[r-t] Restriction #4

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Sun Nov 30 03:21:24 UTC 2014

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Matthew Frye <matthew at frye.org.uk> wrote:
> May I suggest this is the sort of weirdness that is maybe better considered
> when thinking about cover bells and similar? The 6th really isn't part of
> any method, it is an internal "cover" bell. You *do* have two lots of
> doubles, so don't call it Cinques.

If you are going to prohibit calling that cinques, does not the same logic
prohibit calling the following major?

x45x45  le 256 (producing lead head 13425786)

But, according to today's rules, that *is* major, a perfectly legal
little plain differential major method.

And, with Tim's example, a band might choose to ring the same thing,
but with calls moving one or more bells between the front and back
sixes, at which time it would surely become cinques? So you'd be in
the rather unfortunate situation of having two different methods, one of
cinques, and one of something else, but with exactly the same place
notation; and which one you were ringing would depend upon which calls
you chose to use. Particularly entertaining if you spliced them.

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"What a strange sort of creature man is: he is wise, clever, sensible
in everything that concerns other people, but not in what concerns
himself."    -- Nikolai Gogol, _Dead Souls_, tr Constance Garnett

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list