[r-t] Blocks to be renamed as methods
alan.reading at googlemail.com
Thu Apr 20 09:44:38 UTC 2017
|Also I do still wonder if there is some validity in the philosophical
argument that methods must have structure, formed by repeating units. On
the other hand, it would be nice |to ring single-lead methods, and have,
for example, 12 Bristol Major treated the same as 18. Some circles to be
squared first, though.
In reality I can't imagine there be will much call for single lead entities
on higher numbers anyway seeing as how they can't participate in a true
peal without a call (and if rung with a call then might make more sense to
define in a way that would prevent the single lead nature anyway).
I guess they might occasionally get used in multi extent blocks on lower
numbers e.g. http://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/view.php?id=408351
On 20 April 2017 at 00:55, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> Alan wrote,
> 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"?
> Yes. We did consider trying to introduce single-lead methods this year,
> but I think it needs to wait for the proper job in 2018. There are some
> conceptual difficulties. For instance, the difference between hunt bells
> and working bells breaks down in the single-lead case, but this distinction
> is currently fundamental to our classification system. How to best resolve
> Also I do still wonder if there is some validity in the philosophical
> argument that methods must have structure, formed by repeating units. On
> the other hand, it would be nice to ring single-lead methods, and have, for
> example, 12 Bristol Major treated the same as 18. Some circles to be
> squared first, though.
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ringing-theory