[r-t] History

[John Camp]

At 13:31 on 07 June 2014, Mark Davies wrote:

> JEC writes,

>> Mathematical "purity" (and of course I was being facetious in using
>> "pure" in other senses) does not seem to me to be a good reason for
>> having a different rule for 7 or fewer

> It is a good reason, because peal composition on seven bells is 
> constrained by the length of the extent.

No it isn't.  That is begging the question (in the proper sense of the 
expression).  It is only because you have already defined "peal" that 
such a constraint exists.  The argument (if such it be) is wholly 
circular (possibly cyclic).  "You can't have a peal of triples of more 
than 5040 changes because it wouldn't be a peal."

But, whether that is so or not, it cannot possibly be a good reason 
for not defining a (true) length of triples of 5000 to 5039 changes as 
a peal.

However, we are not going to agree.

JEC