[r-t] Doubles 240s

[Robert Bennett]

In future, there may be a whole section in the "NON-Ringing NON-World"

Non-Peals:
Non-Association
On 30th February 2015, the following (non)ringers did not ring a peal
of 5000 Non-Changes at the non-church of NSt. Non-canonicus, Erewhon
in 3hrs 1m:
Treble, A. Blank;
2,         A. N. Other;
3,         A. Void;
4,         A. Null Change;
Tenor,  A. Nonchangeringer. 
Silent and non-conducted.
================================

One point about ringing the null change:
In the past, peals or touches were described as so many changes, not
as so many rows.
With this touch of doubles, it would seem to be 240 rows and 239
changes.

On the subject of Spliced Grandsire and Plain Bob Doubles,
conventional 120s  exist.
One set of leads is:
Plain Bob 2345, 2354,3425,3452,4235,4253. 
Grandsire 5324,5432,5243;  5342,5234,5423.  

These can be joined with 2 pairs of singles on 1-2 when the treble is
in 4-5.

----- Original Message -----
From: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
To:"ringing-theory at bellringers.net" <ringing-theory at bellringers.net>
Cc:
Sent:Tue, 17 Mar 2015 19:23:15 +0000
Subject:Re: [r-t] Doubles 240s

 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!
 >
 > MBD
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > ringing-theory mailing list
 > ringing-theory at bellringers.net
 >
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
 >

 _______________________________________________
 ringing-theory mailing list
 ringing-theory at bellringers.net
 http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

 _______________________________________________
 ringing-theory mailing list
 ringing-theory at bellringers.net
 http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20150318/605b6305/attachment-0004.html>