[r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results
mark at snowtiger.net
Sat Jul 19 19:19:40 UTC 2014
Iain Anderson writes,
> Ten years ago it was blindingly obvious to me what
> a lead was and what a method was. Now I don't think I have a clue.
My view is that we ought to be clear about what we mean by a method, and
what it's lead is. In fact I think that any given block of changes
should yield one method and only one method, and this method should also
be classifiable and fall into one and only one classification. I think
this is useful, because methods are the atomic building blocks of
change-ringing. Also I don't think it is very difficult to do.
I also think that none of this determinism should apply to compositions.
Methods: unique, deterministically classifiable. Compositions: can be
described however you want - as long as it is unambiguously clear what
changes they contain.
My answers to your nine questions:
1) Is it obvious what a method is?
Let's say yes.
2) Are all methods made up of leads?
Yes. I'd use the lead as the definition of the method. Let's say that a
lead should be a non-divisible block of changes. A method has a plain
course which is the round block formed by zero or more repetitions of
3) Is method the same as place notation (or at least isomorphic)?
A lead, being a block of changes, can be defined using place notation,
so let us say yes.
4) Do all methods have a well defined place notation?
5) Is Plain Hunt a method?
Yes. It has a 2-change lead.
6) If so, how many leads are there in the plain course?
7) Is Original the same as Plain Hunt?
Yes. "Original" just implies a certain type of call - but the calls
aren't part of the method.
8) Is Dixoniods a method?
No. Neither are Dixonoids! They are Dixonoids.
9) If so, what is a lead of Dixoniods?
See 8 - not applicable.
More information about the ringing-theory