dfm at ringing.org
Wed Dec 31 19:30:52 UTC 2014
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Philip Earis <pje24 at cantab.net> wrote:
> I also agree with much of what Don says, but do think a fundamental
> axiom, or "line in the sand", needs to be in place to enable
> progress. For me, the axiom is that what we are describing is
> permutations / rows where each bell rings once and once only.
Just so there is no confusion, I am quite happy with this line in the
sand. Going beyond it takes us into territory so confusing and
different it's hard to see how we could get anywhere, whatever our
views on the merits of cylindrical* and its ilk. I am happy to leave
it a problem for another decade, if it ever becomes necessary and
possible. Reaching the goal of accomodating everything, or just more
than we do today, on this side of Philip's line would be a major
accomplishment, and a huge improvement on the status quo.
* Which I, too, have actually tried to ring, though with very little
success. Probably even before Philip did! It was fun, and I'd be
delighted to have further opporunities: if you are are the sort of
person that finds it exciting to see/hear a bunch of consecutive bells
line up in order, you should feel the excitement of seeing the whole
band suddenly all get back onto the same stroke! I do not feel in any
danger of getting to a recordable length of it in my lifetime, though,
and see no pressing need to include it in any definitions.
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"The world is very complicated and it is clearly impossible for the
human mind to understand it completely. Man has therefore devised
an artifice which permits the complicated nature of the world to be
blamed on something which is called accidental, and thus permits
him to abstract a domain in which simple laws can be found."
--Eugene P Wigner, _Symmetries and Reflections_
More information about the ringing-theory