[r-t] A Ringing Puzzle

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Ted Steele <teds.bells at tesco.net> wrote:
> So lets recognise and legitimise them. What I do not accept
> is a need to name them at all, nor, except in the most general terms to
> define them.
...
> To describe a composition as containing X number of methods and y number of
> e.g  "shunts" "levers" or "shuffle blocks" or "shift courses" with these
> blocks having place notation appended to the composition, would be as simple
> as naming a new method and including its p.n..

So, using my example at http://ringing.org/puzzle.html that started
this thread, if a band rang the two compositions given, how would they
send them up?

For method B, it would clearly be something like

5,120 Mumble Surprise Major

But for method A, would it be something like

5,120 Major
(0 methods, 1 shunt/lever/shuffle-block/shift-course,
with zero changes of thingie)

Given how similar the two performances would be to one another, this
doesn't seem right at all.

Or imagine that a peal of the two thingies spliced together could
be assembled (I don't know whether or not that is possible). How
would that be sent up?

5,056 Spliced Major
(1 method: 2,528 Mumble Surprise, 2,528 shunt/level/shuffle-block/shift-course,
with 142 changes of something-or-other and all the work for the method and
for the thingie)

Again, given how close the two thingies are to one another, it
seems to be adding an absurd amount of complication for no
discernible benefit.

Even if motion (D) passes, does the spliced peal have to have a rather
odd description

5,056 Spliced Major
(1 method, 1 non-method: 2,528 each Mumble Surprise and Mumble Surprise Block,
with 142 changes of method or non-method, and all the work)

What benefit are we gaining by refusing to call 'A' a method?




-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Am I incapable of truth because I don't know what it is?
Whatever truth may be, it's not the opposite of lie."
                           -- Ned Rorem, _A Ned Rorem Reader_