[r-t] Descriptions (was: A date to pencil ...)

Alexander Holroyd 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 mailing list