[r-t] Minor Blocks

Alan Reading alan.reading at googlemail.com
Wed Jun 25 10:07:12 UTC 2014

My view has changed a little since I thought up the Morning Star example.
Perhaps an even more fundamental example is that of 6ths place Plain Bob! I
think most of us would agree that Original is better described as a two
change per section principle than a single lead entity. I think this lends
weight to Graham's argument that things are best described and categorized
(if not rung) in the shortest and simplest way possible.


On 25 June 2014 09:38, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

> Tim wrote,
> > So in some cases it would be down to the first person ringing
> > a new method to pick which classification it will have.  But
> > clearly it's far from ideal having a classification system that
> > involves choice.  I therefore hope someone can come up
> > with a better way of handling this!
> I don't think you should move away from the principle of the shortest
> sequence of changes defining the method. We need logical consistency. It
> should be possible to enter any place notation into a program that gives
> you
> a definitive classification, not you could classify it as this, ... or
> that.
> We already ring things in different ways from the way that they are
> classified, such as ringing methods by their above and below work. So I
> don't see a problem with 6ths place Morning Star being classified as a
> Differential that people might ring like a Treble Bob method if they find
> that easier. Alternatively, if someone rings by place notation, they would
> probably find the Differential form easier to learn.
> Graham
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list