[r-t] A Ringing Puzzle

[Robert Bennett]

	The block idea seems to lead to a lot of problems as well. 

	I have a couple of suggestions that might help: 

	(1) have a number of different sets of rules for peals, such as
"1788 rules" ,"1891 rules", "1952 rules", "2001 rules" and so
forth  Pressure to change the rules to allow odd sorts of ringing
can be accomodated by introducing new sets of method and peal rules
every few years.  

	(2) Allow that a peal may not consist of methods (in part or
completely). The requirement will then be that the peal as a whole is
true, but there will not be any restrictions about using methods or
blocks in the peal. 

	This could then be called Mixed (used like Spliced). 

	================================================================ 

	There are many other things, not method related, which were
prevented by earlier CC decisions. 

	Some of these restrictions might well be lifted if they haven't
already: 

	(1) allowing assistants to give ringers a short spell for a toilet
stop, lunch,  etc.; 

	(2)  allowing drinks to be handed to ringers while ringing; 

	(3) allowing the substitution of ringers. 

----- Original Message -----
 From:ringing-theory at bellringers.net
To:
Cc:
Sent:Fri, 30 May 2014 09:48:34 +0100
Subject:Re: [r-t] A Ringing Puzzle

No one has answered my questions of 27 May, so I will attempt to
answer them
myself.

> What is the non-method block in the case of Don's puzzle
> method A? One lead? The whole course? If the latter it
> definitely has leads (repeating blocks of changes)

If a non-method block was defined as the whole course then it would be
false
as calls are only allowed at the end of a non-method block.

If a non-method block was defined as one lead, then calls would only
be
allowed at the leadend. Don's composition with half lead calls could
not be
used. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get a
composition without them.

If a non-method block was defined as half a lead, then Don's
composition can
be used but it would be a peal in two alternating Blocks. But hang on
a
minute, a Block based upon half a lead forms a true asymmetric
principle,
therefore it is a lead of a valid method, and cannot be defined as a
Block.

It therefore has to be defined as two alternating asymmetric
principles
spliced, one the inverse of the other.

So, the answer is that method B is a Surprise method, but method A
can't
exist as people would learn and ring it. 

> What is the non-method block in Oxford Treble Bob Minimus?
> Is it a lead (which is false) or the plain course? Can this now
> be ring in peals. Bristol Minimus too? 

Either a lead or the whole plain course of Oxford TB Minimus could be
defined as a non-method block, but let's assume a lead is better. It
would
have to be titled Oxford Block Minimus or Oxford Treble Bob Block
Minimus -
it cannot be called Oxford Block Treble Bob Minimus, as there is no
further
classification of Blocks

The decision seems to be silent on the extension of Blocks, but an
extension
of a Block is only valid if the extension is also false, as otherwise
(as in
this case) it extends into a method.

> Does Horsleydown Surprise Major or the Ringing World
> Centenary touch qualify as either a non-method block
> or a Hunter now, or neither?

Horsleydown S Major cannot be defined as a method because a method has
to be
divided into more than one lead. 

If its lead/course is defined as a Block then a composition could not
be
formed that would be distinct from Bristol, as calls are only allowed
at the
Block end, not the half lead. Like Don's method A, its two half leads
would
become Hybrid methods.

The Ringing World Centenary touch could be defined a non-method block,
but
calls could only be made at the lead end/course end. This is highly
restrictive and probably makes most round block Blocks unworkable. 

Graham

_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net