[r-t] History

Robert Bennett rbennett at woosh.co.nz
Sun Jun 8 11:59:45 UTC 2014

	This is closing the stable door about 150 years after the horse has

	One old book on ringing had something like this to say on the
subject..."If a peal of 5600 major is rung, it is only deemed by the
exercise a five thousand, so why not as near that number as

	On a practical level, it is sometimes convenient for a Surprise Major
peal to be 5024 rather than 5056. 

	In the case of Stedman Caters, peals of 5001 and 5010 were composed
and rung in the 1880s (see Stedman first edition) 

	Similarly for 5008 and 5024 Bob Major (see Ropesight) 

	In the case of triples, allowing longer "peals" would permit a peal
of grandsire triples without bobs, perhaps like Bankes James's
arrangement of 2160 Minor. 

	To avoid giving offence to die-hards, we could call them 5/4 peals
and 3/2 peals of triples. 

----- Original Message -----
 From:ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Sent:Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:30:18 +0100
Subject:Re: [r-t] History

JEC writes,

> Think of all those people defiling themselves by ringing impure
> on 8 or more. Disgusting, I call it.

I think you are still thinking of the wrong definition of the word 
"pure", John. In mathematics, a "pure" concept is one that is simple, 
elegant, and uncontaminated by unnecessary or unrelated factors.

In terms of our discussion, the contamination is that of base 10. A 
number such as 5000 appears neat, whole and round to most people's
because we are used to counting in base 10. But base 10 is just a way
one of many ways - of representing a number in symbols. Counting in
has no relationship to the underlying mathematics of changeringing, so

to impose it on our definition of a peal is in a sense impure.

5040 might not look like such a nice round number, and may look 
certainly no better than 5000, but in fact it is your base-10
which lead you to conclude that.


ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list