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

[Graham John]

Ander wrote:

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 stands?

It is a description, not a codification. If you are arguing for no
codification system, we would not have stage names, method types and
classes, method extensions, place notation, method names, composition
layouts that conductors can understand, or proving programs, as all of that
was created by our predecessors codifying what was rung. All we are trying
to do now is expand that codification system to be able to describe much
more in a consistent framework. Asking people to define what they rang in
terms of methods and calls to codify what was rung is hardly an imposition,
is it? I am just arguing that ringing more than one method in one row is an
unnecessary complication in the codification scheme, because we would
otherwise require a way of defining the start and end of each method rung
in two dimensions (both between rows and within rows).

Graham

On 8 September 2015 at 22:55, Alexander Holroyd <holroyd at math.ubc.ca> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>
>
> Writing
>
>> 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 stands?
>
> 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?
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20150909/468bce8b/attachment-0003.html>