[r-t] A Ringing Puzzle

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Sun May 25 13:37:29 UTC 2014

RAS writes,

> Where I think they went wrong was to regard differential
> hunters as a fundamentally different type of method to
> normal hunters.  It really isn't: it's a relatively
> insignificant attribute of the method.

Absolutely agree.

> This is precisely the same mistake they are making with the
> quarks: falseness within the plain course is again a
> relatively insignificant property for methods rung in
> spliced.

Absolutely agree, again.

> I'm sure they would argue that Horsleydown is not divisible
> into equal parts (plural), as it has just one lead.

Hmm, good point. You are almost certainly right. In that case I suppose 
the relaxation implied by proposal (E) is not such a big deal.

There is another technical difficulty with single-lead methods: how do 
you show you have rung them? With leadhead calls, arguably you've rung 
Bristol instead of Horsleydown. In leadhead spliced, including both 
Horsleydown and Bristol would be nonsensical. Does that mean it is in 
fact better to treat these constructions as "blocks", or as a lead of 
another method with a call?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list