[r-t] Doubles 240s
King, Peter R
peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Tue Mar 17 19:23:15 UTC 2015
But isn't the whole point to agree on a terminology to DESCRIBE things. In which case it seems rather futile to deny the existence of the "null"change. It's like denying the existence of zero or complex numbers or all sorts of other things.
As far as I am concerned if people wish to make use of null changes in ways that seem fit to them then that is entirely up to them and not me.
There is a separate issue about defining what is meant by a peal and whether they can include null changes. This is more complicated but at the two extreme's there seems to be Don's use for forming 240s of doubles, which seems fine to me. Or the other extreme would be a whole "peal" of rounds. since this doesn't satisfy the requirement of >5000 distinct changes (or suitably formed roundblocks) I don't see how this can be considered as a peal.
From: ringing-theory [ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] on behalf of Alexander Holroyd [holroyd at math.ubc.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 2:37 PM
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] Doubles 240s
Here we have yet another illustration of one of the fundamental
disagreements that seem to exist among the members of this list.
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 have to say, that whilst I don't necessarily agree with Robin's method of
> delivery, I do share his dislike of the so-called "null change". I believe
> change-ringing should involve changing bells!
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory