[r-t] A Ringing Puzzle

[Graham John]

MBD wrote:

> Bristol with a 2nd's place leadhead still looks like a method.

This is the case of a method that only has one lead where all the bells are
hunt bells. It is not covered by the current nomenclature, but should be.
The 24-bell touch rung at the Ringing World Centenary
(http://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/images/7/78/Rwcentenary24belltouch.png)
could also be classified this way. All it needs is an additional method type
to add to: 

- Principles (all the working bells do the same work in the plain course and
the number of leads is the same as the number of bells)
- Differentials (all the working bells do not do the same work in the plain
course or the number of leads is not the same as the number of bells)
- Differential Hunters (all the working bells do not do the same work in the
plain course or the number of leads is not the same as the number of working
bells)
- Hunters (all the working bells do the same work in the plain course and
the number of leads is the same as the number of working bells)

Add:
- Full* Hunters (all the bells are hunt bells and there is only one lead in
the plain course) 

Note: all the existing classifications such as Surprise can still apply in
the same way as they do for Differential Hunters.

It is also worth adding:
- Dixonoids* (methods where the changes are determined dynamically by rules
based upon the position of bells in the previous row or rows)

All of the David Pipe methods and many others would be covered by these
types and existing classification if the requirement for truth in the plain
course is dropped. More importantly, we can still talk about them all as
method ringing avoiding having to further subdivide change-ringing into call
change ringing, method ringing and the horrible term "non-method" ringing.

Graham

*These are example terms. Better type names could no doubt be conceived.