[r-t] False methods
Andrew Johnson
andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com
Wed May 31 13:32:17 UTC 2017
Now that Proposal G has passed at the Central Council meeting I am
interested in how it works:
1. That Decision (E) METHODS be amended as follows, to extend the
definition of a
method to include methods that are false in the plain course:
a. Remove the word “true” from Decision (E)A.2 so that it becomes: “A
method
is defined by the places made between successive rows of its plain course,
which shall be a round block, divisible into equal parts which are called
leads.
Starting the plain course from a different change does not give a
different
method.”
I know there are a few false blocks now classed as methods, but first I'd
like to consider some very false methods.
The simplest might be repeated Plain Bob, where one lead of the new method
is multiple leads of Plain Bob.
PBx2 Doubles could be considered a somewhat conventional method with a
true plain course.
5 bells;
PBx2=&5.1.5.1.5.1.5.1.5.125,+125;
prove 2PBx2;
It would be a treble place differential hunter method. I think that "A
method is defined by the places made between successive rows of its plain
course," means that as the plain course is the same as Plain Bob Doubles
it is not a new distinct method.
If however you considered it as a method false in a plain course and have
4 leads in the course giving 80 changes then it is a treble place hunter.
As according to the decisions the plain course seems to be the fundamental
part of a method then it is distinct from Plain Bob Doubles.
prove 2PBx4;
As falseness isn't a problem you could define (somehow) that 6 leads make
a (false) plain course, and it is back to being a differential hunter as
there are 6 leads, but 4 working bells.
This then leads me to consider an ordinary lead of Plain Bob Doubles. If
we define the course as 8 leads (a round block) then I think we get a new
method which is a differential hunter, as although all the working bells
do the same, the number of leads is not the same as the number of working
bells.
You could also consider
5 bells;
PBx3=&5.1.5.1.5.1.5.1.5.125,5,1,5,1,5,+125;
prove 4PBx2;
which has a 30 change lead and a (false) 120 change plain course.
If the plain course is the fundamental definition of a method, how many
leads should we divide the 120 changes into?
Divided into 1 - not a method, but a block
Divided into 2 - treble place differential hunter
Divided into 3 - treble place differential hunter
Divided into 4 - treble place hunter
Divided into 6 - treble place differential hunter
Divided into 12 - differential hunter bob
Is there any expectation to split a plain course into the maximum possible
leads?
Perhaps not - consider:
Six-hunt differential Little Hybrid Maximus methods
(hunt bell's path 7 8 7 8 7 8 7)
No. Name Notation lh Tower bells
RW ref
225 Sixblock Differential Little - 16 - 16 - 16 6543217890ET Spliced
14/993 1240
Would it ever be useful to consider just -16 as a maximus method?
Is there any restriction on the length of a plain course? A false round
block can be any length.
Is the number of methods at any stage now infinite?
The definition of a block is "A non-method block is a block of changes
that does not constitute a plain lead of a method."
Given that any 'block' can be repeated enough times to give a round block
and so a (possibly false) plain course which then can be divided into
leads (which are the block), are all blocks now methods?
Andrew Johnson
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
More information about the ringing-theory
mailing list