[r-t] Definitions so far
Richard Smith
richard at ex-parrot.com
Fri Jan 16 16:16:02 UTC 2015
John Harrison wrote:
>> We could define a row as just a sequence of bells, and an ordinary or
>> simple row as one in which each bell rings once and only once.
>
> Sounds a sensible compromise, but once you remove the constraint that each
> bell strikes once you need to define the length (assuming it is intended to
> stay the same)?
The length is the number of rows rung. If you're deal with
non-ordinary rows, it'll depend how the rows are defined,
and I'm happy to leave that all as somebody else's problem.
In the usual form of cylindrical, an n-bell rows still
comprises n blows, but not by different bells. But if it
would make people happier, you could assume that in the
definition of 'row': an n-bell row is a sequence of n blows.
An ordinary row is a row in which each bell strikes once and
only once.
RAS
More information about the ringing-theory
mailing list