[r-t] Descriptions (was: A date to pencil ...)
holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Tue Sep 8 21:55:20 UTC 2015
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Graham John wrote:
> While ringing London Minor over Cambridge Minor seems fairly
> straightforward, there are many more bizarre examples. For example, what if
> the front six ring Rounds for six blows before ringing Cambridge Minor, and
> later a method is rung on the middle six while the front and back four ring
> Plain Bob Minimus, then Grandsire Doubles is rung on the front five while a
> bell lies in sixths while another method is rung on the back six.
> down what was rung without resorting to a string of place notation for the
> whole performance gets tricky.
And yet it would appear that you managed to do just that in the above
paragraph above. What is wrong with that description exactly as it
> In the definitions, this requires a statement that one method and only one
> method is ever rung at any point in time (i.e. per row).
No it doesn't. As long as a sequence of rows is rung, why shouldn't a
band describe it in whatever way they want?
More information about the ringing-theory