[r-t] proving a touch

[King, Peter R]

I had an argument with a local who had been calling quarters of little bob minor and I contended that unless they were variable hunt (which they weren't) you can't get a quarter of little bob minor as you can't ring all 720 changes. The thing is, to me, that unless you add that requirement you may as well just ring plain courses ad call it a quarter. There is a slight extra challenge in requiring you don't ring each change more than twice.

-----Original Message-----
From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Brady
Sent: 21 May 2014 09:34
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] proving a touch

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
>
_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net