Simon.Gay at glasgow.ac.uk
Mon Jun 9 10:06:28 UTC 2014
The current thread doesn't seem to include any discussion of why we want
a definition of a peal. BellBoard gives us a way of publishing any
performance that we want to, and indeed it contains all sorts of short
touches, plain courses, call changes, as well as peals and quarters.
If everything can be published, then any ringer can decide what to keep
records of, and any ringer can decide what to be impressed by. Why do we
need to pick out a particular category of performances and give them the
special title of "peal"?
Much of the current discussion is about what kind of structures should
be given names: methods, non-method blocks, etc. Naming is important
because one of the strengths of ringing is that we can go anywhere and
ring with anyone, and standardised naming is important in making that
possible. But the current rules for naming methods require them to be
rung in peals (for methods on 7 or more bells), which begs the question
of why we have this distinguished category of performances, called peals.
On 09/06/2014 10:56, King, Peter R wrote:
>>> I wouldn't alter the definition of a change, but I would introduce a
>>> definition for a null change. As a null change is then not a change,
>>> you just do not count it as a change.
>> I'm sorry, but I think this is an exceedingly ill-advised suggestion.
> I would agree with Don on this. Surely the "null change" is just the identity permutation and as such just as much a permutation as any other, indeed without it the permutation group would not be a group!
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory