[r-t] Doubles 240s
holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Tue Mar 17 18:31:40 UTC 2015
> 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
More information about the ringing-theory