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

[Roy Dyckhoff]

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20170131/b4d46b26/attachment.html>