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

[Matthew Frye]

On 19 Oct 2014, at 21:25, John Harrison <john at jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

>> Would people claim a different method again if it were rotated further
>> so the 3 & 5 were the hunt bells? I doubt it, you'd just call it a
>> rotation or a funny start(/funny calls) in Grandsire.
> 
> I suggest that would depend on which bell was unaffected by the calls.  If
> it was the 5, they would call it Grandsire with the 5 in the hunt and a
> funny start.  If it was the 3 they would call it New Grandsire with the 3
> in the hunt and a funny start.

You are proposing to define a method through its calls, I believe that way madness lies. Apart from anything else you are saying that Grandsire with 3&5 in the hunt is a plain course that could be either Grandsire or New Grandsire, you could only tell the difference if you call a bob*. I really really really don't like this, and I think the collateral damage to avoid this is very tiny (one method that is currently unrecognised anyway - or rather one *name* that is currently unrecognised, the method itself is completely allowed).

I might be convinced that a "canonical method" approach (as proposed for the multiples/fractions issue) and allowing various rotations thereof might be a good idea. But I still think I would take quite some convincing that even that much was necessary or a good idea in any case apart from Grandsire.

MF

* Of course this means that a plain course of Grandsire could be a plain course of New Grandsire and indeed a plain course of New Grandsire could be a plain course of Grandsire (as people have no doubt been saying every time the debate is brought up).