[r-t] Jump change notation

[Philip Earis]

Glenn:
> FWIW, when Cambridge Jump was first published in the RW in about 1979 the 
> notation used was along the lines of: 
>
> -3-(4.2)-2 etc. 
>
> the "novelty" being that the bracketed part indicated that the next row was 
> the end result of applying 14 followed by 12. Whilst less mathematical and 
> perhaps a little more cumbersome than the notation used for permutations and 
> cycles, it does have the benefit of retaining current notation...

Hmmm. Only "perhaps a little more cumbersome"?

Let's take one of the conceptually simplest jump methods, jump cyclic. On 12 bells, the rows are:

1234567890ET
234567890ET1
34567890ET12 
etc

So under your notation system, every change would need to be defined by 11 plain changes, ie (34567890et.14567890et. etc etc as nauseam).

Consequently I think this would rather uniquely have the spectacular achievement of the notation system being longer (indeed very considerably longer) than a complete enumeration of the rows in the method. And be far from unique to boot.

My vote would be for one of the other notation systems :-)