[r-t] A Ringing Puzzle

Andrew Johnson andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com
Sat May 24 19:13:18 UTC 2014

> From: Roddy Horton <roddy at horton.karoo.co.uk>
> The fuss is all man, or should I say, committee made.
> I don't understand why we don't simply call a series of changes 
> which, when repeated an undefined number of times, comes back into 
> rounds as a 
> 'method'.
> If a method is false in its plain course so what? Who cares? 99.99% 
> of those listening won't know.
> Roddy
Any sequence of changes 'repeated an undefined number of times'
will comes back into rounds so you might as well say:
'why we don't simply call a series of changes ... a method'?
Does it matter where it comes back into rounds - the first time
or the nth time?

I don't like the idea of false methods, but perhaps the proponents
would consider them like aerodynamically unstable aircraft;
probably an incompetent design crashing as soon as you take
your hands off the controls, but perhaps with the aid of computer
control offering more agility and higher performance.

Andrew Johnson

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list