mark at snowtiger.net
Mon Mar 20 17:15:45 UTC 2017
OK, so I am definitely in favour of "Extension" as an idea. I like the
fact that quite a wide range of methods seem to have children at
infinite numbers of higher stages which, in some sense, look like their
parent. It's a happy part of our ringing culture.
Now, I am most certainly with Philip Earis in that I don't believe there
is a single, fixed way of generating extensions. But I'm not with him,
Peter and Alan in thinking this means we shouldn't try and find good
algorithms for generating extensions.
As I've said before, if someone comes up with an extension to a method,
and can demonstrate a good way of deriving it, that is excellent.
Changeringing is richer if we can find these connections between stages.
However I'm not so happy if someone says "I want this method to be an
extension, but I have no justification for that". There needs to be a
rationale, and it would definitely smell funny if there was a serious
place-based bit of work in the extension that didn't exist in the parent.
The current regime, as encoded in the Decisions, is actually a pretty
good way of generating extensions, although (a) it is codified in
impenetrable wording, (b) there seems no public software to implement
it, and (c) as I've said above, it ought to allow for alternatives.
To follow up my previous example, if Lower Snotscommon gets augmented to
ten, in an ideal world there would be an automated way of finding a
suitable Lower Snotscommon Delight Royal that the local band could ring.
It would be even better if there were multiple algorithms available, and
the potential to create new ones, as long as we accept that, no matter
what extension scheme we devise, ultimately there might not be anything
suitable. But use whatever creativity you can bring to bear on the
subject to find one.
More information about the ringing-theory