[r-t] Definitions so far

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 6:23 AM, John Harrison <john at jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:
>> the name "simple change" would need to change, since a null change
>> is simpler than a simple chanage!
>
> Surely you wouldn't rule out a sequence:  'none, few, many' on the grounds
> that none is fewer than few?

I'm sorry, I'm not following what you're saying. What you've written
seems to be in a tone that implies you are disagreeing with me, but
the grounds you are stating sound, to my ears, like exactly what I
said. And my argument for saying that if you are going to have the
tripartite division (which I believe is less useful than a bipartite
one, pariticularly in light of the recent vote; possibly plus a
definition of null change if you feel you need one) "simple" change is
a bad term. In the tripartite case a "simple" change is the one in the
middle of that logical sequence, and is thus really a "medium
complexity" change on that scale.

What am I missing?



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"The average accompanist, I am afraid, only practices with diligence
that which *looks* difficult."     -- Gerald Moore, _Am I Too Loud?_