[r-t] [r-c] Definition of a peal (was Not A Block)
King, Peter R
peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Mon Jun 9 20:16:51 UTC 2014
> I don't think the "null change" is change-ringing, and hence neither is Don's 240.
But what in any other respect is wrong with Don's 240? It contains each row twice only, in just the same way as any other 240. Just because one row is repeated immediately I don't see the difference between that and the same row repeated say 60 rows later. And mathematically the null change is just the identity permutation which is considered to be a perfectly valid permutation (in fact it is a requirement for the permutations to form group).
The current decisions (in terms of round blocks as distinct rows, repeated at most the required number of times - so twice in Don't example) would prevent someone from ringing a 120 of rounds and claiming they had rung a 120 of doubles in a method that was entirely null changes. Of course someone could ring rounds 42 times followed by 21435 42 times and so on through an extent of doubles and claim they have rung a peal. And if they did I don't know that I would object, I really don't see it catching on.
More information about the ringing-theory
mailing list