[r-t] A ringing puzzle

King, Peter R peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Fri May 23 08:58:48 UTC 2014

I presume the objection is that the first is false in the plain course whereas the second isn't (sorry if I spoilt it for anyone trying to work it out). Personally I have no objection to both of them being called methods but I think it would would be sensible to have some sort of flag indicating the falseness in the plain course. Just to stop the unwary ringing an unsuitable composition. This is vaguely similar to the recent discussion about Gangnam, although there the issue was more about the composition not being suitable to all surprise minor methods and it was the composition needing a flag to indicate what class of methods it wasn't suitable for.
Just presenting people with a blue line doesn't help people realise these problems. I remember once being given the blue line for a minor method, if you tried to ring it you found that all the bells were supposed to ring in the same position qt some point in the lead, but the line looked respectable. Treble jump surprise methods have perfectly reasonable blue line from an inside bell's point of view.
I don't have a problem with some flag in a method name which draws attention to these issues or if it is useful in the ringing of the method (like treble bob or surprise or bob). Perhaps that is sufficiently captured by the falseness groups in this particular case.

From: ringing-theory [ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] on behalf of Philip Earis [Earisp at rsc.org]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 8:16 AM
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] A ringing puzzle

To quote Don Morrison from his recent message to the change-ringers mailing list:

"Inspired by the upcoming Central Council meeting I've posted a little puzzle on my web site. I would be interested in others' views.
http://ringing.org/puzzle.html "

Don and others have made some sensible arguments in the RW in recent weeks. I'm not sure of the benefits of going over this well-trodden ground on here again.  You can't argue with true believers (or ayatollahs).

Perhaps we can find a CC member to propose an amendment to call these dangerous assemblies of non-complaint changes "anti-method blocks" or maybe "satanic blocks" to liven up the old stiffs' debate a bit?

Personally, I'm finding the irony of the so-called "Methods Committee" trying to expand their jurisdiction by writing rules on "non-method" blocks rather delicious. It feels like we're not too far from the whole edifice collapsing under its own contradictions, disappearing in a puff of non-logic.


This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening. The Royal Society of Chemistry is a charity, registered in England and Wales, number 207890 - Registered office: Thomas Graham House, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0WF

ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list