[r-t] A Ringing Puzzle

[Ted Steele]

On 23/05/2014 17:52, Don Morrison wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Ted Steele <teds.bells at tesco.net> wrote:
>>
> ...
>> 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?.....

>
> 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)
>
>
  I think you are being a little mischievous, but why not. It has I 
think been agreed that it's a bad idea to think of a 
false-in-the-plain-course method as a non-method block, by whatever name 
we may come to know that. I believe council is being asked to remove the 
requirement of truth in the plain course from the definition of method 
and if that happens there is no difficulty, not on this particular point 
anyway. It may happen that such methods could be identified as such by 
their classification. Method A might become Morrison False Course Surprise.

Common sense makes clear that method A is indeed a method in the same 
way that a false peal is still a peal. As JEC (I think) said, false 
peals form a sub group of all peals; so too with false methods, they are 
a sub group of all methods, but still methods. Sorting that out at 
Council is a different problem than what to do about blocks of changes 
that don't even begin to look like methods. I doubt that the blocks were 
ever even intended as methods but had to be designated as such to 
satisfy current expectations, at least in part. (Has anyone attempted to 
give a name to what was rung in the handbell touch at the RW centenary)?

When sending up peals of spliced one would only have to say how many 
changes were rung in each method and how many in special blocks. The 
Place notations for those would be appended just as with new methods and 
the details would be included too within the composition, Block A, etc. 
"Reference to changes of method would be unaffected because to change 
from a method to a block or vice versa is still essentially a method change.

Ted