[r-t] Opinions sought

Robert Bennett rbennett1729 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 04:48:44 GMT 2019

One rule which would seem to be acceptable, would be to allow any
multi-method peal to be spliced, if the number of changes of method is
equal to the number of extents times the number of methods, minus one; with
a proviso that the method rung must change at least every 720 of minor or
120 of doubles.

E.g. for 3-Spliced Minor, with 7x720s, there should be 3 methods in each
720, which is at least 20 changes of method.
Any arrangement which does this, provided that it doesn't have a full 720
of one method, should be ok.

In the case of a quarter peal, or a peal of non-standard length, the short
bit should be counted as if it were a full 720 or 120.

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:02 PM Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 2:28 PM Alexander E Holroyd <holroyd at math.ubc.ca>
> wrote:
>> 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 ignored.
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.org
> https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20190118/f59dc0a2/attachment.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list