[r-t] Doubles 240s

Dale Winter moikney at gmail.com
Thu Mar 19 14:30:49 UTC 2015

> 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.

As I see it one of the early lessons of mathematics is that imprecision in language, or lack of agreement over it, will lead to serious problems. Specifically It leads to arguments not over the substance of a given question, but other the words used to describe it. A case can be made that this list provides excellent examples of those dangers. 

For my part I’d much prefer to regard the null change as a change, maybe yes because of my own background. But in the end the relevant question surely is not what we call the thing but rather whether it’s “allowed’ in change ringing or “allowed” in a peal. 


> On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:52 AM, 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.
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list