[r-t] A date to pencil into your calendar
holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Mon Sep 7 22:31:31 UTC 2015
Yet again the debate seems to have got sucked into the rabbit hole of
trying to legislate about how people should describe perfomances.
A method rung in whole pulls is just a sequence of rows like any other. It
happens to have the special property that every other change is the
identity change. I think any band should be free to ring such a thing,
and to describe it in the way they feel most appropriate. (Most would
probably agree that "method X rung in whole pulls" is appropriate).
Everyone seems OK with the idea that compositions of standard methods
should be described in whatever way the band sees fit. Why not extend the
same idea all the way down to the level of rows?
Every time I or others suggest something like this, almost everyone seems
to agree in principle (with some notable hold-outs, which is fine, of
course). But then we never seem to learn anything from it...
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015, Tim Barnes wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On
> Behalf Of Richard Johnston
> Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 9:08 AM
> To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> Subject: Re: [r-t] A date to pencil into your calendar
>> I doubt we are going to come to a common mind on this question.
>> . Your arguments therefore seem to me conditioned by the desire to make
> all methods fit into a *half-pull* scheme (whether that really makes sense
> in terms of what was rung or not).
> I do agree that the proposal document as currently written is describing a
> half-pull scheme. In some ways it could be considered an unintended
> consequence of allowing the identity change that whole-pull ringing can fit
> into the definition of a standard performance of a half-pull scheme when the
> number of rows rung is at least the number of rows in two extents.
> I also agree that it's perfectly possible to ring the same method in a
> number of different ways. The current scheme could be extended to
> incorporate method ringing in whole-pulls, in 3 or more pulls, or indeed in
> an undefined number of pulls where the same row is rung continuously until
> the conductor says something like, "next", to indicate to the band to move
> on to the next row that a method generates. It's hard to argue this isn't
> method ringing because it's based on methods(!) For such a scheme,
> decisions would need to be made on whether the standard performance lengths
> are based on the number of rows or the number of changes, and in the
> undefined number of pulls case above, truth would presumably need to be
> based on how many times a given row is 'visited', rather than how many times
> it's rung. Use of the identity change in multi-pull ringing could be
> especially problematic..
> But I can't help thinking that this isn't the right time to introduce
> multi-pull ringing into the proposal document. The over-arching goal of the
> document is to demonstrate a possible set of updated Decisions that might
> have a chance of passing the CC and getting us to a better place than we are
> with the current Decisions. Introducing a system for multi-pull method
> ringing now could raise a lot of questions when there isn't, as far as I
> know, much precedent for this type of ringing. It seems better to come back
> to this at a later stage once an initial set of improvements to the
> Decisions have been made. On the other hand, this proposal document
> generally aims to represent a consensus of interested parties in what should
> be in an updated set of Decisions, so I'd be happy to add multi-pull ringing
> if there's a clear consensus that it should be included.
More information about the ringing-theory