[r-t] Extension

[Alan Reading]

| This will happen anyway, extension or no. ;-)

Yes but extension still encourages it. Most methods that extend don't
usually extend in a way that produces particularly desirable methods on
higher stages. Obviously there are some notable exceptions, again
particularly amongst the standard methods, but I think the best of those
(eg Bristol) would have been found without codified extension rules.

Would people ever ring Superlative S Maximus for instance if it didn't
share it's name with an excellent and well known surprise major method?
Cambridge rapidly losses it's charm on more than 6 in my opinion. Lessness
/ Cornwall / Uxbridge are all quality methods on 8 but their 12-bell
equivalents would be pretty tedious to ring for any purpose other than
maybe the occasional lead in a spliced composition.








On 20 March 2017 at 17:53, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:

> Alan asks,
>
> 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?
>>
>
> This will happen anyway, extension or no. ;-)
>
>
> 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/edb59a7a/attachment.html>