[r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results

Matthew Frye matthew at frye.org.uk
Fri Jul 18 17:29:37 UTC 2014

I voted no. I just think you can get silly edge-cases and it is a rule that pushes us too far towards the rules being written for the bookkeepers and further away from the decisions trying to describe what people actually ring. I think it's a good aim in general but with too many problems on balance.


-------- Original message --------
From: Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk> 
Date:18/07/2014  17:58  (GMT+00:00) 
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net 
Subject: Re: [r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results 

I am surprised that so many voted no to Q: "Do you think a lead should
always be the minimum non-divisible block?". Given that most of us (based
upon the earlier poll) would like to treat methods that are false in the
plain course as methods rather than non-method blocks, requiring that all
methods are defined by the shortest piece of notation is essential to avoid
the same thing being given different names. 

I would be interested to hear from any who haven't commented yet, but voted
"no", as to their reasoning.


ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list