[r-t] Opinions sought

[Simon Gay]

I would be happy to say that they are both spliced. I would find it 
artificial to have to choose that just one of them is spliced. I would 
prefer to ring B.

I suppose what you are getting at is that if you omit the singles from 
B, you have two extents each of a single method, and that would not 
traditionally be described as spliced. The question is whether it makes 
sense to convert a multi-extent block from non-spliced to spliced 
without introducing any changes of method.

In a world of multi-extent blocks, I would be reasonably happy to 
describe B as spliced even without the singles.

Simon



On 16/01/2019 13:39, Don Morrison wrote:
> Consider the following two callings of surprise minor. Two questions:
> 
> 1) Are they spliced? That is are they both, neither, or just one of 
> them, and, if just one of them, which?
> 
> 2) If you were somehow further constrained to call exactly one of them 
> spliced, which would you pick as the “more like spliced”?
> 
> 
> Calling A:
> 
> 1,440 (Spliced?) Surprise Minor (2 methods)
> 2345  W  H
> __________
> 4235     -  IIIII.
> 3425     -  IIIII.
> 2345     -  IIIII.
> 5243  -     CCC.CC
> 3542  -     CCC.CC
> 4235  -  -  CCC.CC.
> 5432  -     CCC.CC
> 2534  -     CCC.CC
> 3425  -  -  CCC.CC.
> 5324  -     CCC.CC
> 4523  -     CCC.CC
> 2345  -  -  CCC.CC.
> __________
> Contains 1,080 Cambridge and 360 Ipswich, with 1 change of method
> and all the work of both methods for every bell.
> 
> 
> 
> Calling B:
> 
> 1,440 (Spliced?) Surprise Minor (2 methods)
> 2345  W  H
> __________
> 4523  -  -  IIII.I.
> 3425  -     IIII.I
> 2534  -  -  IIII.I.
> 4235  -     IIII.I
> 3542  -  -  IIII.I.
> 2435  -  s  IIII.I.
> 3524  -  -  CCC.CC.
> 4325  -     CCC.CC
> 2543  -  -  CCC.CC.
> 3245  -     CCC.CC
> 4532  -  -  CCC.CC.
> 2345  -  s  CCC.CC.
> __________
> Contains 720 each Cambridge and Ipswich, with 1 change of method
> and all the work of both methods for every bell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org <mailto:dfm at ringing.org>>
> No one is the salt of the earth; and no one, at some moment in their
> life, is not.     — Jorge Luis Borges, “Fragments from an Apocryphal
>                                           Gospel,” tr Stephen Kessler
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.org
> https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory
>