[r-t] Does a rotation by any other name smell as sweet?
matthew at frye.org.uk
Wed Oct 22 13:20:49 UTC 2014
On 22 Oct 2014, at 02:29, Alexander Holroyd <holroyd at math.ubc.ca> wrote:
> Quite so, and in fact some of us would not be so confident of that claim, when it comes to rotations. There is at least one actual case in point - see below. Not the most exciting extent in the world, but it was quite fun to ring, and spliced Arlesey and Helen is most definitely how the band thought of it.
Many thanks, that was really the non-trivial non-Grandsire example I had been hoping might materialise. I asked for one a while ago thinking that someone would come back pretty quickly and might have got sucked into the trap of "no one has posted one so one doesn't exist" (I might need to think quite hard about why Don's pair of differentials didn't seem to persuade me...). Now I know that there are many* cases where naming rotations is at least both useful and how people think of the methods, I may have to change my opinion on the topic. Looks a fun little method too, I might try it at practice tonight; which one, if either, is "officially" named?
I think I have only one more point on rotations: If we decide rotations should be allowed to be named, should we then tie that to the decision on leads that are multiples? (recall: that was left after deciding they should be allowed to be separately named without being conclusive over exactly *how* they would be allowed to be separately named - possibly as a canonical definition + variations). As Tim has been saying for a while they do seem to cover very similar ground. Maybe this is really a follow-up question.
* As everyone surely knows, there exist only three numbers: zero, one and many.
More information about the ringing-theory