[r-t] Fwd: bobs-only Grandsire Triples

[Martin Bright]

A student here in Leiden wrote a nice undergraduate thesis on this
topic with me last year.  He also noticed that the argument about the
maximum length of a bobs-only touch doesn't work, and came up with a
new argument along similar lines.

Apart from anything else, his thesis is a very nice modern
presentation of Thompson's proof in mathematical language.  It's in
English and available here:
http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/scripties/BachVanDerSluijs.pdf

Martin Bright


On 31 January 2017 at 17:21, Roy Dyckhoff <roy.dyckhoff at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 31/01/2017 16:08, Alan Reading wrote:
>
> Roy Dyckhoff wrote:
> | The novelty is that I reject his argument that there is no touch of
> | greater than 5000 changes; I don't claim that there is such a touch, but
> | this argument is evidently fallacious.
>
> Presumably his proof that there is no true touch of length exactly 5040 with
> common bobs only is sound though?
> I don't think I've ever seen the proof but it seems highly improbable that
> if there was a mistake in that (most important proof) that nobody would have
> noticed it by now...
>
> I believe that his main proof (about extents) is essentially correct.
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> I assume the argument that there is no touch greater than 5000 changes to
> which you refer is something that he goes onto?
>
> Just so.
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
> It would be interesting if you could share the paper mentioned with the
> list?
>
> Now done.
>
> See https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9941616/Bobs-onlyGT.pdf
>
> RD
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/ringing-theory
>