[r-t] Doubles 240s

John Camp camp at bellringers.org
Thu Mar 19 15:03:21 UTC 2015

At 14:28 on 19 March 2015, John Harrison wrote:

>> The trouble with mathematicians is that they don't understand normal
>> language.  

> The same could be said of lawyers or specialists in any other field.

It could be said, but it would be wrong.  Lawyers may use their own
terminology for professional purposes, but they are generally familiar
with the vernacular.  It might be a bit difficult to understand
witnesses or to address juries, otherwise.

At 14:30 on 19 March 2015, Dale Winter wrote:

> 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.

I (more or less) agree.  But this doesn't mean that nomenclature is 

My contribution to this debate started when Ander maintained that
people wanted to stop other people ringing certain things.  I said
that this wasn't my understanding.  It is a question of how
appropriate it is to use certain terminology.  And MBD said: "But I
think most the rest of the ringing world (outside ringing-theory)
would think it [i.e.  adding the identity permutation to the set] is a
load of old nonsense.  That is probably not useful.  It is ringing we
are talking about after all, not just maths and abstract rules."

Perhaps enough has been said.  (But I have just seen Ander's latest.)


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list