[r-t] Blocks to be renamed as methods

[Alan Reading]

Tony Cox wrote:

|Can anyone explain to me how a `method' or `block' can contain the place
notation xx when x is already recognised as a lead of Cross Differential
and so xx is a plain course of Cross Differential |and thus a method in its
own right. The so-called `Pudsey Block/Delight Minor' is simply spliced
Cross Differential and Morland Alliance and the other minor blocks already
are simply |splices/mixes of unrung alliance methods &-36-14-16-12-56,12
and &-36-14-16-14-16,12 with Cross Differential. The idea that a `method'
can contain complete plain courses of another method |embedded in it seems
completely wrong to me.

Isn't that really an argument against allowing methods that are false in
the plain course?
For any method that is false in the plain course you can always take the
notation describing all the rows between two instances of the same row and
call that a method in it's own right.
Ok that's only going to have nice properties like symmetry and being
divisible into more than one lead/section in special cases - the example
with cross differential being one of them - but it strikes me that if you
allow methods to be false in the plain course but start trying to legislate
against a method containing the plain course of another method things are
going to get very complicated again very quickly.

Cheers,
Alan







On 18 April 2017 at 11:09, Rebecca Cox <r.j.cox at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Can anyone explain to me how a `method' or `block' can contain the place
> notation xx when x is already recognised as a lead of Cross Differential
> and so xx is a plain course of Cross Differential and thus a method in its
> own right. The so-called `Pudsey Block/Delight Minor' is simply spliced
> Cross Differential and Morland Alliance and the other minor blocks already
> are simply splices/mixes of unrung alliance methods &-36-14-16-12-56,12
> and &-36-14-16-14-16,12 with Cross Differential. The idea that a `method'
> can contain complete plain courses of another method embedded in it seems
> completely wrong to me.
>
> Tony Cox
>
> PS I sent this query to the methods committee in March 2015 but got no
> reply.
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170418/8cb8be44/attachment.html>