[r-t] proving a touch

[Daniel Brady]

It is a bit of a revelation to me that there are any published quarters of
minor where not all 720 changes are rung.  Personally I would not be
counting it as true to the method.  I dread to think how many "near true"
compositions e.g. 648 changes each occurring twice that are littering the
recycle bin at home, as they are just not the ticket!


On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:13 AM, King, Peter R <peter.king at imperial.ac.uk>wrote:

> Yes I think it does contain all the rows. Perhaps the footnote is wrong.
> It satisfies the criteria as far as I can see.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On
> Behalf Of Ian McCulloch
> Sent: 21 May 2014 09:03
> To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> Subject: Re: [r-t] proving a touch
>
>
> On Wed, 21 May 2014, King, Peter R wrote:
>
> > I guess it depends on what you mean by True.  I think John Warboys has
> > basically answered the question. If the only criterion is that no
> > change appears more than twice then yes it is true to Cambridge. I
> > sort of feel that I would expect a quarter composition to have all 720
> > changes plus
> > 552 (or whatever number) changes repeated once only. That's a stricter
> > criterion than applied here. On the other hand for quarters I probably
> > wouldn't be so picky as for peals.
>
> I think, for cambridge though, that it does contain all 720 rows, as well
> as no rows appearing more than twice.  So I don't know what the footnote is
> supposed to mean.  What other criteria could there be that it fails for
> Cambridge?
>
> Cheers,
> Ian
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>