[r-t] nths place

[Matthew Frye]

On 16 Jul 2014, at 13:23, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Matthew Frye <matthew at frye.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 16 Jul 2014, at 12:09, Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Are Cambridge and Primrose the same method or not?
>> This isn't quite the same situation.
> 
> Though Robin's basic point is still sound: the root cause of folks'
> differing opinions on this issue is the tension between some wanting
> to describe what most ringers actually practise, and others to have a
> tidy, unambiguous taxonomy.

Yes, there is absolutely an important question (as articulated by John Fisher) whether plain bob with an n-ths place lead end is or is not distinct from Original.

I think that *everyone* agrees that Cambridge and Primrose are separate (if very closely related) methods, and that is because in that case it is possible to describe what ringers actually practice in a tidy, unambiguous taxonomy - and everyone is happy. In the n-ths place pb/original question, neither "what ringers actually practice", nor "tidy, unambiguous taxonomy" are so clear to me.

> One further point on all this: most of the arguments on both sides are
> being made from the position of methods rung today, or close relatives
> thereof.
...
> and so should be
> wary of rules that proscribe, even if only in the eyes of those
> running afoul of them, things we've not yet imagined.

I think the issue of uniqueness (which is what this question is ultimately based on) is a universal issue; each named method should be unique - it should not be the same as another method. All we need is a framework to decide when two methods are the "same". However you are quite right that we've though mostly about conventional methods, how would any of these thoughts apply to e.g. dixonoids or cylindrical?

The only truly general criteria I can come up with right now would be "could an outside listener distinguish them", which seems nice at first but will hide many demons in the detail. One consequence of that would seemingly be to allow rotations of methods, such a New Grandsire, to be distinctly named, and force Stedman with non-standard starts to be called different methods...

MF