[r-t] Doubles 240s

[Alan Reading]

I just did a quick google search for the definition of null. Here is what
it came up with.
1. having no legal or binding force; invalid.
2. having or associated with the value zero.

It strikes me John is using definition 1, whereas Ander is using definition
2.
I had assumed definition 2, just the difference between a legal and a
mathematical background I guess.

Cheers,
Alan

On 19 March 2015 at 13:52, John Camp <camp at bellringers.org> wrote:

> At 13:40 on 19 March 2015, Alexander Holroyd wrote:
>
> > The null change certainly exists.  It simply means ringing the same row
> > twice in succession.  The only question is whether doing that should be
> > considered somehow illegitimate.
>
> No: the only question is whether it can properly be described as a
> change.
>
> The trouble with mathematicians is that they don't understand normal
> language.  A purported marriage which is declared null and void is
> not, and has never been, a marriage.  A "null change" is a purported
> change which is not a change; a "null peal" is a pretend peal.
>
> JEC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150319/869cde6e/attachment-0004.html>