[r-t] Classification

Tim Barnes tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 21 20:14:18 UTC 2017

I like the approach of not further classifying hunters where the hunt bell
doesn't go through 1st's place.

I also like the idea of dropping the Hybrid hunter classification,
including dropping Little for Hybrids even when the hunt bell goes through
1st's place.

The above would merge the namespaces for Hybrid, Little Hybrid and other
Little Hunters that don't go through 1st's place with the Principle
namespace, since principles also don't generate a method title word.  So
method names would presumably need to be unique across the Principle,
former Hybrid, and former Little classes.

On differential, the subgroup didn't go quite as far as co-prime, just that
cycle lengths needed to be different.  E.g. a Maximus method with a 4-cycle
and an 8-cycle (not co-prime) would be differential.  But I like the
co-prime approach, so that differentials always have more leads in their
plain courses than they have working bells.

On Treble Dodging, there are apparently only about 15 methods today that
have more than one dodge, so this would seem a manageable number to rename
if the consensus was that TD methods should only have a single dodge.  A
single dodge would give the TD class a single fixed path (as the Plain
class has), which would be a nice simplification.

On Treble Place, there are over 600 of these today, mostly non-little.
RAS's idea of limiting TP to methods where the hunt bell rings twice in
each place in the half lead seems to make sense if TD methods are limited
to a single dodge.  It would be useful to know how many existing TP methods
have more than 2 blows in each place in the half lead to assess if this
could be a manageable change.

While I like the idea of limiting Alliance to TD with some dodges omitted,
this seems too big a change from past practice to be easily workable.


On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk>

> On 20 April 2017 at 22:07, Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com> wrote:
> > [Some ideas on classification]
> I think Richard's proposals are worth evaluating further.
> It seems to me that the main area that is of concern is where "Little"
> is involved. Many of the link methods end up being classified as
> Little because they have one or more hunt bells, often not the treble,
> and this results commonly in Little Hybrid. Making hunters where the
> hunt bell doesn't reach the front unclassified might help with this.
> The majority of Alliance methods, however, have Plain Bob Leadheads,
> and even where the treble is not hunting or dodging, the
> classification of these where the hunt path is not Little seem fine.
> There are around 150 Alliance methods with the Yorkshire Alliance cats
> ears, as Don points out, for example. A more detailed analysis of the
> 100 or so Little Alliance methods may show whether changes here would
> be beneficial, but I'm not convinced currently (other than Little
> methods excluded as above). At least in the case of Gluon, the hunt
> bell is the treble.
> We have discussed non co-prime differentials before and had already
> excluded them from being Differential Hunters in the Descriptive
> Framework. These means that the short course Surprise Royal methods
> are then ordinary Surprise Royal methods, not differential.
> Removing Hybrid as a class has merit, particularly if Little is
> dropped when there is no hunter class. I think that this, the non
> co-prime differentials change, and not classifying little methods
> where the hunt bell doesn't reach the front would make a big
> improvement to link methods, and also resolve nearly all the perceived
> problems with single lead methods.
> I do not agree with allowing the use of class names where it would be
> ambiguous, as it would only be a matter of time before someone named a
> principle "Duck Surprise Major". Where a class has been removed, such
> as Hybrid, then I see no problem with optionally incorporating them
> within the name. It probably makes sense for true hybrids like half
> Bristol, half Double Norwich to retain Hybrid within their names, and
> actually most Hybrids are currently like that.
> Removing Slow Course as a class (as per the Descriptive Framework) is
> OK as a simplification given that it has little value as a class, but
> as there are a lot of them, incorporating Slow Course into the name of
> those already named would be appropriate.
> Graham
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170421/c700c2a0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list