[r-t] Extension

[Alan Reading]

|Other methods (like London) "extend" perfectly well but we are not allowed
to call them extensions because they don't have an n-1 lead course. On ten
bells |3-3.4-2-3.4-4.5.6-6.7.8-8.7 lh12 seems to me to be a perfectly
acceptable London Surprise Royal but we can't call it that because of other
rules.

It's more than just not having an n-1 lead course. London no longer has
plain bob lead heads on 10,12,etc following the extension path from minor.
I actually think that is one of the more sensible rules* - as the lack of
plain bob lead heads completely alters the character of the method and
likely means it's not something anyone would want to ring. Ofcourse there
are some combinations of lead heads and backworks that work well together
but I doubt 1083564927 and London over is one of them (to take the 10-bell
example)!

Does this extension path never yield Plain Bob lead heads on any stage N>8?
I suspect that may well be the case but I haven't produced (or seen) a
proof that that is the case. It could potentially be quite tricky to do so
(if other such examples if not this one).

*Presumably there is no such restriction on methods that don't have plain
bob lead heads? Which means a none plain bob lead head method on stage N
could extend to stage N+2 with any other random none plain bob lead
providing it still had a full length course.

Cheers,
Alan






On 22 March 2017 at 08:32, King, Peter R <peter.king at imperial.ac.uk> wrote:

> >Tidying up on a few comments. PRK - the point about the 5-6 places in
> >Cambridge S8 is that it is not 'new' work, just some old work repeated
> >in a different place.
>
> I would agree that that wasn't a particularly good example, but it begs
> the question of what constitutes a piece of work? I would probably agree
> that similar shaped bits of work repeated in a different set of places
> isn't new. But if I turn a single dodge into a double dodge is that new
> work? Or is it a piece of old work repeated? Is the 4ths and back in London
> Major (but no minor) a new piece of work? The problem is that the concept
> of a "piece of work" doesn't have a precise definition. And I really
> wouldn't want to burden the exercise with another set of painstaking
> definitions. I think "piece of work" generally relates to how ringers learn
> methods, so they know what Cambridge places or Yorkshire places means. But
> this is highly subjective. For example, I have always thought of 4 blows
> behind 9in odd plain bob for example) as two lots of 2 blows behind, so I
> don't see it as "new work" but simply "old work" repeated. I could quote
> numerous other examples.
>
> I don't know that I don't "believe" in method extension. There are clearly
> some methods at different stages that are sufficiently close together in
> terms of structure that there is some sense in giving them the same name
> but this is a bit of a stretch at times. Most extensions seem to pad out
> with treble bob hunting at the back and loose the character of the
> original. Belfast maximus is a good example of this. Other methods (like
> London) "extend" perfectly well but we are not allowed to call them
> extensions because they don't have an n-1 lead course. On ten bells
> 3-3.4-2.3.4-4.5.6-6.7.8-8.7 lh12 seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable
> London Surprise Royal but we can't call it that because of other rules.
>
> So my problem is that method extension is reasonably clear for many
> methods, although as you have pointed out it is non-unique even then. To
> get uniqueness you then have to either introduce all sorts of additional
> rules. Or if it is defined through some application of place notation, it
> is also non-unique, and produces some rather dull methods at higher stages.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170322/79c25f33/attachment.html>