From andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com Tue Jan 14 12:29:42 2020 From: andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com (Andrew Johnson) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 12:29:42 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Stedman Triples and Camapanalogia Message-ID: In the Christmas issue of The Ringing World, issue 5669/5670, p.1246 (subscriber link: https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2019/1246) I wrote an article examining whether Fabian Stedman ever extended Stedman Doubles (the Principle on Five) to triples. J Armiger Trollope, Jasper Snowden, Ernest Morris and Clavis were of the opinion it wasn't extended to seven bells by the composer. I pointed that in Campanalogia (1677), p.168, Fabian Stedman says:‘ ‘Tis plainly demonstrable, that [t]he Principle upon five may go 420 triples upon seven, which is a twelfth part; 840 which is a sixth part; or 1260 which is a fourth part of the whole, and the utmost period of triple changes. And then by making four extreams it may go 5040, the complete peal.’ Who agrees or disagrees that this shows Fabian Stedman did extend the method to triples? What was the extension? In the article I proposed some ideas, but none were completely satisfactory. Andrew Johnson Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU From johnstonrh at rhj.org.uk Fri Jan 17 23:54:44 2020 From: johnstonrh at rhj.org.uk (Richard Johnston) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 23:54:44 -0000 Subject: [r-t] Stedman Triples and Camapanalogia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5E224944.15438.54169E45@rhj1948.gmail.com> On 15 Jan 2020 at 11:00, ringing-theory-request at bellringers.org wrote: > [r-t] Stedman Triples and Camapanalogia > Message-ID: > bserv.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > Andrew Johnson: > In the Christmas issue of The Ringing World, issue 5669/5670, p.1246 > (subscriber link: https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2019/1246) I wrote > an article examining whether Fabian Stedman ever extended Stedman Doubles > (the Principle on Five) to triples. > > J Armiger Trollope, Jasper Snowden, Ernest Morris and Clavis were of the > opinion it wasn't extended to seven bells by the composer. > > I pointed that in Campanalogia (1677), p.168, Fabian Stedman says:~ > ~Tis > plainly demonstrable, that [t]he Principle upon five may go 420 triples > upon seven, which is a twelfth part; 840 which is a sixth part; or 1260 > which is a fourth part of the whole, and the utmost period of triple > changes. And then by making four extreams it may go 5040, the complete > peal.TM > > Who agrees or disagrees that this shows Fabian Stedman did extend the > method to triples? > > What was the extension? In the article I proposed some ideas, but none > were completely satisfactory. Thanks - I found it interesting. I didn't want to be prejudiced by your article, so I looked back at Camopanalogia, to see whaty I got by looking at the immediate and larger context, and not thinking too hard. I cae to much the same conclusions and for the same reasons as you on p1246. The only additional point is that on page 131 of Campanalogia, Stedman doubles is written out with the conventional start at the middle of a quick six, which makes it likely that his triples would be written out the same way and that the parting change 5, needed to get a 5 part, occurred at the middle of the quick six. I don't think the fact that not all the bells do the same work would have bothered him, as many other contemporary method/compositions were like that. Looking at the sophistication level (i.e they are not static or tedious) of the other 7 bell methods, and the elegance of stedman doubles, suggests to me that it is more likely that Stedman's triples extension was probably our stedman triples rather than doubles with 30 dodges behind. But I admit either is possible. I didn't find your later proposals convincing - they seem more . contrived, and plain hunt on 5 does not exhaust the possibilities in the elegant way plain hunt on 3 does. I think it probably significant that the triples version was not pricked out, perhaps suggesting that he thought of it at a late stage in production of the book, and so just squeezed it in. Consequently, he may well have underestimated the difficulty of obtaining true compositions especially as regards a 5040, so I don't think failure to find one as a 4 part using an extreme is significant. He may have done no more than sketched out a few transformations. My conclusions? Yes he did have a stedman triples extension, and it is more likely than not that it was the one we use now, but otherwise the doubles version with dodges behind. And, it got overlooked by later authors because it was not pricked out. Richard Johnston From andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com Mon Jan 20 08:27:42 2020 From: andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com (Andrew Johnson) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:27:42 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Stedman Triples and Camapanalogia In-Reply-To: <5E224944.15438.54169E45@rhj1948.gmail.com> References: <5E224944.15438.54169E45@rhj1948.gmail.com> Message-ID: > From: Richard Johnston > Thanks - I found it interesting. > > I didn't want to be prejudiced by your article, so I looked back at > Camopanalogia, to see whaty I got by looking at the immediate and > larger context, and not thinking too hard. > > I cae to much the same conclusions and for the same reasons as you > on p1246. > ... > > My conclusions? Yes he did have a stedman triples extension, and it > is more likely than not that it was the one we use now, but otherwise > the doubles version with dodges behind. And, it got overlooked by > later authors because it was not pricked out. > > Richard Johnston > Richard, thank you for your reply. As I first posed the question in The Ringing World perhaps you would care to send a letter with your comments so that readers can benefit from your ideas. Andrew Johnson Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU From andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com Wed Jan 22 07:47:41 2020 From: andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com (Andrew Johnson) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:47:41 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Bobs-only Stedman Triples Message-ID: Twenty-five years ago, on 22 January 1995, the first peal of Stedman Triples using common bobs only was rung. The composition https://complib.org/composition/10423 by Philip Saddleton and me has 579 bobs. Colin Wyld's compositions, which were composed first, but published and rung later, have 705 https://complib.org/composition/21261 and 597 bobs. These compositions are based on the magic blocks, which link the rows of 10 B-blocks into 5 blocks, leaving 74 other B-blocks to be joined into a peal. There are 825 bobs (out of 840 positions) in these 79 blocks. By adding Q-sets of 3 omits we can link 3 blocks into 1, so 79 blocks to 1 block for the peal requires at least 78 / 2 = 39 Q-sets or 39 x 3 = 117 omits so 825 - 117 = 708 bobs. Colin's peal uses an extra Q-set to link everything, giving 705 bobs. With 3 B-blocks there are two places a Q-set can be placed to link them, so extra omits can be used, which allowed Colin to remove 108 bobs for his second peal. Philip carefully chose the B-blocks to allow further Q-set positions, reducing the bobs to 579. It is possible to get a magic block composition with 708 bobs, as this arrangement shows: https://complib.org/composition/37705 Another question is the minimum bobs on this plan. In June 1995, Philip wrote (private communication) that he had found a peal with 576 bobs, though it wasn't published. Recently I looked and also found peals with 576 bobs, for example https://complib.org/composition/59746 which is the fewest bobs I have found so far. I have found an arrangement of blocks with 90 Q-sets so conceivably 825 - 90 x 3 = 555 bobs, but they didn't link into a peal with that few bobs. So the number of bobs for a magic block peal varies from 576 to 708. My 10-part peals, including the 2012 exact 2-part variations have from 438 to 456 bobs. My 3-part based peals from 2017 don't extend the range. The exact 3-parts have from 603 https://complib.org/composition/36006 to 639 bobs. Some other 3-parts have from 606 (for example) https://complib.org/composition/60827 to 636 bobs. The irregular 3-parts have from 582 https://complib.org/composition/37434 to 705 https://complib.org/composition/37446 bobs. Recently I have discovered some more peals on a different plan, ranging from 561 https://complib.org/composition/60808 to 711 https://complib.org/composition/60810 bobs. The first particularly might prove a challenge for the conductor. Andrew Johnson Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU From rbennett1729 at gmail.com Wed Jan 22 09:19:04 2020 From: rbennett1729 at gmail.com (Robert Bennett) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 22:19:04 +1300 Subject: [r-t] Bobs-only Stedman Triples In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: These peals were and are a great advance in ringing theory. Andrew Johnson's peals have got us closer to something ringable by mere mortals. The 25 years might be history repeating itself: from J Noonan's peal of 1799 to Thurstans' peals also took a long time. One question: have the *keys* to these compositions been published , i.e. the device which links the equivalent of an even number of bob courses together? The magic blocks have been discussed, but do these later compositions depend on something else? -Robert Bennett On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:48 PM Andrew Johnson wrote: > Twenty-five years ago, on 22 January 1995, the first peal of Stedman > Triples using common bobs only was rung. > > The composition https://complib.org/composition/10423 by Philip Saddleton > and me has 579 bobs. Colin Wyld's compositions, which were composed first, > but published and rung later, have 705 > https://complib.org/composition/21261 and 597 bobs. > > These compositions are based on the magic blocks, which link the rows of > 10 B-blocks into 5 blocks, leaving 74 other B-blocks to be joined into a > peal. There are 825 bobs (out of 840 positions) in these 79 blocks. By > adding Q-sets of 3 omits we can link 3 blocks into 1, so 79 blocks to 1 > block for the peal requires at least 78 / 2 = 39 Q-sets or 39 x 3 = 117 > omits so 825 - 117 = 708 bobs. Colin's peal uses an extra Q-set to link > everything, giving 705 bobs. With 3 B-blocks there are two places a Q-set > can be placed to link them, so extra omits can be used, which allowed > Colin to remove 108 bobs for his second peal. Philip carefully chose the > B-blocks to allow further Q-set positions, reducing the bobs to 579. > > It is possible to get a magic block composition with 708 bobs, as this > arrangement shows: https://complib.org/composition/37705 > > Another question is the minimum bobs on this plan. In June 1995, Philip > wrote (private communication) that he had found a peal with 576 bobs, > though it wasn't published. Recently I looked and also found peals with > 576 bobs, for example https://complib.org/composition/59746 which is the > fewest bobs I have found so far. I have found an arrangement of blocks > with 90 Q-sets so conceivably 825 - 90 x 3 = 555 bobs, but they didn't > link into a peal with that few bobs. > > So the number of bobs for a magic block peal varies from 576 to 708. My > 10-part peals, including the 2012 exact 2-part variations have from 438 to > 456 bobs. My 3-part based peals from 2017 don't extend the range. The > exact 3-parts have from 603 https://complib.org/composition/36006 to 639 > bobs. Some other 3-parts have from 606 (for example) > https://complib.org/composition/60827 to 636 bobs. The irregular 3-parts > have from 582 https://complib.org/composition/37434 to 705 > https://complib.org/composition/37446 bobs. > > Recently I have discovered some more peals on a different plan, ranging > from 561 https://complib.org/composition/60808 to 711 > https://complib.org/composition/60810 bobs. The first particularly might > prove a challenge for the conductor. > > > Andrew Johnson > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > > > _______________________________________________ > ringing-theory mailing list > ringing-theory at bellringers.org > https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: