[r-t] Method extension

Graham John graham at changeringing.co.uk
Tue Apr 28 21:13:17 UTC 2015

PABS wrote:

> Can anyone suggest a plausible extension construction that is not covered
by my proposal?

Do you have an answer to Tony Cox's query, Philip i.e. you assume an
arithmetic progression of places from the lowest stage, but that precludes
adding places that might be omitted from the higher stages if you worked
backwards from a higher stage?

Can anyone think of an example to illustrate this? I am thinking of
something like Bristol Major, where the Major has zero wrong dodges in its
series when looked at in reverse. 

What about the example below? It looks a fairly close approximation to
extend Superlative No. 2 Surprise Royal to Fourteen. At least the best I
have found. But does it fit your algorithm, and if not, is it something that
should be considered an acceptable extension?

Superlative No.2 Surprise Fourteen?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Superlative No 2 Surprise Fourteen.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 93810 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20150428/4d3d2395/attachment-0001.pdf>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list