[r-t] Extension

[Alan Reading]

"I would have thought that the preferred extension would be the one
that works at the highest number of stages up to a maximum (I have
suggested 36). I know this is not what the extension rules say, but
wouldn't it be of greater practical value. If the answer is the same
for more than one, then the band first ringing one can choose."

So you're essentially saying ditch the indefinite stages requirement
entirely?
So looking at the London example London S Major would then become an
allowable extension of London S Minor (providing no other extension path
yielded more extensions below 36)?
Yes I agree that makes more sense than the current situation.

Cheers,
Alan

On 22 March 2017 at 13:07, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

> On 22 March 2017 at 12:26, Alan Reading <alan.reading at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> I would have thought that the preferred extension would be the one
> that works at the highest number of stages up to a maximum (I have
> suggested 36). I know this is not what the extension rules say, but
> wouldn't it be of greater practical value. If the answer is the same
> for more than one, then the band first ringing one can choose.
>
> 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/20170322/440625ba/attachment-0001.html>