[r-t] Minor Blocks

[Tim Barnes]

So some differing opinions on this.  A couple of questions / requests if I
may:

Don - you don't like restricting a method to something that has a
non-divisible place notation.  Would you apply any limitations?  Would you,
for example, let Magenta LP12 also be named separately as a 2 change per
lead 5 / 7 diff method that has the same plain course?

This would lead to the question of whether 4 changes of Magenta can be
named as a separate method - one with a 140-row false plain course
(assuming false pc's are allowed, as 80% of us indicated in the survey they
should be). And then to whether 2 leads of Cambridge can be named as a
separate method to Cambridge, etc.

This does seem to be a specific problem in defining what a method is,
resulting from leads ordinarily being repeated to produce courses, and not
a broader problem to solve.  Things like a touch of Original having the
same rows as the plain course of a different method, and a method being a
concatenation of two other, different methods (Stedman = Erin + Bastow),
are currently allowed and I wouldn't propose changing that.

But in the case of 6ths place Morning Star, telling the treble ringer who
thought he'd been treble bob hunting that he was actually on a working
bell, and therefore can have the footnote 'First inside' if it was
something publishable, would seem to leave the rules open to a lot of
criticism from ringers at large, however sound the logic behind this.

Graham - you were able to determine very quickly that Magenta was the only
existing method with a divisible place notation.  Are you able to similarly
determine what percentage of group A methods with 6ths place lead ends
would be divisible (and ideally also 2nds place group M methods, plus the
higher number equivalents)?  It would be good to know if this is, say, a
0.05% issue or a 5% issue, at least in relation to methods that have been
named so far.

Any other views on how to handle the issue of methods with divisible place
notations?  This seems to be a genuine hurdle to get over.

TJB


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk>
Date: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: [r-t] Minor Blocks
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net


Don wrote:

> If we want logical consistency, there is no such method as Single
> Court Minor,  all touches of it with the usual bobs and singles
> are just touches of Original with exactly the same bobs
> and singles.

Sorry, Don, but your arguments are normally much better than this. Why are
you mixing methods and calls. Methods are pre-defined specifications of
sequence of changes that ringers learn to avoid conductors having to learn
and call lengthy sequences of calls. All methods could be defined as a
sequence of calls.

> Putting the convenience of the tabulators ahead of a
> description of what people really ring, even if ambiguous,
> is the root cause of the mess we've got now.
>Such a mistake should not be repeated.

Classification in any field is an attempt at logical division based upon
properties of the constituent members, and you only have to look at plants
and animals to see how difficult this is with the anomalies that arise (in
some cases whether it is a plant or an animal!). Nevertheless, at some point
you have to make a choice that you rationalise based upon logic. If the
logic is sound, then it is defendable. The problem I have with Blocks is
that the logic is flawed.

> How is this any different than the current foolishness
> of smashing link methods to a different form than
> actually rung to avoid falseness in the plain course?

I think it is very different. Firstly, it is not foolish - it is logical. It
is saying why would you want to classify/define a method in larger units
than necessary? In principle, the shorter it is, the easier to learn. The
"smashing link methods" required changing the place notation of the method
rung, i.e. pretending you had a call that wasn't needed in practice.

Graham


_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net