[r-t] Definitions so far

King, Peter R peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Sat Jan 17 09:04:00 UTC 2015

I would absolutely agree with this. Define a method as the rows as written out in diagrams (or any other collection). which is why I consider call changes as part of change ringing. To add a process 5 to Ander's list some energetic conductor could call 1 to 2, 4 to 3, 5 to 6; 1 to 4, 3 to 6 etc again I ha seen this done (the first time I ever rang Stedman doubles, without knowing the method, someone, whilst ringing two bells, called out the number of the bell I had to follow). The rows define the method, the process for generating the rows is a shorthand representation that helps recall it or for collections or to describe it to another ringer
From: ringing-theory [ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] on behalf of Alexander Holroyd [holroyd at math.ubc.ca]
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 8:41 AM
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] Definitions so far

> Method: A process for generating a sequence of Changes at a given Stage.

As I tried to explain before, I think this one is absolutely nuts.  I
think a method should be defined simply as a sequence of changes, not an
(ill-defined) process for generating it.

To do otherwise is a typical example of trying to create extra complexity
for its own sake.  The whole debate is plagued with this disease, but this
seems to be the most extreme case yet.

It appears I'm in the minority on this list on this issue, although I am
virtually certain that the vast majority of ringers would agree with me.

Rather than starting with obscure or hypothetical examples, consider
something as familiar as plain bob minor.  (To emphasise again, we are
talking about the _method_ here, not any composition of it.  Everyone is
aware that the plain course of plain bob minor can be regarded as a touch
of original, while a certain extent of plain bob can be regarded as a
plain course of I Can't Believe It's Not Plain Bob Minor.  These facts are

Here are three different "processes for generating the changes" of plain
bob minor:

1) Plain hunt except when the treble is leading; then ring 12 place
2) Place notation &-1-1-1,2.
3) Treble plain hunts, all other bells ring the line: 34 down, 56 down,
etc, with appropriate starts.

According to what is being proposed, these are now apparently 3 different
methods.  (I'm not sure which of them is intended to be plain bob under
the "new regime", and what the others would be called).  Since "process"
has not been defined, perhaps another "method" might even be:

4) Look for the page in diagrams with the heading "plain bob minor", and
ring what is written there.

These 4 "processes" are not hypothetical - they correspond to how lots of
ringers think of the method.  According to what is being proposed, these
should not be different methods, and one has to know "how a ringer is
thinking of it" to know which is being rung.  Apparently it is even common
that different members of the same a band are ringing different methods at
the same time.

Like I said, this is nuts.  To any normal ringer, these are simply
different ways of describing one method.  If you want a formal
rationalization of what most people think, in this case it is very simple:
*a method is a sequence of changes*.  The above are 4 different ways of
describing the same sequence (and anyone is free to come up with other


ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list