[r-t] The important points
dfm at ringing.org
Mon Jun 9 00:19:19 UTC 2014
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Philip Earis <Earisp at rsc.org> (quoting
Graham John) wrote:
> The definition proposed is:
> Peal: One or more round blocks comprising at least 5000 changes in total.
I certainly agree with the overall goal and direction of this
proposal, and I think it is exactly the kind of thing we should aim
at. However I do see a couple of minor issues with this specific
1) I think it should be "at least 5,000 rows", not 5,000 changes. We
don't ring changes, they are abstract processes connecting rows. What
we ring are rows. What our auditors hear are bells ringing, which are
parts of rows, not changes. When we reason about truth, we are
thinking about whether or not rows are distinct. Most of the musical
properties we cite or aim to maximize are properties of rows, not
changes. When we say an extent on N bells consists of N! distinct rows,
we are talking about rows, not changes.
2) It is not at all clear to me that "round block" is an unambiguous
phrase. I think what is meant by it may need to be defined more precisely
if such a definition of peal is not to lead to further unfortunate
arguments in the future.
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"I have always been addicted to something or other, usually
something there's no support group for. Semicolons, for instance,
I can never give up for more than two hundred words at a time."
-- Hilary Mantel, _Giving Up the Ghost_
More information about the ringing-theory