[r-t] A Ringing Puzzle

Matthew Frye matthew at frye.org.uk
Mon May 26 19:59:23 UTC 2014

On 26 May 2014, at 20:37, Philip Saddleton <pabs at cantab.net> wrote:
> Regardless of the detail the main effect of the motion is to separate the definition of a compliant peal composition from that of a method (which I have long advocated), without changing what could be construed as either. Effectively a compliant peal composition must satisfy (D)A.1-3 and  B.1-7: the rest just determines how it is described.

That much was always in principle true. You could always claim any method you ring (excluding jump/cylindrical) was Original with a *lot* of calls, so in that sense this really doesn't change anything.

The point was rarely what it was technically possible to describe, more the contortion act required to describe something that should be simple. Although this change does help somewhat, do you honestly believe it's actually a good resolution?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list