[r-t] Definitions so far

[John Harrison]

In article <54BA378F.6030505 at snowtiger.net>,
   Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> A method is a sequence of changes. Also, for the time being, we should
> stick within that space.

Sticking within the space is fine for progressing detail, but before
parking an area of potential interest there ought to be a well defined
relationship between that which is parked and that which is currently being
studied, to ensure that the detail either only applies within the current
area, or would not conflict with future exploration of the parked area.

A minimum for that would seem to be a clear definition of the two areas
within the higher level domain of changeringing.
 
> Dynamic methods or "processes", like Dixonoids, may be of interest later 
> but shouldn't distract us from the current goal. 

There's a Freudian slip there. Reference to dynamic methods, even in a
non-rigorous way, suggests that 'methods' a;ready has the folk status of
embracing everything, and that we therefore need to delineate different
classes of methods (whatever they are called) rather than declaring that
some things called methods and some other things not called methods even
though they walk and quack.  

Sounds familiar?

-- 
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk