[r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results

[Tim Barnes]

> Matthew F:
> Do we define a method as being made up of leads, or do we define a lead
as a sub-section of a method?

I suggest we don't need to do either.  We define a method as a sequence of
changes, normally represented using place notation.  If you ring that
sequence of place notations once, by definition you've rung a lead (or more
precisely, a plain lead).  If you ring the sequence repeatedly until you
get back to rounds, you've rung a plain course, and the number of times you
had to repeat the sequence to get back to rounds tells you how many leads
there are in the plain course.  As far as I know, this is universal for
'normal' methods (excluding dixonoids, etc).  Pick any method from the CC
Method Collections and ring the place notation that is printed there once,
and you've rung a lead.

This then lets us define a plain lead and a plain course using the term
'method'.  But we don't need to use the terms 'lead' or 'course' when
defining 'method', thereby avoiding the problem of circular references.

> Iain A:
> 1) Is it obvious what a method is?

So from the above, yes.  It's any sequence of changes (place notations).
 Methods can be named or unnamed.  We may decide to have rules that limit
what sequences of place notations may be named as methods (rotations, the
non-divisible debate, etc).  I think the above also answers Iain's
questions 2, 3 and 4.

> 5) Is Plain Hunt a method?

> MBD:
> Yes. It has a 2-change lead.

I'd clarify that the name given to the method with this 2-change lead in
the CC Method Collections is Original.  There isn't a method in the
Collections with the name Plain Hunt.  When someone running the ringing
says 'Let's ring a lead of Plain Hunt on 6', we know to ring 12 rows.  If
that's a 'lead' of a method, the method's place notation would be
-16-16-16-16-16-16 (from the definition of lead above).  This sequence of
12 changes isn't currently allowed to be named as a method by the CC
because the method's plain course is made up of only one lead -- the CC
requires methods to have at least two leads in the plain course.  If this
rule was relaxed, Plain Hunt could be officially named as a method.  Until
then, calling for 'a lead of Plain Hunt' technically means ringing a plain
course of Original.

The above is also a great illustration of the non-divisible problem.  If
you ring -16-16-16-16-16-16, are you ringing one lead of Plain Hunt (were
it allowed as a method) or 6 leads of Original.  Or are you ringing 3 leads
of the method with notation -16-16.  Those in favor of the non-divisible
rule (which includes me) would say it's fairly pointless to name -16-16 as
a method, because anyone who wants to ring -16-16 can just ring two leads
of -16.  But this does result in some unexpected classifications:  -16 is a
principle, -16-16 is a differential, and we don't know what
-16-16-16-16-16-16 is classified as because it isn't allowed as a method.
 We saw the same issue of changing classifications with 6ths place Morning
Star.  The answer (as someone has suggested off-list) may be to keep the
non-divisible rule, but change the way things are classified to avoid
unexpected results such as the foregoing.  There might be an Option E to be
added.

TJB