[r-t] History

[Tim Barnes]

I'd vote nay and would like to see a standard peal length definition of >=
5000 for all stages, for reasons already given, especially simplicity and
the fact that we don't seem to have any problem with QPs of doubles and
minor not being whole numbers of extents.

With Graham's very clear definition of truth ("A round block is considered
true if all its rows are distinct, or if longer than one extent, are
distinct if the rows from any complete extents are excluded"), it's clear
from the round block length whether one (or more) extents were rung,
without needing to prevent peals by bands who would like to use other
lengths.

A simple peal length definition of >= 5000 changes would then easily allow
the Decisions to define all other lengths, which I think would be helpful.
 E.g.

-- Long length is a true round block with >= 10000 changes
-- Peal >= 5000 & <10000
-- Half peal >=2500 & < 5000 (maybe an intermediate step is needed?)
-- Quarter peal >= 1250 & < 2500
-- Touch < 1250 (this would be a more specific definition of touch than
conventionally used; 'round block' could provide the general case of any
length)

Methods (names applied to sequences of place notations) are categorized by
feature (plain, treble bob, principle, half-lead symmetry, etc) but here
there also seems to be room for simplification.  E.g. are Delight and
Surprise still useful distinctions from Treble Bob, or could they all just
be called Treble Bob?

True round blocks are then constructed by combining methods and calls, such
that truth as a concept only needs to apply to round blocks, not to methods
or calls, as others have already noted.  No need for non-method blocks -
these would be methods of an 'Other' category if they don't fit into an
existing method category.

An argument that has been used previously against defining QPs in the
Decisions is that the CC would then need to have a QP committee to monitor
QP ringing, etc.  I would disagree that this follows from just including a
QP definition in the Decisions.  QP (and half peal) rules could be followed
on an honour basis.  I think this would be a clear improvement on what we
have now, where some ringers are happy to publish false QPs "because there
are no rules for QPs".

I would vote yea for a peal (all published lengths in fact) needing to
start and end in rounds (therefore disallowing 5039 changes of Grandsire
Triples that contains all 5040 rows but doesn't end in rounds -- the
existing "miscellaneous performance" term seems to cover this type of
performance well).  I would do away with the limit of 4 consecutive blows
in one place, thereby eliminating the need for special case rules for
variable cover.  But I'm still on the fence on whether, in a true
multi-extent round block, it's ok to have the same row consecutively.  Is
it change ringing if there's no change?

Significantly revamping the Decisions would clearly be hard work and
involve considerable consensus building (the 5000 vs 5040 triples debate
here demonstrates that well).  But if you don't have a good spring clean
once in a while, things become messier and messier, which is where we seem
to be now.  The complexity of the current Decisions makes them very
inaccessible to a large majority of ringers.

TJB



On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:

> JEC writes,
>
>  In what sense is "5040 changes" purer than "5000 changes"?
>>
>
> It is a mathematical purity, because 5040 = the factorial of the number of
> bells. To ring 5040 changes you must ring every combination of seven bells,
> not every combination minus an arbitrary handful.
>
> This mathematical ideal is what drove all the early innovation in
> changeringing - and quite a lot of the more recent stuff, too.
>
> MBD
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>