[r-t] Yorkshire Surprise Minor, etc

Alan Reading alan.reading at googlemail.com
Sun Mar 19 12:00:23 UTC 2017

MBD wrote:

"Unlike the Yorkshire case, this is a problem which may prevent an
otherwise perfect-looking extension applying on an infinite number of

If it prevented an otherwise perfect extension of a regular even bell
method applying on an infinite number of stages it would also still apply
on an infinite number of stages too though. At least any stage n where n-1
is prime as such stages don't have regular differential methods.
Unless you could have a situation where the lead head group settled down
such that it gave a 1-lead course in all but a finite number of those
situations but that seems unlikely to me..?

On Sunday, 19 March 2017, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:

> I guess the history of it is that method classification is a just a way of
> providing a tag which alerts people when a method falls into a particularly
> popular category. This is why we've ended up with more fine-grained
> classifications for the more popular types of methods (despite this, there
> are more methods in these categories than the wider, unpopular ones). Often
> we don't (or didn't) even have a name for the general case.
> From some perspectives, this is a strange way of doing things, and
> downright ugly if you're one of those people who thinks popular methods
> should be less popular. However, it can of course be very useful at times,
> such as when your village six augments to eight, you want to christen the
> new ring with a peal, and you discover some other band have already named
> Lower Snotscommon Surprise Major. But Lower Snotscommon Delight is free!
> When it comes to extension, classification once again both helps and
> hinders. Where there are two reasonable-looking extensions, and one falls
> into the same class as the parent and the other doesn't, well perhaps
> there's a good argument that you should go with the first one, because
> there's a shared structural property. In the case of "Yorkshire D Minor" if
> you were to try and extend it to Major, wouldn't you want to keep the cross
> in the 3-4 section, and the external places in the 4-5 section? Why would
> an extension introduce places in every cross-section? I haven't looked, but
> it seems likely there are false Major methods which look more similar to
> the Minor than Y8 does. Much as we'd like a Yorkshire on six, does it
> really exist?
> But often the only reasonable-looking extension doesn't share the same
> class. Sometimes, to my mind, this means that the classification is just
> plain wrong. For instance, currently where a Major method extends to a
> short-course Royal method, the latter is classed as "Differential" and so
> is not accepted as an extension. Unlike the Yorkshire case, this is a
> problem which may prevent an otherwise perfect-looking extension applying
> on an infinite number of stages. Why is the number of leads to the course
> deemed to be such an important structural property? The leads still fall
> into the same group (the PB leadheads).
> In summary, I think there is a balance to be struck between two much
> classification (harms extension, applies bias to method types) and too
> little (not enough namespaces). To my mind, the best classification system
> is one that works well and helps out method extension as far as possible.
> The worst failing of the current system is not TD/Delight/Surprise, but the
> separation of short-course methods into a separate class.
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170319/29dffac1/attachment.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list