[r-t] Opinions sought

[iain at 13to8.co.uk]

Tim

Is the problem here that you are trying to come up with a simple definition for spliced when it actually means two different things.

Pure spliced I believe is clear to everyone, but when a touch is laminated, as in the examples given, there is a lack of agreement as to whether it is spliced, or mixed (or what term you wish to use).

Having two definitions, and acknowledging that people may use the word spliced differently might solve the problem.

 

--

Iain Anderson

iain at 13to8.co.uk <mailto:iain at 13to8.co.uk> 

 

From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.org] On Behalf Of Tim Barnes
Sent: 2019 January 17 23:02
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.org
Subject: Re: [r-t] Opinions sought

 

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20190122/30c01c21/attachment.html>