[r-t] Doubles 240s

[Alexander Holroyd]

> At 14:37 on 17 March 2015, Alexander Holroyd wrote:
>
>> There are plenty of things that I "dislike" in ringing, but for me this
>> does not translate to any desire to prevent or discourage other people
>> from ringing them.  Obviously Mark and others feel differently in this
>> regard.  I wish I understood why...
>
>
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Mark Davies wrote:
>
>>> I believe change-ringing should involve changing bells!
>
> Reluctant as always to mix it with the theory pros on this list, I
> nevertheless agree with MBD.  (This may be a first.)  But this isn't
> because of what I like or don't like: it's a question of definition,
> like so many arguments.

> The expression "null change" is weasely.  It isn't a change at all.

I disagree with this.  In terms of mathematical elegance, there is no 
question that it is more elegant to include the null change as a change 
like any other.  The identity is an element of a group.  An empty set is a 
set.  Zero is a number.  Etc.

The only possible reason for this special prohibition (like that of 
handbell peals of minimus) seems to be someone's personal dislike.

> You don't say that you have rung a null peal if the band doesn't even
> get to the tower.  And, as Marky says, change-ringing implies changes.
> Where do you stop, otherwise?  Is 5000 rounds a peal?

Of course not.  That would be false according to all definitions currently 
under consideration.