[r-t] Extension question

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk>
wrote:
> In this case the two are uniquely related

Can you explain to me how you come to this conclusion? While to my mind it
is an obvious extension, I sure can't figure out whether or not they are
"officially" related, let alone whether or not that relation is unique. But
that may simply be a failing of my understanding.

Also, how do alliance hunt paths like this extend? I see nothing in
decision (G) addressing that, though maybe I'm just missing something. In a
related matter, why doesn't (G)B.7. require that 8ths be made adjacent to
the treble twice in a half-lead rather than just once? How do you know the
hunt path expands -- it certainly wouldn't be allowed to do so in a little
method. If a hunt path like this does expand, as your answer seems to
imply, does that mean a major method with the treble dodging in 1-2, 3-4
and 7-8, when extended to royal, must have the treble dodging in 1-2, 3-4,
5-6 and 9-10?

Also, (G).C.2.(a)i. doesn't appear to have any entries corresponding to
what the treble is doing in the last section in Semiquincentenary, so ...?
And in related vein (G).C.1.(b) seems exceedingly vague about alliance
methods: Semiquincentenary is not covered by the first sentence of that
statement, and there doesn't seem to be any way to tell whether or not it's
covered by the second sentence.



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"The scientific enterprise as a whole does from time to time prove
useful, open up new territory, display order, and test long-accepted
belief. Nevertheless, the individual engaged on a normal research
problem is almost never doing any one of these things."
  -- Thomas Kuhn, _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20171106/ee5ea33b/attachment.html>