[r-t] Does a rotation by any other name smell as sweet?

[King, Peter R]

I would agree with that and perhaps that is the answer to this issue, you have a new class called a variation. So you can call it New Grandsire Variation if you wish (or grandsire rotated with a particular set of calls). Since there is intrinsically nothing different between the two which ever variant is considered the root depends on which was rung first.
In the same way with compositions you wouldn't claim a new composition by simply rotating it, so you have Johnson's variation of Middleton's 
________________________________________
From: ringing-theory [ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] on behalf of Graham John [graham at changeringing.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:25 PM
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] Does a rotation by any other name smell as sweet?

Don wrote:

> Here are two, unnamed differential major methods.
> From a practical ringer's perspective are they the same method, or
> different methods?

http://ringing.org/blueline1.png

http://ringing.org/blueline2.png

They look the same to me, just as ringing Cambridge starting from the half
lead with the tenor in the hunt would still be Cambridge.

If we accept that calls are not part of the method (which I agree with),
then it is not the method that is different in New Grandsire, but the calls
that are different. Accepting this means that the existing decisions are
fine in this respect, and New Grandsire is a just a Triples variation in the
same way as any of the Doubles variations, where combinations of methods and
calls have been given distinguishing names.

Graham


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