[r-t] Method ringing vs. change ringing

Alexander Holroyd holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Fri Jan 23 21:50:29 UTC 2015

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Richard Smith wrote:

> The only minor deviation I'd make from this division is that there can 
> usefully be a section 0. BASIC DEFINITIONS, covering 'row', 'change' and 
> 'block': things that are going to be common to both 1. PEALS and 2. METHODS.

Yes, this seems sensible.  I would try to stick to defining only what is 
absolutely needed though.  All this business of "working rows" and "simple 
changes" is giving me a headache....

>> Stuff about when a band can officially name a method (how much do you have 
>> to ring, etc?)
> Personally I'm rather less interested in this bit.  It's an administrative 
> issue rather than a technical one.  But, yes, it's an important component to 
> the decisions.

Personally I agree on the interest front.  However, it does seem to be 
something that some people care about.  Part of my point here was that 
historically this issue seems to have got all tangled up with 1 and 2, 
resulting in a mess.  The point of my 1, 2 and 3 was to make the 
distinction very clear, and to make the point that the rules in a later 
section should have no bearing on the issues dealt with in earlier 

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list