[r-t] Extension

[Alan Reading]

|I don't know the answer to this one. All I can say is that about 15 years
ago, those specialists in this area of maths thought there was a way and
now they |don't seem too sure. My view always was that it would be
unnecessary to extend too far beyond 16 as this number is never likely to
be rung so, ergo, I'm not,  | and never have been, in sympathy with the
indefinite extension requirement.

No it seems pretty silly, especially when it appears it can be applied on a
hunch rather than a solid mathematical footing!



On 22 March 2017 at 11:27, Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote:

> Quick reply once again to Alan
>
> "Somewhat hypothetical of course (who is going to ring London on >60 ) but
> is there not now a rule stating than an extension must go work on an
> infinite number of stages."
>
> Yes
>
> "If London S Major were named today would it be allowed to be called
> London?"
>
> No.
>
> "And if not how would could it be proven that the extension doesn't go on
> an infinite number of stages?"
>
> I don't know the answer to this one. All I can say is that about 15 years
> ago, those specialists in this area of maths thought there was a way and
> now they don't seem too sure. My view always was that it would be
> unnecessary to extend too far beyond 16 as this number is never likely to
> be rung so, ergo, I'm not, and never have been, in sympathy with the
> indefinite extension requirement.
>
> R
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170322/63316e1b/attachment.html>