[r-t] Adjacency in Extension

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:16 AM Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote:
> Don; "I am really confused, now."
>
> Yes, you quite clearly are. At no point did I explicitly say that Twatt
> was an extension of Kent.

Oh, sorry, my bad. I mistakenly interpreted “Some typical extensions are”
as meaning that the following methods were “typical extensions”. How silly
of me.

> I did start with the word 'above'

True, you did write “Above the treble, adjacency means that the 3-4
(typical Kent) places above the treble in 1-2 must be preserved somehow”
which I foolishly interpreted as simply meaning that you were describing
what “adjacency” means above the treble.

Sorry!

As I’ve said many times, I really don’t understand this extension stuff,
and I now see that such misunderstanding even applies to the words used to
describe it.



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
“Language, like economics and love, is wonderful in practice, but just
won’t work out in theory.”   — Richard Powers, /The Goldbug Variations/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20180727/151c04ee/attachment.html>