[r-t] Doubles 240s

[King, Peter R]

I think that appealing to the vernacular is highly suspect. My shorter Oxford English dictionary gives under the definition of peal (that definition related to ringing) "ringing a series of changes on bells". Nothing about how many changes, or truth or starting and ending in rounds, continuous ringing,  numbers of bells etc etc. And this is how the average person in the street would use the word. So we are already discussing a highly specialised definition of the word that is mostly understood only by ringers. 

So if we are going to use technical jargon we may as well make sure that we define the words to mean what we want them to mean. And understand that the particular words we use shouldn't get in the way of the concept. So we all know what place notation 1234....n means and the affect it has on the order of the bells. Whether we call it identity, null change (or "not a change") is irrelevant we all understand that the concept exists. What is more important is the discussion about whether a sequence of place notations that incorporates that one could be admissible as a peal and under what circumstances. I think everyone accepts that the word peal has to have some kind of definition that is stronger than the one in my dictionary.