[r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results

[Iain Anderson]

On 2014-07-18 17:58, Graham John wrote:

 > I am surprised that so many voted no to Q: "Do you think a lead should
 > always be the minimum non-divisible block?". Given that most of us (based
 > upon the earlier poll) would like to treat methods that are false in the
 > plain course as methods rather than non-method blocks, requiring that all
 > methods are defined by the shortest piece of notation is essential to 
avoid
 > the same thing being given different names.

I note that the question referred to leads, but all of your comments 
referred to methods.  Ten years ago it was blindingly obvious to me what 
a lead was and what a method was.  Now I don't think I have a clue.  I'd 
love to here people's thoughts are the following:

1) Is it obvious what a method is?
2) Are all methods made up of leads?
3) Is method the same as place notation (or at least isomorphic)?
4) Do all methods have a well defined place notation?
5) Is Plain Hunt a method?
6) If so, how many leads are there in the plain course?
7) Is Original the same as Plain Hunt?
8) Is Dixoniods a method?
9) If so, what is a lead of Dixoniods?

To answer your original question, I think that it makes sense to 
describe Magenta as a 10 row block because that is how it is rung as a 
link method.  I can also see that the 14 row version would be a good 
link method.  Is it the same method?  I would certainly learn and ring 
it the same way, so to me 56.1T, Magenta, and the 14 row block are all 
the same method.  But that causes a huge problem with defining what a 
lead is, unless methods don't have to have leads.

Traditionally, when we talk about a method, are we really talking about 
a lead?  If not, then what's the difference?

IJA