[r-t] Definitions so far

[Alexander Holroyd]

Just to be clear, my suggestion is to define a method to be a sequence of 
*changes*, not rows.  That way the same method can be started from any 
row.

Also I think there is no need for the "as written out" stipluation. 
Writing out rows is just one way of specifying a sequence, among many 
others.  A sequence is a sequence - there's no need to give special 
privilege to a particular way of decscribing it.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2015, King, Peter R wrote:

> 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
> irrelevant.)
>
> 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
> notation.
> 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
> descriptions).
>
> Ander
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>