[r-t] Fwd: Re: Wraps [was Quarter Peals of Treble Dodging Major]

[Philip Earis]

Oops, my tablet just sent this only to Mark rather than to the whole list for some reason...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Philip Earis <pje24 at cantab.net>
Date: 3 Feb 2015 07:06
Subject: Re: [r-t] Wraps [was Quarter Peals of Treble Dodging Major]
To: Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net>
Cc: 

> Me:
> > the webpage was talking about handstroke->backstroke runs in 
> > conventional treble-fixed non-jump minor methods. This knocks out some of 
> > the 10 possibilities in your email
>
> Marky:
> "Yes; only one though I think - the xxxx12/345612. All variants of the 123/345 wrap are still in theory possible"
>
> One of us is rather confused. Did you not read my previous claimed counterexample?!
>
> Three of Graham's 10 wrap possibilities were:
>
> 456123
> 456XXX
>
> 546123
> 456XXX
>
> 465123
> 456XXX
>
> Surely only one of gives a possible handstroke->backstroke full wrap with the constraints I gave (conventional path fixed treble methods)?
>
> To be explicit about my XXXs (ooh eer)../
>
> XXX cannot be 132 or 123 as that would require the treble to make 4ths (123 would also need a null change, which poses problems when talking about a musical 720).
>
> XXX can only be 213 (also as the treble has to be hunting from 4ths to 5ths as its a hand->back run). But for a true 720, we can only have the row 456213 appearing once.
>
> One of the ..1234/56.... wraps is knocked out with similar logic too.
>
> None of this takes away from the fact that with no method constraints you can get these wraps, nor that Rapid Wrap is joyous...didn't I "compose" the first peal composition of it indeed? :-)