[r-t] Descriptions (was: A date to pencil ...)
john at jaharrison.me.uk
Wed Sep 9 21:19:12 UTC 2015
<CAHe9+Ad9CV_eDntM6YMEhd2hapQ9ORxFS2aZ+Gth-yq0K1OrzQ at mail.gmail.com>,
Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk> wrote:
> > ... no reason to outlaw something that can be described very simply
> > using existing concepts.
> I'm afraid it is not that simple.
The description is simple. I didn't say there were no ramifications to be
> In order to confirm that the new definitions of Change, Row, method,
> Truth etc work we need consensus on the boundaries.
Agreed, but we should define the boundaries in terms of plausibility and
then work out the definitions. We shouldn't choose some definitions and
then define the boundaries in terms of what they cover.
> if a band rings 7 extents of Minor on the front and back six of a twelve
> in the same performance, is that two true peals of Minor, or one false
> peal of Maximus?
But does it have to be a false peal of Maximus? Could you not devise
suitable multi extent blocks so that the total performance met the 12-bell
criterion for truth as well as the two component parts meeting the 6-bell
More information about the ringing-theory