[r-t] Long lengths of Bristol Surprise Major

[Graham John]

Alan Reading wrote:

> I'm pretty sure you can get any multiple of 80640 in BS8 ;-)

Indeed. So the answer is infinite length. The question would be better
posed - How close can you get to one extent?

A related question this presents is how close you can get to one extent by
reducing down two extents. One might expect that you could get similarly
close as Andrew has (i.e. within 10,000 rows). I am sure that one can get
much closer than this one, but here is a simple perfect six-part as a
starter.

Is this ringable, Philip? It is shorter (in changes) than your longest peal
of Minor?

Graham

68544 Bristol Surprise Major
Composed by Graham A C John

 2345678  F   I   O   V
 ----------------------
 63254    3           –
 45362    3   –       –
 35246    3   s       2
 65342    3           –
 24563    3   –       –
 36425    3   –       –
 54623    3       –   –
 34526    3           –
 64325    3           –
 43625    3       –
 56324    3       –   –
 42653    3   –       –
 62354    3           2
 25364    3   –
 46523    3   –       –
 3426578  3   2       –
 ----------------------
6 part.



On 18 March 2016 at 12:37, Alan Reading <alan.reading at googlemail.com> wrote:

> RAS wrote:
>
> Sadly it's one of those questions where gut instinct is all we've got.
>> I'm not even aware of a valid theoretical basis to use to get an upper
>> bound on the longest possible touch of a method.
>
>
> I'm pretty sure you can get any multiple of 80640 in BS8 ;-)
>
> I recall Rod Pipe telling me that he and Peter Border believed the longest
>> length should be a nice, round fraction of the extent.  I forget the forget
>> the value Rod suggested; possibly it was 2/3 (i.e. 26800).  But whatever it
>> was, it was ruled out before Andrew's most recent contribution, which now
>> rules out 3/4 (i.e. 30240).
>
>
> http://ringing.info/peter-border-frames.html - It appears they identified
> 973 mutually true leads which would give a 31,136 if they could be joined
> (which I imagine might be pretty hard!). Andrew's composition is only 7
> leads off 973 which is pretty impressive. It would be very interesting if
> anyone could find more than 973 mutually true leads, or if anyone ever has?
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
>
>
> On 18 March 2016 at 12:08, Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com> wrote:
>
>> Mark Davies wrote:
>>
>> Fabulous achievement, Andrew. Is this close to the practical limit for
>>> the method, do you think?
>>>
>>
>> Sadly it's one of those questions where gut instinct is all we've got.
>> I'm not even aware of a valid theoretical basis to use to get an upper
>> bound on the longest possible touch of a method.
>>
>> I recall Rod Pipe telling me that he and Peter Border believed the
>> longest length should be a nice, round fraction of the extent.  I forget
>> the forget the value Rod suggested; possibly it was 2/3 (i.e. 26800).  But
>> whatever it was, it was ruled out before Andrew's most recent contribution,
>> which now rules out 3/4 (i.e. 30240).
>>
>> Whilst I'd like to believe the longest possible length is a round number,
>> I don't actually think it's likely to be the case.
>>
>> RAS
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ringing-theory mailing list
>> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
>> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160320/54f6f962/attachment-0002.html>