[r-t] Opinions sought

Tim Barnes tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 17 23:02:05 GMT 2019

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 2:28 PM Alexander E Holroyd <holroyd at math.ubc.ca>

> Try as I might, I cannot bring myself to care.

This probably applies to many on the list, but for others, here's the
context behind Don's question.

We've struggled to find an optimal definition of spliced for the new
framework.  There seems to be reasonable agreement that the current
requirement for all extents / MEBs to be spliced for the performance to be
spliced is too restrictive (e.g. given you can ring a peal of Major with 1
com and that's spliced).

We considered using the simplest definition, which is that any multi-method
performance is spliced -- effectively applying the higher stage definition
to all stages.  (And it's invariant under rotation.)  But this would be a
big change to current practice, given many peals of 7 Minor and similar are
rung that are not described as spliced today, and it would likely be mostly

Fully replicating current practice of what constitutes a spliced
composition (at lower stages) is complex to write down -- it involves
testing for changes of method at rows that are not points of completeness
(in the sense of complete extents), but with some sort of exception to
handle the one incomplete touch that a lower stage performance can have.
This seemed to fail the "simple" part of the framework team's mandate.

So we settled on spliced being a composition in which any changes of method
occur at a row other than rounds (or more precisely, other than the initial
row, to account for any ringing that doesn't start from rounds).  This has
the advantage of being simple, and it also gives a practical benefit -- if
a multi-method composition is not spliced, you only need to know the place
bell starts for the bell you're ringing.

The problem, as Don has pointed out, is that MEBs that today would be
considered spliced are no longer spliced if all changes of method happen to
occur at internal rounds.

We're still discussing what to do here (it's actually the last remaining
open point before we submit the framework to the Executive), but since the
current wording has been in place through both consultations with only one
person (Don) questioning it, and in the absence of a better solution, we're
inclined to keep what we have.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20190117/8e10c9fc/attachment.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list