[r-t] What IS a rotation of a method?

King, Peter R peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Sat Oct 18 13:06:26 UTC 2014

I would agree with this. I tis not uncommon to start Stedman from somewhere different. Or snap starts in surprise (especially for handbell comps). I have rung a peal of Bristol starting 5 rows before the lead end with the 3rd in the hunt - and so on. None of this changes the method rung (certainly not from my point of view when ringing). I think that on practice nights one might ask for something (like new grandsire) but there is no reason why peal records should be cluttered up with extraneous names, as with the above examples

-----Original Message-----
From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Frye
Sent: 18 October 2014 13:51
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] What IS a rotation of a method?

On 18 Oct 2014, at 11:23, James White <jw_home at ntlworld.com> wrote:

>>> But what an ugly mess we will be in if, from our theoretical viewpoint, we do not accept that rotations of a method are (in some sense) all the same.
> Perhaps yes, rotations are the same method theoretically, but allowing different names for rotations is just common sense so that we can talk simply about these things.
> We will just need to keep a record of such names.

Is this not in principle the very same issue as we faced with methods that are a multiple or fraction of other methods? In that context it might make sense to go with the previously suggested option of having a single canonical definition, with alternative names that correspond to different rotations.

Actually, I'm not at all convinced by that. Do we *really* want the possibility of 12 different names for Stedman, even if they all fall under the canonical Stedman definition? In fact, can anyone think of a single time we might possibly want a rotation to bear a different name other than Grandsire/New Grandsire? The only time I can think of is Cloister/Quick Six, but neither of these seem to have ben named. I would think that any new method people would be far more happy to classify one way and then think of any rotation as being a rotation in whatever circumstance. Given this, do we think that the Grandsire/New Grandsire case is a genuinely isolated oddity rather than an example of a wider issue?

If you chose to rotate, say, Single Oxford Bob Triples to have the 1 & 3 hunting instead of the 1 & 2, would you not still think it was Single Oxford Bob Triples? Would anyone truly wish to have a different name for that?


ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list