[r-t] False methods
andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com
Thu Jun 1 10:52:07 UTC 2017
> From: Mark Davies
> In response to Andrew:
> 3. The only construction which remains under the "block" category is the
> single-lead method. If these are to be treated as methods then we need
> to have a consistent approach to classifying them.
Actually I think the only block constructions are ones which don't meet
this: "No bell shall lead or lie continuously for the entire plain course
of the method."
So consider this plain course:
It is a round block 64 changes long, rather false, but is divisible into
two parts giving this lead:
My reading of the decisions says:
It has 8 hunt bells.
It is a differential hunter.
The primary hunt is the treble which is treble dodging.
It is a surprise method.
Perhaps 3,4,5 etc. lead round blocks of this then give different methods
each to be named differently even though the basic lead is the same.
Do we yet have a program for automatically fully classifying blocks of
changes? Resolving name conflicts could be complex as it involves method
extension and other method names (for reverse, double, single). I know
many things could change over the next year but seeing the effect of
changes will be important.
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
More information about the ringing-theory