[r-t] History

Simon Gay Simon.Gay at glasgow.ac.uk
Fri Jun 6 19:33:12 UTC 2014

To me, ringing an extent is a natural goal. It just so happens that an 
extent of Triples takes a reasonable length of time: long enough to feel 
like a significant achievement, short enough to ring in an evening. 
That's where the idea of a peal as a noteworthy achievement comes from.

It is then natural to ring peals of Doubles or Minor by ringing enough 
extents to get to 5040 changes, the same length as a peal of Triples.

Ringing at least 5000 changes for a peal on 8 or more bells is a way of 
producing an achievement comparable to a peal of Triples. Settling on a 
round number of 5000 is quite a natural tendency, and getting exactly 
5040 isn't practical for most methods.

So we have the generalisation of a peal, for 8 or more bells, to be at 
least 5000 changes. I don't see that this implies that we should go back 
and redefine a peal of Triples to be at least 5000 changes.

Maintain the purity of the definition of peals of Triples. The 
definition for higher stages is less pure, but that doesn't mean that we 
should abandon purity altogether.

Most of the interesting aspects of ringing come from the constraints 
that we impose. Getting a length of at least 5000 changes of Stedman 
Triples without singles? Who cares? But to get an extent was a 
fascinating challenge because it was a natural mathematical problem.


On 06/06/2014 19:51, Don Morrison wrote:
> In, I believe, arguing the "it's better to leave peals the sometimes extents
> or multiples of extents" point of view, Andrew Johnson wrote:
>> Well I do - it clutters the definition of a peal
> I'm sorry to be dense, but I'm not following this assertion at all. How is
> "A peal is 5,000 or more rows."
> more cluttered than
> "A peal is 5,000 or more rows if you're ringing major or above,
> but a multiple of exactly 5,040 rows if you're ringing triples,
> unless it's variable cover, in which case it's 5,000 or more, or
> a multiple of 720 that is 5,040 or larger if you're ringing minor,
> or a multiple of 120 that is 5,040 or larger if you're ringing doubles,
> with other possible complications for mixed stage peals."?
> Or did I misinterpret the position you were taking?

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list