[r-t] Doubles 240s

[Philip Earis]

Robin:
"I remembered that Don had proposed allowing to null change to enable 240s of Doubles with each row at hand and back. This is unnecessary. Some years ago, I produced 240s with this property, but using conventional bobs and 123-singles"

Your use of the words "allowing" and "unnecessary" is both predictable, disappointing and puzzling.

You know enough to be aware that Don't wasn't saying the null change is necessary (ie the only way) to get a 240 of doubles with each row once at hand and once at back (proof by well-known counter-examples...)

So you seem to be implying that the null change is "unnecessary" and hence should not be "allowed" because there can be other ways to get this property. I find this strange.

Leaving aside the whole argument about allowing vs describing, where do you draw the line with what is "necessary", then?

Some examples for you:

- You don't need singles to ring a true 5040 of Stedman triples. Does this mean that singles in Stedman triples should not be allowed?

- You don't need singles to ring a true 720 of bob minor. Perhaps we should kick these out too?

- You can ring a 720 of minor with just three changes (eg bobs only original uses only x, 16, 14). Clearly Woolley logic dictates any minor method or extent which uses more than three changes is ripe for purging because it's "unnecessary"?

- Hell, a rather famous 17th century ringing book even described how singles in Grandsire doubles were unnecessary to ring a true 120, as you could happily get there with jump changes. Presumably this is enough to convert you to liberalising things so that jump changes are recognised?

I could go on.