[r-t] Monster extent of triples

Philip Earis pje24 at cantab.net
Tue Oct 7 10:22:02 UTC 2014

Graham: "This is an interesting theoretical exercise and it is good that we 
will never run out of more challenging things to ring, but somehow I can't 
see the appeal of ringing things that are that chaotic. However, if a random 
sequence was generated that when repeated 6 times produced the extent i.e. a 
plain course of a Triples principle...then I think that would be much more 

I don't disagree that multi-parts have elegance, but in this case the 
practical difference between ringing a "monster" asymmetric true block of 
5040 changes, and ringing an asymmetric block of 720 changes that when 
repeated generates the extent, seems not so big.  The difference in learning 
(if all ringers are essentially ringing by the notation) is at most a factor 
of 7 (and the difference if ringers are learning a blue line is close to 
zero)...this doesn't exactly bring a 7-part much closer to most ringers from 
the realms of being "an interesting theoretical exercise".  You only have to 
see how many difficulties Stedman triples - one of the simplest 12-change 
blocks - poses to ringers to see that a 720-change block is orders of 
magnitude less tractable.

But I would of course be interested to see 7-part extents generated using 
the monster approach.

In any case, please can someone answer my questions in my original email, 
especially on the longest block(s) of changes that occur multiple times in 
the published monster extent?  Someone must be able to easily rustle up some 
pattern-matching code... 

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list