[r-t] Method extension

Tim Barnes tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 22 12:05:48 UTC 2015

The r-t rules subgroup has reached the point of discussing what we would
like to see included (if anything) on method extension in a revised set of
Decisions.  (Reaching this point shouldn't be taken as implying we've
agreed on everything else..)

An initial challenge is understanding how the existing Decision (G) is
intended to operate.  Several of the clauses in (G) seem open to various
interpretations, e.g. (G)B6 and (G)C2(b)i.  Does anyone know of any
articles or Web pages that give examples of how Section G is supposed to

On Fri Mar 20 07:23:14 GMT 2015
Robin Woolley (robin at robinw.org.uk) wrote:
> ... Some extensions don't start until very high numbers, there is an
extension of Surfleet which exists at 28, 52, etc

Robin - do you have workings you could share that show how you derived this
for Surfleet?

On Jun 12, 2014 6:20 PM, "Philip Saddleton" <pabs at cantab.net> wrote:
> The existing Decision (G) is inadequate, but I don't think it should be
scrapped without putting something in its place. I have ideas on this that
are too complex to put here, but in principle:
> - an extension construction can be defined for any block of changes
> - work at different stages ought to be clearly related, with nothing
occurring in the extension that does not occur in the parent (the minimum
definition of 'work' being a place and the blows either side of it)
> - the construction should lead to a valid block of changes at an infinite
series of stages

Philip - we were reminded of this post of yours from last summer.  Are your
more detailed ideas in a form that you could post here?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20150422/2045ec03/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list