[r-t] applicability and timing (was The null change)

[Tim Barnes]

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:

> If we're sufficiently clever, and have a sufficiently fast talking
> conductor, there's nothing to stop us ringing call changes in half-pulls
> today  ...  I've been in some bands that have rung methods in hand some
> of the band didn't know, simply by having one of the band call out the
> places. Granted just for a course or two, not a recordable length, but
> it was still change ringing ... I think, to the extent possible, we should
> steer clear of confounding
> what folks say during ringing with what it is they are ringing.
>

And:

> Really? Apart from the conductor, there's not a whole lot of
> memorization required to ring a peal of Original. Or the treble to
> a peal of Bastow. Or the tenor to one of Stedman Cinques.
>

Ok, agree it's better not to try and exclude ringing methods by call
changes by requiring memorization or anything similar in the definition of
a method.  This is too much of a qualitative requirement for the method
level.  If it belongs anywhere, it would likely be at the 'performance'
level (rules for peals, QPs, etc - a level above compositions), along with
things like 'no visual aids'.



> Don:
> Yes, on reflection, I do think the broadest definition of a method
> should not include round-block-ishness after all (you'll recall I was
> kind of wishy-washy about this even when I first wrote it).
>

Yes.



> [In relation to a 2- vs. 3-level hierarchy:]
> It's certainly a subjective choice. There's no reason you couldn't
> jump from general, can be bizarre as all get out, methods, straight to
> the next tightest category is β-methods ... Perhaps whether we want a two
> or three level hierarchy
> is a fit subject for a future poll


I think I'd prefer a 2-level hierarchy because (a) the non-β universe is
currently so small it seems premature to try and subdivide it at this
stage, and (b) it makes the definition of method more straightforward,
which may be helpful in getting it through the CC.  But I'd be happy to
have a poll on this at some stage.


> A β-method is a method that is a static sequence of finite changes.
>
> What's a "static sequence"? What's a "finite change"? Whatever it is
> they are (I honestly don't know, sorry!), can you define them without
> reference to rows?


This would be better expressed as 'a static, finite sequence of changes'.
Aren't 'static', 'finite' and 'sequence' all dictionary terms used in the
standard dictionary sense, and therefore don't need to be defined by us?  I
would think only 'change' in this phrase needs to be locally defined.


On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > it's a shame that the definition of method needs to refer to a row at all
>
> On further reflection, I believe it is impossible to define what a method
> is
> without at least an implicit reference to rows:
>
> 1) I don't see how you can define "method" without the concept of "change".
>
> 2) I don't see how you can define "change" without the concept of "row",
> or at least something equivalent thereto.
>

Yes, with further thought I accept that's probably the case.  I would
continue to argue that 'lead' and 'course' (i.e. collections or sequences
of rows) don't need to come into play until we reach the composition
level.  But the definition of change requires the concept of an individual
row.  For simplicity, I would probably still propose we only refer to the
term 'change' in the definition of method, and then use the term 'row' in
the definition of 'change'.  So perhaps:

Row: A sequence in which each bell rings once and only once.

Position: A location where an individual bell can ring within a Row.

Change: The progress from one Row to the next, effected by the interchange
of zero or more pairs of bells in adjacent Positions in the Row.  ('Zero'
vs. one is dependent on the outcome of our null change poll.)

Method: A process at Stage N for generating a sequence of changes at that
Stage.  (Stage to be defined.)

Part of method classification: A β-method is a method that is a static,
finite sequence of changes.


On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Frye <matthew at frye.org.uk> wrote:

> I agree that whole-pull ringing could reasonably be considered under the
> heading of "composition", but I disagree with your later statement to only
> assess truth at the level of rows. That would essentially allow whole pull
> ringing on up to 6 bells, but disallow it on 7 or more.
>

I'm not yet convinced truth should ever be determined in whole pulls, but
happy to debate this as part of compositions.  Under the mantra
'description not prescription', perhaps we will need to allow for this
under an appropriate classification, as I can see its appropriateness for
half-muffled ringing.

TJB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20150102/dbe22b6e/attachment-0004.html>