robin at robinw.org.uk
Fri Apr 14 05:26:13 UTC 2017
It is interesting that we seem to have been proffered some different
systems of notating methods - which is all very well, but it will be
something users will have to waste time learning when it seems we all
know the current system - even tho' some believe it to be 'odd'.
GACJ - my 5th edition says 1975 on the cover. I haven't had an answer to
my question was as to how much of a straight copy of the 4th edition
this was. I think it's just a reprint with the names changed on page 5.
IMcC - You *think* my example is 'bogus'. Can you come up with a reason
for this - or provide an alternative? This, in the trade, would no doubt
be called a counter-example. (You are always going to run up against the
fact that you are out-voted 1 to 8 by the methods actually rung before
even I was born.)
IMcC does make a good point on false methods. I don't remember much work
being published on this but it is true that all plain Doubles methods
which are false in the plain course are non-palindromic. It was also
believed that any non-p method could not give an extent - a luminary
such as Harold Chant believed this - but I showed c2006 that this is not
true with Bishopthorpe Bob. (Yes, I know I didn't get round to ringing
it much later). b.t.w., in effect, the comp. is the equivalent of a
three-lead splice. The problem was, at that time, most ringers were not
mathematicians and so did not have the algebraic tools for easy
analysis. This causes them to indulge in circumlocution.
I have sort of convinced myself that a Plain Minor method with five
leads in a false plain clourse cannot have extents - but I haven't
written it down so I could be wrong.
Some years ago, I had to go through someone's submission to MethCom on a
revision to Extension. The only difference was that he allowed
treble-dodging sections to 'split' i.e., 3x34 could become 3x56.
Otherwise, the formula was identical.
Just a thought
More information about the ringing-theory