[r-t] Extension

[Alan Reading]

Graham wrote:

"It would make sense to put a practical limit on the stages checked. I
suggest 36 is used as the maximum, as that is the stage where a plain
course of a Treble Dodging method is a peal length."

That appears to make sense although exactly how would the limit be applied?
For example suppose we have an I-bell method called x (thinking of I as
likely being 6,8 or 10) that extends to some stage J, I<J=<36.
But then doesn't go again until some K>36?
But unlike the London case we actually know that K exists.
I don't have a concrete such example but it seems perfectly possible (even
likely) that they exists.
Is the extension to stage J allowed to be called x under this suggested
modification or not?

If not then it seems unfair because the extension might have been easily
demonstrated to be an infinite family (just one with only two members below
36).
But if so then the only difference to the London case is that we can show
the indefinite extension requirement is fulfilled - so then it still comes
back to what you can or can't prove - and rule potentially has to be
applied in the absence of certainty.

Cheers,
Alan








On 22 March 2017 at 11:47, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

> On 22 March 2017 at 11:27, Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > I'm not, and never have been, in sympathy with the indefinite extension
> requirement.
>
> It would make sense to put a practical limit on the stages checked. I
> suggest 36 is used as the maximum, as that is the stage where a plain
> course of a Treble Dodging method is a peal length.
>
> Graham
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170322/0721dab7/attachment.html>