[r-t] Definitions so far

Alexander Holroyd holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Sat Jan 17 23:37:33 UTC 2015

I don't really see any difficulty in "accommodating" Dixons.  The only 
slight issue is that (in the case of Dixons minor itself) there are two 
different "courses" that have different place notations.  A band could be 
free to regard each of the two courses as a method, or indeed any other 
convenient sequence of changes.  I don't see this as a problem.

Once one moves away from the idea of methods, leads, calls etc as 
means to restrict what can be rung, and instead regards them as tools to 
describe ringing, many supposed difficulties go away.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2015, Graham John wrote:

> Ander wrote:
>> 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.
> Given that it was purely an attempt to accommodate Dixon's that can make
> uniqueness difficult to determine, I think you are right, Ander. Do you have
> a simpler way of accommodating Dixon's and its ilk, or do we just have to
> put it in the long grass for now as MBD suggests?
> Graham
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list