[r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results

[Mark Davies]

Iain Anderson writes,

> 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.

Fair comment!

My view is that we ought to be clear about what we mean by a method, and 
what it's lead is. In fact I think that any given block of changes 
should yield one method and only one method, and this method should also 
be classifiable and fall into one and only one classification. I think 
this is useful, because methods are the atomic building blocks of 
change-ringing. Also I don't think it is very difficult to do.

I also think that none of this determinism should apply to compositions. 
Methods: unique, deterministically classifiable. Compositions: can be 
described however you want - as long as it is unambiguously clear what 
changes they contain.

My answers to your nine questions:

1) Is it obvious what a method is?

Let's say yes.

2) Are all methods made up of leads?

Yes. I'd use the lead as the definition of the method. Let's say that a 
lead should be a non-divisible block of changes. A method has a plain 
course which is the round block formed by zero or more repetitions of 
the lead.

3) Is method the same as place notation (or at least isomorphic)?

A lead, being a block of changes, can be defined using place notation, 
so let us say yes.

4) Do all methods have a well defined place notation?

Yes.

5) Is Plain Hunt a method?

Yes. It has a 2-change lead.

6) If so, how many leads are there in the plain course?

N.

7) Is Original the same as Plain Hunt?

Yes. "Original" just implies a certain type of call - but the calls 
aren't part of the method.

8) Is Dixoniods a method?

No. Neither are Dixonoids! They are Dixonoids.

9) If so, what is a lead of Dixoniods?

See 8 - not applicable.

MBD