[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals

[Tim Barnes]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com> wrote:

> Yes.  I think we've agreed that a rotation of a method is not a distinct
> method.  It therefore follows that a method starting from the conventional
> half-lead should have the same class as one starting from the lead-end.
> For example, we want &-8-8-2,6, which has the sixth in the hunt, to be a
> plain method.
>

Agree this makes sense if rotations are not separately named.  We had a
very close informal vote (51-49) on rotations a while back, so it seems
unclear how this might eventually play out.  If &-8-8-2,6 and &-8-8-6,2
were able to be separately named, would you argue for both being classified
as plain methods?


I don't want there to be a requirement for unclassified methods to include
> Little or Differential in their name. Why are five of the six (or six of
> the seven) quark methods be Differential, or the majority of link methods
> used in cyclic maximus?  It's just not a useful property when learning
> them.  Admitedly the quark methods will all cease to be Differential under
> the short course rule, but it still applies to the majority of link
> methods.  Does anyone care that Slinky is a (2,2,7) Differential?
>

Ok, so a further point of clarification:  Today a differential hunter is a
higher-level 'type' of method, and this type (along with the hunter type)
is then further classified into Plain, Treble Dodging, Hybrid, etc.  If
these sub-classes are abolished / redefined such that some methods (like
Slinky) don't have a sub-classification, these methods would remain
(without other changes) hunter or differential hunter types.

Am I right in thinking you intend methods like Slinky not to have the word
'Differential' inserted into their titles on the basis that they wouldn't
be members of any of the sub-classes, but they remain differential hunters
in the background?


To be honest, even with the tightening of Differential proposed the in the
> rt-rules document, I still think it's too broad.  When Differentials were
> legalised in 1999, the groups of working bells were required to be coprime
> in size (although the word coprime was not used).  It was then generalised
> to anything with multiple groups of working bells.  We're now thinking of
> requiring the groups to be of different sizes.  I'd go further, perhaps
> reverting to its original meaning.
>

Yes, I can see the argument for restricting the term 'differential' only to
methods whose cycle lengths are coprime.


*Plain Method:* A Hunt Method or Differential Hunt Method in which:
>> 1. The Path of the Hunt Bell is the same if it is rung backwards; and
>> 2. The Hunt Bell rings exactly two times in each Place during a Plain Lead
>>
>
> No.  You've forgotten the requirement that there be a place made in 1st's
> place;
>

Actually that was intentional, but I see flawed.  I'd intended "in each
Place" to mean "in each possible Place of the Stage", so that the
definition of Plain only included full (i.e. non-little) paths.  Read that
way, 1 and 2 above can only be met by the treble making a place at the lead
and the lie.  The definition of Little was then intended to cover
non-Little paths, and at the same time anchor the path to 1st's place.  But
I agree the base definition of Plain ought to cover both full and little
paths, while also setting the requirement to lead.

The current Decisions use "each Place of the Path", which makes sense, so
I've used this below.

Re: Treble Place, is a more generic way of not allowing a repeated shorter
path to say that there must be exactly two points of symmetry?  I've used
this below.

Here's an updated version -- does this work?  (In trying to word the
various definitions symmetrically, I might have lost something..)

*Plain Method:* A Hunt Method or Differential Hunt Method in which:
1. The Path of the Hunt Bell is the same if it is rung backwards;
2. The Path of the Hunt Bell includes ringing in 1st's Place; and
3. The Hunt Bell rings exactly twice in each Place of the Path during a
Plain Lead

*Treble Dodging Method:* A Hunt Method or Differential Hunt Method in which:
1. The Path of the Hunt Bell is the same if it is rung backwards;
2. The Path of the Hunt Bell includes ringing in 1st's Place;
3. The Hunt Bell rings exactly four times in each Place of the Path during
a Plain Lead; and
4. The Hunt Bell Makes a Place exactly twice within a Plain Lead

*Alliance Method:* A Hunt Method or Differential Hunt Method in which:
1. The Path of the Hunt Bell is the same if it is rung backwards;
2. The Path of the Hunt Bell includes ringing in 1st's Place;
3. The Hunt Bell rings either twice or four times in each Place of the Path
during a Plain Lead; and
4. The Hunt Bell Makes a Place exactly twice within a Plain Lead, one of
which is in 1st's Place, and the other of which is in the highest-numbered
Place of the Path

*Treble Place Method:* A Hunt Method or Differential Hunt Method in which:
1. The Path of the Hunt Bell is the same if it is rung backwards;
2. The Path of the Hunt Bell includes ringing in 1st's Place;
3. The Hunt Bell rings the same number of times in each Place of the Path
during a Plain Lead;
4. The Hunt Bell Makes a Place more than twice within a Plain Lead; and
5. The Path of the Hunt Bell has exactly two points of Symmetry

*Little Method:* A Plain, Treble Dodging, Alliance or Treble Place Method
in which:
1. The Path of the Hunt Bell is restricted to fewer Places than the Stage
of the Method

TJB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20160607/48ddf898/attachment-0002.html>