[r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 149, Issue 9

[John David]

hi All

Forgive me for being a bit elementary, but how do we know that the contraction of a method, say Yorkshire, is Yorkshire and not any of the other numerous methods of which it might be a contraction - surely there must be a deligh tmethod with the same contraction and more right to the name?
Is this a case of defects in the rules on extension (are there any rules on contraction?) or is it a problem with allowing "False in the plain course" (which I think unnecessarily rejects many years of ringing history)

John David

Guernsey

________________________________
From: ringing-theory <ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net> on behalf of ringing-theory-request at bellringers.net <ringing-theory-request at bellringers.net>
Sent: 18 March 2017 19:01
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: ringing-theory Digest, Vol 149, Issue 9

Send ringing-theory mailing list submissions to
        ringing-theory at bellringers.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/ringing-theory
ringing-theory Info Page<http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/ringing-theory>
lists.ringingworld.co.uk
ringing-theory About ringing-theory: The purpose of the list is to discuss theoretical aspects of change ringing, with an emphasis on new ideas and innovation.



or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        ringing-theory-request at bellringers.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        ringing-theory-owner at bellringers.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ringing-theory digest..."


Today's Topics:




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 14:22:10 +0000
From: Richard Pullin <grandsirerich at googlemail.com>
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: [r-t] Yorkshire Surprise Minor, etc
Message-ID:
        <CAEmEco9ixJDhjhReJHUEoaga0SX=p14FF+4CBWC83CYMG=i-7w at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

When looking through the Methods Committee proposed changes, and having a
further look at this page on Tony Smith's site http://www.methods.org.uk/
methods.org.uk<http://www.methods.org.uk/>
www.methods.org.uk
Publisher of machine-readable method collections since 1993. Welcome to Tony Smith’s website, home of the definitive Central Council method collections.



online/blk5.htm , I noted with interest that the contractions of Pudsey,
Rutland, and Yorkshire Surprise to Minor have already been named as Minor
Blocks.

If the propositions are carried through, we will then legitimately be able
to ring 1440s of Yorkshire, Rutland, and Pudsey Surprise Minor.

However, each of these Minor methods contain a 16 cross section, so they
are Delight methods. Does this mean that we might also have to relax, to a
degree, the distinctions between Surprise, Delight, and Treble Bob?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20170319/a1705565/attachment.html>