[r-t] Minor Blocks
dfm at ringing.org
Wed Jun 25 11:18:23 UTC 2014
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't think you should move away from the principle of the shortest
> sequence of changes defining the method. We need logical consistency.
If we want logical consistency, there is no such method as Single
Court Minor, all touches of it with the usual bobs and singles are
just touches of Original with exactly the same bobs and singles.
Putting the convenience of the tabulators ahead of a description of
what people really ring, even if ambiguous, is the root cause of the
mess we've got now. Such a mistake should not be repeated.
> 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.
I also wish that all bells were hung well and easy to handle, that all
ringing rooms were light, comfortable and clean, and that I never
miscalled anything, or made any mistakes in my ringing. But that's not
the real world, and neither is the one you describe. If you take away
the ability to describe a touch of Stedman as spliced Erin and Bastow
you'll take away the ability to describe some other touch the way it's
really rung. Ambiguity is a fact of ringing life. Cope with it.
> 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
How is this any different than the current foolishness of smashing
link methods to a different form than actually rung to avoid falseness
in the plain course?
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"The problem with being consistent is that there are lots of ways to
be consistent, and they're all inconsistent with each other."
-- Larry Wall, the Perl 6 mailing list
More information about the ringing-theory