[r-t] Extension

[Alan Reading]

|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.

Yes from a purely mathematical perspective. But is there not a risk that
obsessing over extensions only encourages people to ring substandard
methods simply for the sake of them being an extension of some method they
have either heard of or like the name of?

Lower Snotscommon might well be a bad enough method on 8 without
encouraging the ringing of a royal version ;-)



On 20 March 2017 at 17:15, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:

> 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.
>
> MBD
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170320/93a9ea6c/attachment.html>