[r-t] The null change

[Graham John]

Don wrote:

> This is attempting to solve a non-existant problem

Currently - yes. It is not a problem because of D.A.2:

"No row shall be struck more than once before the next change is made."

and E.A.1:

"A change is the progress from one row (permutation) to the next, effected
by the interchange of bells in adjacent positions in the row."

But if these rules and those regarding number of consecutive blows in
methods are substantially relaxed it might become unclear what distinguishes
change ringing from any other type of ringing. If it is a non-existent
problem then how would you record the 720 with each row repeated six times
before moving to the next?

> If you write yourselve a piece of software to prove
> peals I'd be shocked if when you printed out the
> length, what you hadn't counted was the rows
> you checked against one another for distinctness.

I am quite happy to write software to count rows, changes, the number of
null changes, or anything else it is useful to count. I also acknowledged
that truth is determined by the examination of the rows, not the changes.

Graham