[r-t] Jump change notation

[Don Morrison]

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:
> Leaving aside for the moment elided leading or lying places, simply
> fill in all the known positions, either because a place is being made,
> or because they are included in a cycle. All the remaining positions
> must occur as adjacent pairs swapping. If they don't fit, there's an
> error in that chunk of extended place notation.

Thinking about this further:

Consider the jump change (at any stage minimus or above) notated in
Ander's system (scheme 3) as

(13)(31)

In a cycles system (scheme 2) would it be notated as

(13)2

or as

(13)

?

If the former the algorithm sketched above works; if the latter, it
doesn't. I think this is the same problem as "do we consider '24' to
be valid place notation, being the same as '234' and '1234'?"

And if we insist on the former, is that the correct canonical form, or
would we prefer 2(13)?




-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"I do so hate to make up my mind about anything, whether it's
good or bad, up or down, in or out, rain or shine. Expect every-
thing, I always say, and the unexpected never happens."
                        -- Norton Juster, _The Phantom Tollbooth_