[r-t] [r-c] Definition of a peal (was Not A Block)
john at jaharrison.me.uk
Mon Jun 9 21:26:46 UTC 2014
> We do ring changes, not just rows.
I disagree. We execute (or make or any other suitable verb) in order to
achieve the sequence of rows that we actually 'ring' (ie make the sound
> Also I think there is something fundamental about the term
> "change-ringing". The fundamental thing isn't the rows themselves, it
> is how they are produced.
Yes there is something fundamental about the changes (which is what gets us
hooked) but when it comes to performances it's the rows we care about,
count and check for truth. In a peal of Grandsire Triples there are only 4
different changes but there are 5040 different rows.
> what makes change-ringing different from call changes, set changes,
I'm not sure what set changes are but the other two are forms of change
ringing (look at the words). What we are debating is method ringing (ie
changes generated systematically by applying sequences of changes
continually, subject to certain constraints. We are struggling to agree
the set of constraints because we feel some of those we have inherited
might be too tight. We all instinctively feel there must be some
constraints (to differentiate what we do from randomness) but since all
constraints are to a degree arbitrary there is no clear 'right answer'.
> The trouble with making your round blocks out of rows is that you have
> to remember that the rounds at the beginning and end are the same row
That's why we call them round blocks!
More information about the ringing-theory