[r-t] Blocks to be renamed as methods

[Alan Reading]

I thought the restriction on methods having to have more than one lead was
being done away with too... is that not the case?
So will single "lead" entities still be "blocks"?
It would seem silly to have to introduce a rule saying a false method could
contain the plain course of a sub method block but not the plain course of
a sub method.
An artifact of the current set up for sure but surely whatever (vaguley
sensible) definition of change ringing "unit" you take there are always
going to be instances of sub units that embed in some sense. Personally I
don't view that as a huge problem.
If we are to ever talk about methods at all then how should they be built
from units? Does it matter?

The plain course of Cross Differential is divisible into 2 parts (x and x)
which is presumably why it was accepted as a method originally.

Cheers,
Alan



On Wednesday, 19 April 2017, Rebecca Cox <r.j.cox at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> | Tony Cox wrote:
> |
> | The idea that a `method'
> | can contain complete plain courses of another method
> | embedded in it seems completely wrong to me.
>
> | Alan Reading
>
> | 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.
>
> No, methods have to be divisible into equal parts called leads and in the
> vast majority of cases the changes between the false rows won't be divided
> into equal parts and so won't be a method.   Cross Differential is a
> special cases and I wonder how it was ever accepted as a method.
>
> | Mark Davies
>
> | But really a method is defined by its lead, and
> | we've already accepted that a lead of one method can form part of the
> | lead of another (e.g. Original vs PB or virtually anything else). There
> | is no uniqueness of construction in ringing - you can describe a
> | composition in many different ways.
>
> But according to the current CC Decisions a method is defined by the
> places in its plain course, not in a lead (and there's no proposal to
> change this in 2017). This means that changing a single place notation
> element anywhere in a course, as long as it produces a round block
> divisible into parts, gives a different method.
> I don't agree with that current definition is the correct way of defining
> a method but while these decisions are in place, the Methods Committee
> should be interpreting things according to the CC decisions not their own
> interpretation of how they would like them to be.
>
> It's time to end the obsession with `methods', rename the Methods
> Committee as the `Ringing Committee' and recognise that methods are simply
> a special case of a round block. What we ring most of the time are round
> blocks and unless they are in a single method they are often not made up of
> methods but are constructed from a series of blocks of changes (usually
> leads or half-leads) which (according the the current decisions) are
> insufficient to define any method.
>
> I raised this matter simply to illustrate the pathetically slow progress
> in reforming the decisions; the basic structural elements of ringing aren't
> yet defined in a sensible way and that needs to be done before further
> progress can be made.
>
> Tony Cox
>
>
>
>
> ---
> 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/20170419/f20e080e/attachment.html>