[r-t] The null change

Matthew Frye matthew at frye.org.uk
Thu Jan 1 18:42:15 UTC 2015

On 31 Dec 2014, at 20:48, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

> Given the de facto use of the null change, and its practical purpose in
> completing some MEBs, we should determine how its use should be recorded
> (description, not prescription). However, as we count changes, not rows, I
> feel that many might argue that when no bells change position, you have not
> rung a change. 

Sorry, Graham, but this seems to be severely misguided, and runs against the very fundamental rationale for allowing the null change. We surely should only allow changes, and allow all changes. The question is then "is the null change a change?" Which really comes down to the definition of a change. Perhaps we need to go back and define a change properly*. 

Anyway, if your definition of a change includes the null change, then it must be allowed and so counted as a change; if your definition of a change does not include the null change then it is not allowed, and the question of whether to count it does not arise.

I see why people may want to not allow it (although I disagree), but I see no logical room for allowing it but not counting it.


* If I had a little more time I might try to do so now, but it'll have to wait.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list