[r-t] Consultation

[Robert Bennett]

As I understand the present rules, they are based on place notation.
If new rules were not based on places, what could they be based on?
One possibility (I believe) is to use the pairs of bells that change over.
This is obviously closely related to place notation, but might lead to
slightly different results for extension.

Another system would be to have a set of fall-back rules:

1. The existing rules;
2. Failing that, some slightly different rules;
3 If none of the above, some more flexible rules;
4 and so on...

These rules could allow 3-blow extensions, non-PB lead heads, 3-lead
surprise royal methods etc if the more regular extensions did not exist.

RHB



On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:

> I think place notation is more than a "method of description" - it does
> get to the heart of the structure of a method. And structure is usually a
> better guide to similarity between methods than blue line.
>
> I also believe there are very many protocols for designing extensions to
> methods. To my mind, if someone has a protocol that produces decent-looking
> extensions, by all means use it. So if you had something that works nicely
> extending bluelines for a subset of methods, I don't have a problem.
>
> It is of course possible to do extension badly. I agree with Roddy that,
> if an extension introduces 3 blows in a place, and the parent method didn't
> have that, you're probably doing something wrong, whether you are looking
> at the place notation, the blue line, or some other description.
>
> MBD
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/ringing-theory
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20170409/03096bfd/attachment.html>