[r-t] Method ringing vs. change ringing

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Alexander Holroyd <holroyd at math.ubc.ca> wrote:
> I didn't really want to get drawn into this debate at all, but now that I
> have apparently failed in this...

You have my sympathy.

> I think by far the biggest problem with the current decisions (perhaps even
> the root of all the problems) is the requirement formerly encapsulated in a
> decision that said something like:
>
> (*) A peal must be rung in a recognized method or methods.
...
> Why not simply do away with this idea, and start again without this
> cumbersome burden to clear thinking?
...
> Very simple definition involving the notions of changes, length, truth, WITH
> NO MENTION OF METHODS OR CALLS.

This seems a sensible idea, and well in keeping with the Council's
charge to have a fundamental rethink. As you allude to, I think that,
at least for peals, the only devil-detail is truth. And while thorny,
it is probably not insurmountable; at the very least, an if/then/else
sort of structure should at least be able to result in something that
accounts for everything allowed today.

I think it also matches well with what Richard Smith has proposed. The
defintiions he's proposed get up to changes, and sequences of changes
without actually discussing methods or calls. The major addition he's
made to what you propose is a description of how we start and end,
and a codification of some of the conventions in that area.

> This section could include a disclaimer along the lines of:
> "The requirements of this section relate solely to the changes rung,
> regardless of the manner in which they are descibed".

Is this really "rows rung" or am I missing something?



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Geography and commerce laugh at treaties."
      -- Will and Ariel Durant, _The Age of Louis XIV_