From Earisp at rsc.org Wed Feb 1 10:01:08 2012 From: Earisp at rsc.org (Philip Earis) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:01:08 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Spliced winking Message-ID: I'm very keen on compositions involving elegantly-linked blocks of different types of well-chosen structures / music. I'm not a fan of existing composition of eg Stedman and Bristol - the blocks often seem thrown together, and the meld between different sections incongruous. However, I do think there's great mileage in "symphonic" arrangements when complementary but contrasting sections are joined elegantly. DJP has an awesome new "architectured" cyclic maximus construction with a block of principles appearing soon, and I have also been putting together cyclic maximus incorporated "winked up" sections. A bit more approachable than this is the tenors-together splicing of winked blocks and conventional treble-dodging methods. This especially suits handbell ringing, where winked methods keep adjacent pairs of bells in close proximity. There was a brief discussion about this on this list last year (see eg http://www.bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/2011-April/003779.html), but no "killer app" was produced. After a bit of recent thought, I've now got a new structure to achieve this that I'm much more pleased with... To keep pairs together, it makes sense to utilise an 8-part structure with part-ends 124365, 125634, 123465 etc (ie keeping bell 2 fixed). Taking this approach, parts can be rung alternately as a brief winked-up section then a more conventional method block. The real beauty is that using this 8-part structure, a well-chosen musical course in one part can automatically give musical courses in all related parts; ie with bell 2 fixed the two sets are (35642, 54362, 64352, 46532) and (24653, 26435, 25346, 23564). Happily, these beautiful sets of courses can be quickly reached from the winked up section, can be immediately transitioned between each other, and then can take you directly to the part end also. This is perhaps best seen in this neat proof-of-concept maximus composition: 5760 Spliced Maximus [3 methods: 2688 Bristol, 2112 Yorkshire, 960 Winked Double Oxford (W)] 1 2 3 4 5 123456 s 123465 WWWWW. --------- M W H s - X 164523 BBB.Y.YYYYY. - 126543 BBBBBBBBBBB.YYYYY --------- 1 2 3 4 5 s 125643 WWWW.W --------- M W H s - X 146325 BBB.Y.YYYYY. - 124365 BBBBBBBBBBB.YYYYY 2 part X = 123456 Winked Double Oxford = x14589Tx14589Tx369Tx369Tx14589Tx14589Tx1470x1470x14589Tx14589Tx1458x1458x14589Tx14589Tx1470x1470x14589Tx14589Tx369Tx369Tx14589Tx14589Tx589Tx589T (s=34589T) Dipping into the winked sections periodically should provide a well-varied and balanced composition. Of course, for more variety the winked up base method can be changed in different parts. This is well-illustrated with royal, where different in-course and out-of-course doubles method bases can be used at the appropriate time in the royal composition. Eg 5040 Spliced Royal (5m) 1 2 3 4 5 1234567890 Winked Grandsire Doubles s 123465 --------- M W H s - X 164523 BBBYBB.Y.YYYY. - 126543 YYYYY.YYYY --------- 1 2 3 4 5 Winked Carter doubles s s s 125643 --------- M W H s - X 146325 YYYY.Y.YYYY. - 124365 BBBBBBBB 2 part. X = 123456 In 2nd part replace winked Carter with Winked Stedman doubles (3 courses: 2 4, 4 5, 5) This has mileage. DISCLAIMER: This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening. The Royal Society of Chemistry is a charity, registered in England and Wales, number 207890 - Registered office: Thomas Graham House, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0WF From roddy at horton.karoo.co.uk Wed Feb 1 10:22:42 2012 From: roddy at horton.karoo.co.uk (Roddy Horton) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:22:42 -0000 Subject: [r-t] Spliced winking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002201cce0cb$6ec32f10$4c498d30$@horton.karoo.co.uk> PJE Said "I'm very keen on compositions involving elegantly-linked blocks of different types of well-chosen structures / music. I'm not a fan of existing composition of eg Stedman and Bristol - the blocks often seem thrown together, and the meld between different sections incongruous " Try this:- 5073 Spliced Maximus and Cinques (3180 Bristol Surprise, 1893 Stedman) Lucinda J C Reeve 1234567890E W 1235467890E - Bristol 13579E24680 2.3.12.15.17.23.24 (24) Stedman 1342658790E 1.2.4.5.7.9s.12.14 (18) 1E462937805 5.8.11s.14.16.20.22s.24s.25.26.28 (28) (1E462937580) 1. 1E649728305 - Bristol 654321E0987 2.6s.7.9s.11.13s.16.20s.22s Stedman 1624E897530 3s.4.7s.8.10.13s.14.15.21.22 (24) (1624E897053) 1. 164287E5930 - Bristol 324165879E0 3.8.9.10.12s.15.17s.18 Stedman 1624759380E 1s.4.8.9.13s.15.19.22s.24 (24) (16247593E80) 1. 1642537890E - Bristol 531246E9780 6.8.11.12.13.15s.18.21.22 Stedman 23517486E90 1.3.9.10.12s.15.16.18.21 1E536947820 3s.4.6.8.9.12.16.17 (1E536947280) 1s. 1E359768402 - Bristol E0987654321 2s.5.6.7.10.13.17 Stedman 1264830579E 7.10.12s.15.18.20.21.22 (12648305E79) 1. 1246358709E - Bristol 213546798E0 10s.11.12.13.15.16 Stedman (1325476) 2.3.6.12s.15s.16.17.19s 6 near-misses, Queens, Double Whittingtons, Back Rounds (on 11 and 12!) The Bristol comprises Roddy Horton's six most musical courses. Change from Bristol to Stedman occurs at the treble snap after the call Wrong, to the 3rd change of a Slow Six. Change from Stedman to Bristol occurs at the 2nd change of a Slow Six, which becomes the Bristol lead-head. Note from Roddy It is not possible to ring exactly 11 leads of Bristol between the Stedman as the Bristol must finish with a call at Wrong, putting the tenor into 11ths! However, 2 changes later the tenor is in 12ths resulting in 530 changes of Bristol between the Stedman. The courses of Bristol selected (in the order that they are rung) are as follows: 1234567890et 123456tE0987 190Et2345678 1645237890Et 164523tE0987 1243658709Et We attempted this with Lucy calling it and a local band at St Martin in the Fields. Sadly 2 bells went over in the last course but there was some stunning music. From Earisp at rsc.org Wed Feb 1 11:38:18 2012 From: Earisp at rsc.org (Philip Earis) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:38:18 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Spliced winking In-Reply-To: <002201cce0cb$6ec32f10$4c498d30$@horton.karoo.co.uk> References: <002201cce0cb$6ec32f10$4c498d30$@horton.karoo.co.uk> Message-ID: "Try this:- 5073 Spliced Maximus and Cinques" Thanks Roddy. I recognise the time and skill that has gone into this composition, and I don't doubt there are plenty of enjoyable musical rows and sections. But at a quick glance I feel it kind of illustrates my point rather than yours. Whilst it's good to have the simplicity of uninterrupted nearly-whole courses of Bristol, there doesn't seem to be much of an overall underlying framework...the Stedman sections seem to be of the "chase the row" type, with each course called differently...and having transitions at that place in the six seems a bit clunky. Indeed, I'm not sure I understand when you say "It is not possible to ring exactly 11 leads of Bristol between the Stedman as the Bristol must finish with a call at Wrong, putting the tenor into 11ths!". Why not simply ring an eg 123T call there, which would give a whole course? Perhaps it's just I don't appreciate Stedman... :-) DISCLAIMER: This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening. The Royal Society of Chemistry is a charity, registered in England and Wales, number 207890 - Registered office: Thomas Graham House, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0WF From graham at changeringing.co.uk Sun Feb 5 11:31:50 2012 From: graham at changeringing.co.uk (Graham John) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 11:31:50 -0000 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method Message-ID: <000301cce3f9$c1d18f40$4574adc0$@changeringing.co.uk> The term 'regular method' is used frequently in ringing publications, but it is not defined in the CC decisions. Is there an accepted definition of it? The CCCBR website says that there is a definition in Appendix B of Learning Methods by Michael J de C Henshaw (2000, CC). Can anyone share with us what it says? The problem is that we are familiar with the 41 'from the book' regular Surprise Minor methods, but is this actually a subset of regular methods? or do regular methods as well as having plain bob leadheads, have to be palindromic and have no 56 in the notation above the treble? Do they also have to have a 12 or 16 leadend notation? Not more than two places made simultaneously? How do these criteria apply to other stages? Are twin hunt methods such as Grandsire included? A simple definition might be any method having a designated leadhead code letter. But is this correct? Graham From richard at ex-parrot.com Sun Feb 5 12:06:17 2012 From: richard at ex-parrot.com (Richard Smith) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:06:17 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: <000301cce3f9$c1d18f40$4574adc0$@changeringing.co.uk> References: <000301cce3f9$c1d18f40$4574adc0$@changeringing.co.uk> Message-ID: Graham John wrote: > The term 'regular method' is used frequently in ringing > publications, but it is not defined in the CC decisions. Historically, the CC have used 'regular method' to mean one conforming to the decisions. For example, in 1964 there was a (seemingly unsuccessful) motion That this Council shall no longer recognise as regular any even-bell method on six or eight bells which has four places made between successive rows on more than one occasion in the half-lead. Or in 1952 the MC report said: Our opinion has been asked about certain methods which do not conform with the Central Council rules, and we have emphasised that, under the present decisions, they must be regarded as irregular, which presumably means that peals rung in those methods cannot be recognised. That all points towards "regular" having been synonymous with "non-compliant", "unrecognised", "illegal", "illegitimate" and the various other terms the CC has used to describe methods it happens not to like. But it would now seem that the CC has regressed to the point of not believing non-compliant methods are methods at all -- see, for example, the frequent description of "Five Rings Triples" as "not a method". If so, presumably it cannot be an irregular method an we must assume that in the eyes of the CC the term "regular" has either become vacuous or has changed its meaning. Personally, I have always used the term "regular" to describe the property of having Plain Bob lead heads (with some, possibly zero, number of hunt bells), and I get the impression that this is what most other people do too. So I would say that Double Stromboli Bob Minor (with five blows in one place) or Fryerning Surprise Minor (with a single change) are al regular methods. However, as you suggest, there is still scope for disagreement with the definition. Can Slow Course methods be regular, or only 'proper' twin hunt methods? Is Great Grandsire Minor (the bob course of Plain Bob Minor) a regular method, with its three hunt bells? Can a non-palindromic method be regular? I can see arguments why perhaps it should be considered one, though I personally do consider them to be regular. What about a single-hunt method with an 14 lead end change (which must also be non-palindromic)? > A simple definition might be any method having a > designated leadhead code letter. But is this correct? I'm not sure I'd define 'regular' in terms of lead-head codes. That seems backwards to me. I would define a regular lead head as one of the lead heads of the method with place notation x.MN (on an even stage) or N.M (on an odd stage), where N is the number of bells and M is the number of hunt bells (which may be zero) plus one. RAS From amanda.leeriley at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 12:30:44 2012 From: amanda.leeriley at gmail.com (Amanda Lee-Riley) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:30:44 +0000 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method Message-ID: In Appendix B of Michael J de C Henshaw's '*Learning Methods*' it says: "*Requirements of regular methods* One of the requirements of a regular method is that it contains the same lead heads as Plain Bob. Another is that a place is not made in the penultimate position (i.e. fifths on six bells) except at the half lead when the treble is at the back." There are then three or four paragraphs about reasons for/examples of this and how one determines "pivot positions". ajlr Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 11:31:50 -0000 From: "Graham John" To: Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method Message-ID: <000301cce3f9$c1d18f40$ > > 4574adc0$@changeringing.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > The term 'regular method' is used frequently in ringing publications, but > it > is not defined in the CC decisions. Is there an accepted definition of it? > The CCCBR website says that there is a definition in Appendix B of Learning > Methods by Michael J de C Henshaw (2000, CC). Can anyone share with us what > it says? > > > > The problem is that we are familiar with the 41 'from the book' regular > Surprise Minor methods, but is this actually a subset of regular methods? > or > do regular methods as well as having plain bob leadheads, have to be > palindromic and have no 56 in the notation above the treble? Do they also > have to have a 12 or 16 leadend notation? Not more than two places made > simultaneously? How do these criteria apply to other stages? Are twin hunt > methods such as Grandsire included? > > > > A simple definition might be any method having a designated leadhead code > letter. But is this correct? > > > > Graham > > > > > From richard at ex-parrot.com Sun Feb 5 14:47:26 2012 From: richard at ex-parrot.com (Richard Smith) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:47:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [r-t] BellBoard compositions Message-ID: As many people will be aware we added the ability to store compositions on BellBoard last week, and users have gradually been adding them. In addition to being able to store a textual representation of the composition, we also allow you to upload a machine-readable representation. At the moment this has to be in a Siril-like format, e.g. Microsiril, Sirilic or GSiril. If there are other commonly used proof formats, it would probably be possible to add support for them too, but I'm not currently familiar with any others. The advantage of providing machine-readable composition is it allows us to do a lot more with it. At the moment, for example, we use it to prove the composition, check that it is the correct length, and do some rudimentary musical analysis. It would be easy to add other such things if they would be useful. Musical analysis is, at present, only done for touches shorter than an extent, and simply checks for a few named rows (queens, tittums, and reverse rounds) and counts CRUs and 4-bell runs. It is trivial to add further types of musical analysis and I would be interested in what people would find useful. Does this the sort of thing that will be useful? RAS From camp at bellringers.org Sun Feb 5 14:52:33 2012 From: camp at bellringers.org (John Camp) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:52:33 +0000 Subject: [r-t] BellBoard compositions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1033151885.20120205145233@bellringers.org> At 14:47 on 05 February 2012, Richard Smith wrote: > [Is] this the sort of thing that will be useful? Maybe worth asking on other lists, also? JEC From graham at changeringing.co.uk Mon Feb 6 00:35:30 2012 From: graham at changeringing.co.uk (Graham John) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 00:35:30 -0000 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002101cce467$3b7bb830$b2732890$@changeringing.co.uk> AJLR wrote: > In Appendix B of Michael J de C Henshaw's '*Learning Methods*' it says: Thank you Amanda. I note that this makes no reference to single changes or the leadhead notation, only plain bob leadheads and no penultimate places. RAS wrote: > Historically, the CC have used 'regular method' to mean one > conforming to the decisions. Yes. I understand from Tony Smith that the term was abandoned by the CC in 1970, and was originally a method conforming to the then decisions based upon the 1903 Report of the Committee on Legitimate Methods. > I'm not sure I'd define 'regular' in terms of > lead-head codes. That seems backwards to me. I think it would be useful to have a modern definition that is broadly in line with the historical view and current usage, as well as having the sense of being a 'conventional' method. I therefore suggest it should be:- 1 Plain Bob leadheads 2 12, 1n, 1 or 12n leadend change 3 No penultimate change (excluding the halflead) 4 Palindromic symmetry This would be more restrictive than those methods given leadhead codes, which cover 1 & 2 plus the equivalent twin hunt methods. So far, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest whether the term 'regular' applies to twin hunt methods, or not. Further criteria that are perhaps also relevant (at least from the Minor tradition):- 5. No single changes (sorry Plain Bob Doubles!) 6. No more than two blows in any place (sorry Plain Bob on odd numbers! but without this, any method with three blows would be considered regular) Graham From ianmcc at physics.uq.edu.au Mon Feb 6 01:52:06 2012 From: ianmcc at physics.uq.edu.au (Ian McCulloch) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 11:52:06 +1000 (EST) Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: <002101cce467$3b7bb830$b2732890$@changeringing.co.uk> References: <002101cce467$3b7bb830$b2732890$@changeringing.co.uk> Message-ID: I'm a bit confused now. What is the correct terminology for the well-known 41 surprise minor methods? Cheers, ian On Mon, 6 Feb 2012, Graham John wrote: > AJLR wrote: > >> In Appendix B of Michael J de C Henshaw's '*Learning Methods*' it says: > > Thank you Amanda. I note that this makes no reference to single changes or > the leadhead notation, only plain bob leadheads and no penultimate places. > > RAS wrote: > >> Historically, the CC have used 'regular method' to mean one >> conforming to the decisions. > > Yes. I understand from Tony Smith that the term was abandoned by the CC in > 1970, and was originally a method conforming to the then decisions based > upon the 1903 Report of the Committee on Legitimate Methods. > >> I'm not sure I'd define 'regular' in terms of >> lead-head codes. That seems backwards to me. > > I think it would be useful to have a modern definition that is broadly in > line with the historical view and current usage, as well as having the sense > of being a 'conventional' method. I therefore suggest it should be:- > > 1 Plain Bob leadheads > 2 12, 1n, 1 or 12n leadend change > 3 No penultimate change (excluding the halflead) > 4 Palindromic symmetry > > This would be more restrictive than those methods given leadhead codes, > which cover 1 & 2 plus the equivalent twin hunt methods. So far, I haven't > seen any evidence to suggest whether the term 'regular' applies to twin hunt > methods, or not. > > Further criteria that are perhaps also relevant (at least from the Minor > tradition):- > 5. No single changes (sorry Plain Bob Doubles!) > 6. No more than two blows in any place (sorry Plain Bob on odd numbers! but > without this, any method with three blows would be considered regular) > > Graham > > > _______________________________________________ > ringing-theory mailing list > ringing-theory at bellringers.net > http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net > From richard at ex-parrot.com Mon Feb 6 02:52:24 2012 From: richard at ex-parrot.com (Richard Smith) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 02:52:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: References: <002101cce467$3b7bb830$b2732890$@changeringing.co.uk> Message-ID: Ian McCulloch wrote: > I'm a bit confused now. What is the correct terminology for the well-known > 41 surprise minor methods? I think the point is that there isn't a single, unambiguous term to describe them. Graham is suggesting that 'regular' ought to be defined so the that 41 are the only regular surprise minor methods. There's certainly something to be said for having a simple word to mean the usual 'nice' properties we want of a method, though I'm not sure 'regular' is the right word. RAS From alex.hunt at btinternet.com Mon Feb 6 07:26:50 2012 From: alex.hunt at btinternet.com (Alex Hunt) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:26:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: <002101cce467$3b7bb830$b2732890$@changeringing.co.uk> Message-ID: <1328513210.96936.YahooMailClassic@web87211.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Criteria 5 & 6 might benefit from an exception for lead?heads. ? Plain Bob at odd stages should be saved from being "irregular!. ? --- On Mon, 6/2/12, Graham John wrote: Further criteria that are perhaps also relevant (at least from the Minor tradition):- 5. No single changes (sorry Plain Bob Doubles!) 6. No more than two blows in any place (sorry Plain Bob on odd numbers! but without this, any method with three blows would be considered regular) Graham _______________________________________________ ringing-theory mailing list ringing-theory at bellringers.net http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net From graham at changeringing.co.uk Mon Feb 6 07:39:20 2012 From: graham at changeringing.co.uk (Graham John) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:39:20 -0000 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: <1328513210.96936.YahooMailClassic@web87211.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <002101cce467$3b7bb830$b2732890$@changeringing.co.uk> <1328513210.96936.YahooMailClassic@web87211.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000801cce4a2$71559210$5400b630$@changeringing.co.uk> AlexH wrote: > Criteria 5 & 6 might benefit from an exception for lead?heads. Possibly, but would you exclude the halflead too (e.g. Reverse Plain Bob Triples)? Graham From graham at changeringing.co.uk Mon Feb 6 07:56:14 2012 From: graham at changeringing.co.uk (Graham John) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:56:14 -0000 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: References: <002101cce467$3b7bb830$b2732890$@changeringing.co.uk> Message-ID: <000901cce4a4$cd9b53a0$68d1fae0$@changeringing.co.uk> Ian McCulloch wrote: > I'm a bit confused now. What is the correct terminology for the well- > known 41 surprise minor methods? They are known as 'regular' or 'from the book' [CC Collection of Minor Methods from the appropriate era*]. My point is that if you use them as the benchmark for establishing the criteria, you need all six that I identified, and that causes problems for methods that people might think are regular on other stages. For example Water Surprise Minor is 6ths place London. For it to be irregular (excluded from the 41) you need to exclude four blows, but this would also exclude Plain Bob on odd stages [not necessarily a bad thing]. Graham *My copy was published in 1969 and includes 5 Double Surprise Minor methods with penultimate places apparently accepted by the Council in 1928. From edward.w.martin at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 09:31:06 2012 From: edward.w.martin at gmail.com (edward martin) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:31:06 +0000 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: <002101cce467$3b7bb830$b2732890$@changeringing.co.uk> References: <002101cce467$3b7bb830$b2732890$@changeringing.co.uk> Message-ID: On 6 February 2012 00:35, Graham John wrote: > I think it would be useful to have a modern definition that is broadly in > line with the historical view and current usage, as well as having the sense > of being a 'conventional' method. I therefore suggest it should be:- > > 1 Plain Bob leadheads > 2 12, 1n, 1 or 12n leadend change > 3 No penultimate change (excluding the halflead) > 4 Palindromic symmetry > > This would be more restrictive than those methods given leadhead codes, > which cover 1 & 2 plus the equivalent twin hunt methods. So far, I haven't > seen any evidence to suggest whether the term 'regular' applies to twin hunt > methods, or not. > In trying to compile my little book 'Discovering Twin-Hunt Triples Methods', I restricted them to pure triples (ie only methods having places in 1, 3, 5, or 7) and noted that there was potential for 144 different routes (methods) through the block of 14 changes where the 1 & 2 just plain hunt.But, only 66 of these would yield a plain course of five leads. 24 of these have lead blocks which are palindromic and can be seen to be the result of adding an extra hunt bell to 'regular' Plain Minor methods. (In fact the CC have decided that, with one or two exceptions, where the Minor method has been named, this name must be retained in the twin-hunt triples extension). Of these 24, only 11 have lead heads from the group 1253746; 1275634; 1267453; 1246375 which I suppose are considered to be the 'regular ' twin hunt triples methods because they can be said to be extensions of the 'regular' plain minor methods whose lead heads are from the group 135264; 156342; 164523; 142635; However there still are a further 13 Twin-Hunt Triples methods with leads which are palindromes but may be said to be extensions of irregular plain minor methods !Now, if these are considered to be 'irregular' then this would put them alongside the 42 other twin-hunt triples methods whose lead blocks are NOT palindromic! Incidentally I was reading through Bell News at the point where the CC was discussing what were to be catalogued as 'legitimate' methods; all seemed to be going well until a Mr. Fright (I kid you not) pointed out that by definition, Stedman must be considered illegitimate. That was too much for Sir Arthur & the old brigade who decided to reconsider the concept of legitimacy Eddie From Earisp at rsc.org Mon Feb 6 09:43:55 2012 From: Earisp at rsc.org (Philip Earis) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:43:55 +0000 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: <000301cce3f9$c1d18f40$4574adc0$@changeringing.co.uk> References: <000301cce3f9$c1d18f40$4574adc0$@changeringing.co.uk> Message-ID: Graham: "The term 'regular method' is used frequently in ringing publications, but it is not defined in the CC decisions. Is there an accepted definition of it? A simple definition might be..." I'm rather sceptical about the need for a standard definition here. Conceptually, it seems to be a march down the "proscriptive" rather than "descriptive" route, especially with the pejorative word "regular". It confers a certain "approved" status that I thought (and hoped) people were moving away from. What would the advantage of having a formal definition be? The risk is that it would encourage a mindset where people only ring "regular" methods, or at least regard them as intrinsically superior. And we've seen how easily blurred the boundaries between concepts like "regular", "compliant, "legitimate" and "acceptable" can be, especially over time. On a practical point of view, your proposals classify 99+% of rung doubles methods as irregular, indeed nearly everything that is rung at odd stages. This is a nice irony. DISCLAIMER: This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening. The Royal Society of Chemistry is a charity, registered in England and Wales, number 207890 - Registered office: Thomas Graham House, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0WF From graham at changeringing.co.uk Mon Feb 6 10:46:17 2012 From: graham at changeringing.co.uk (Graham John) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:46:17 +0000 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method Message-ID: <51860.1328525177@changeringing.co.uk> Philip wrote: > I'm rather sceptical about the need for a standard definition here. It is a term which is frequently used and has historical context. I don't think it is unreasonable to want a clearer definition of what it means. > Conceptually, it seems to be a march down the "proscriptive" > rather than "descriptive" route I disagree. Just saying that method is regular or irregular is in no way proscribing what can be rung. We do however need clear definitions of terminology, classification and nomenclature. > What would the advantage of having a formal definition be? The reason is quite simple. Firstly to give people context and understanding when reading documents about ringing i.e. for ringing dictionaries. Secondly, and the reason that I am looking at it, is that there are 18000 rung methods. It is helpful when searching electronic collections to be able to filter methods in different ways. A filter for 'regular' methods can be quite useful for people who are looking for traditional/conventional/regular methods to ring. It has no more significance than that. > On a practical point of view, your proposals classify 99+% > of rung doubles methods as irregular, indeed nearly everything > that is rung at odd stages. This is a nice irony. That is why I am trying to understand the accepted use of the term. If it has not generally been applied to odd stages then the definition could be constrained to even stages only. Graham From Earisp at rsc.org Mon Feb 6 13:23:03 2012 From: Earisp at rsc.org (Philip Earis) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:23:03 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Bristol Royal compositions Message-ID: I've rung a couple of peals of Bristol Royal in the past week, each with new compositions. The first composition by DJP (from http://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/view.php?id=120852) in particular deserves widespread attention. 5040 Bristol Surprise Royal Composed by D J Pipe 23456 V O I 35426 - 54326 - 32546 - - 24365 - - 64352 S S 43652 - 65432 - - 2 Part It just hits all the buttons - indeed, it is arguably the best two part tenors-together B10 composition judged against many criteria. David's new composition uses the 65432 part-end, the advantages of which I highlighted in my compositions of the decade article on royal. John Warboys has a similar composition on his website (http://website.lineone.net/~jswcomps/), but this has a 167890 single instead of the arguably more elegant SV SI that David uses. The second peal was by James Marchbank (www.campanophile.com/view.aspx?136591), also using 8ths place calls: 5000 Bristol Royal 1 3 4 5 7 8 9 - - 2 2 - - - - - (8 leads) - - - - - - - - - - s s - - - Whilst this doesn't have the same elegance of David's comp, there are some very nice features, and the use of calls at 8,9 to flip the tenors works well. I've come to the view that using 8ths place calls is by far the most elegant solution for Bristol Royal - I don't know why so many continue to stick with 4ths place. There seems to have been much less experimentation with 8ths place call comps, especially those affecting the tenors (though Alan Reading has a few existing examples similar to James' new comp - see http://www.simonreading.dsl.pipex.com/5000%20(no6)%20Bristol%20Surprise%20Royal.htm). And given the high number of peals of B10 that are rung, that fact that something as simple as David's new comp is seemingly previously undiscovered is very surprising indeed. DISCLAIMER: This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening. The Royal Society of Chemistry is a charity, registered in England and Wales, number 207890 - Registered office: Thomas Graham House, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0WF From rlee5040 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 6 13:33:35 2012 From: rlee5040 at yahoo.com (Robert Lee) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 05:33:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method Message-ID: <1328535215.7317.YahooMailNeo@web111707.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> On Mon Feb 6 10:46:17, Graham John wrote: ? >A filter for 'regular' methods can be quite useful for people who are looking for >traditional/conventional/regular methods to ring. It has no more significance than that. ? Philip has hit the nail on the head. I can't see why this is necessary, or a good thing. By defining methods as 'regular' or 'irregular' (even if you can obtain mutual agreement on the term?- which I doubt), you imply a value judgement of the former being superior. The reality is not black and white. ? Consider, if you will, the (unrung) Delight Major method x58x14x58x18x14x58x14x58, le 14.? It fails to meet two of your parameters - it has the very attractive leadend 14736852, and it has 4ths made at the lead end. ? But write?out the course starting from 13428765, and all becomes clear. Look at the way the natural coursing order is preserved when the treble passes through 4-5, and how nothing other than coursing sets of 4 bells meet at the front and the back of the change. Yes,?the potential?is not within?the 'natural' plain course, but you could say the same about Superlative. ? To me, this is about as 'regular' as it gets - far more than, say, Rutland, which has no natural order below the treble at all. But?that has plain bob leadends and you can squeeze out a few CRU's, so that's ok then. ? Alan Reading, Tony Cox, David Hull and myself have all experimented with such methods?in recent years. Offset cyclic?would be another?excellent example.?Yet we've barely scratched the surface of what is possible.?Can't we encourage innovation, rather than the status quo? ? Rob From camp at bellringers.org Mon Feb 6 13:37:29 2012 From: camp at bellringers.org (John Camp) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:37:29 +0000 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: <1328535215.7317.YahooMailNeo@web111707.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1328535215.7317.YahooMailNeo@web111707.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <593094511.20120206133729@bellringers.org> At 13:33 on 06 February 2012, Robert Lee wrote: > Alan Reading, Tony Cox, David Hull and *myself* ... Groan! The English for this is "I". JEC From Ian.Fielding at nbt.nhs.uk Mon Feb 6 13:39:02 2012 From: Ian.Fielding at nbt.nhs.uk (Ian Fielding) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:39:02 +0000 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: <20120206133734.49C3444ABC8@nhs-pd1e-esg004.ad1.nhs.net> References: <1328535215.7317.YahooMailNeo@web111707.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20120206133734.49C3444ABC8@nhs-pd1e-esg004.ad1.nhs.net> Message-ID: <20120206133903.E6688448F93@nhs-pd1e-esg105.ad1.nhs.net> I thought this was supposed to ringing theory not grammar correction? Ian Fielding Chief Pharmacy Technician North Bristol NHS Trust 0117 323 8846 (Southmead Hospital) 0117 340 3334 (Frenchay Hospital) 07872 995464 (Mobile) -----Original Message----- From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of John Camp Sent: 06 February 2012 13:37 To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net Subject: Re: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method At 13:33 on 06 February 2012, Robert Lee wrote: > Alan Reading, Tony Cox, David Hull and *myself* ... Groan! The English for this is "I". JEC _______________________________________________ ringing-theory mailing list ringing-theory at bellringers.net http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. Thank you. From camp at bellringers.org Mon Feb 6 13:47:07 2012 From: camp at bellringers.org (John Camp) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:47:07 +0000 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: <20120206133903.E6688448F93@nhs-pd1e-esg105.ad1.nhs.net> References: <1328535215.7317.YahooMailNeo@web111707.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20120206133734.49C3444ABC8@nhs-pd1e-esg004.ad1.nhs.net> <20120206133903.E6688448F93@nhs-pd1e-esg105.ad1.nhs.net> Message-ID: <1618499969.20120206134707@bellringers.org> At 13:39 on 06 February 2012, Ian Fielding wrote: > I thought this was supposed to ringing theory not grammar correction? Correct. But it is also not a list for making complaints about the contributions of others. And, since I administer (and pay for) the list, I occasionally feel moved to make a comment. JEC From rlee5040 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 6 14:06:42 2012 From: rlee5040 at yahoo.com (Robert Lee) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 06:06:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [r-t] Pedantry (was:What is a 'regular' method) Message-ID: <1328537202.76689.YahooMailNeo@web111716.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> On Mon Feb 6 13:47:07,?John Camp wrote: ? >But it is also not a list for making complaints about the >contributions of others ? Quite right. I'll take that as a retractment of your previous post, then. ? Rob From camp at bellringers.org Mon Feb 6 14:13:51 2012 From: camp at bellringers.org (John Camp) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:13:51 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Pedantry (was:What is a 'regular' method) In-Reply-To: <1328537202.76689.YahooMailNeo@web111716.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1328537202.76689.YahooMailNeo@web111716.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1853889899.20120206141351@bellringers.org> At 14:06 on 06 February 2012, Robert Lee wrote: > On Mon Feb 6 13:47:07,?John Camp wrote: > ? >>But it is also not a list for making complaints about the >>contributions of others > ? > Quite right. I'll take that as a retractment of your previous post, then. OK - I was being unduly pompous. (Possibly the wine-tasting I have been attending was a factor.) Sincere apologies. JEC From dfm at ringing.org Mon Feb 6 14:22:55 2012 From: dfm at ringing.org (Don Morrison) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:22:55 -0500 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: <51860.1328525177@changeringing.co.uk> References: <51860.1328525177@changeringing.co.uk> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Graham John wrote, first quoting Philip Earis: >> Conceptually, it seems to be a march down the "proscriptive" >> rather than "descriptive" route > > I disagree. Just saying that method is regular or irregular is in no way proscribing what can be rung. We do however need clear definitions > of terminology, classification and nomenclature. Baloney. As soon as you attach a label like this it strongly affects what people ring. Lots of interesting and worthwhile things are never rung simply because of silly labels. There are huge swaths of ringers it's impossible to get to ring some dynamite Treble Bob Methods simply because their name is " Treble Bob." Until recently, Delight methods suffered a similar fate, that's probably now finally being overcome simply because we're running low on decent, new, easy, unnamed Surprise Major methods. And in the other direction, I believe almost no one would ring Lincolnshire Surprise Major frequently if it weren't one of the "Standard" eight. Many of the things that are prohibited by your proposed definition of "regular" are disliked only because we've been told for years to dislike them. If we'd been brought up without these prejudices most of us would not object to them now. I think were we starting from a slate cleaned of prejudices, most of us would probably prefer some double surprise methods to many of the 41. Even worse, your proposed defintion is primarily a case of taking a set of restrictions that produce a reasonably tidy and interesting set of 41 methods, that are a pleasant collection to try to combine, and arbitrarily extending that notion to all sorts of other places where it makes no sense at all. As has been noted it's a horrible match for odd bell methods. And its use just reinforces ill-thought-out prejudices in major. There may be reasons, such as ease of conducting or choice of name, for choosing to ring, say, Holne Surprise Major instead of Double Glasgow Surprise Major. But it would be sad to encourage folks to think the former is somehow a significantly better method than the latter. And yet that's exactly the message many take from the former being described as regular and the latter as irregular. Personally I prefer to refer to the minor methods as "the 41" or "the book methods," but if we must have something like "regular" attaching a value judgement to them, please let's not try to extend it further. The fact that the use of "regular" is dying is a good thing. -- Don Morrison "I don't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones." -- John Cage, _Silence_ From richard at ex-parrot.com Mon Feb 6 16:53:25 2012 From: richard at ex-parrot.com (Richard Smith) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:53:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: <51860.1328525177@changeringing.co.uk> References: <51860.1328525177@changeringing.co.uk> Message-ID: Graham John wrote, quoting Phil Earis: >> On a practical point of view, your proposals classify 99+% >> of rung doubles methods as irregular, indeed nearly everything >> that is rung at odd stages. This is a nice irony. > > That is why I am trying to understand the accepted use of > the term. If it has not generally been applied to odd > stages then the definition could be constrained to even > stages only. Leaving aside the point made by Phil, Rob and Don (and with which I agree) that it's not desirable to perpetuate, far less extend, the use of terms like 'regular', 'standard', 'legitimate' that somehow denigrate methods not conforming to them, there is the problem that, with the possible exception of minor, they hasn't been consistently applied at all. Even with minor, I suspect more people would use the word 'standard' rather than 'regular' to describe the 41 surprise (or the 29 treble bob, or the 30 plain, or whatever). And I rather doubt whether many people would agree with the term 'irregular' to describe a method like Fryerning Surprise; 'non-standard' perhaps, but probably not 'irregular'. So far as I can tell, today's use of the term 'regular' is just a hang-over from the '60s or earlier when the CC considered 'regular' to be synonymous with 'recognised' or 'legitimate'. Since then, the CC has stopped using the term 'regular' and has started accepting a much wider range of methods. Insofar as a straightforward definition is possible, I would suggest the definition of 'regular' you're looking for is a method that was recognised by the CC fifty years ago. Of course, that's not unambiguous because many of the CC's requirements for methods were unwritten. For example, methods with non-Plain Bob lead heads were not recognised, but there was no decision saying so. But even supposing we can come up with a satisfactory definition of 'regular', which I very much doubt, I'm pretty sure that most stages and classes will be considered separately. Four blows in one place are okay in doubles, but not in minor and above. Minor methods need to produce an extent, but major methods don't. Alliance methods are only acceptable if the treble hunts below some place and then treble-dodges above it. Double Grandsire Doubles isn't okay because they didn't like any of the possible callings. Stedman's regular because it's Stedman. And so on. What would such a definition add? If you want a way of selecting methods, far better to consider the individual properties separately. By all means allow people to exclude methods with non-Plain Bob lead ends, or with single changes, or with penultimate places above the treble, or whatever else. But I'm not sure what it adds to group them together under the name 'regular'. RAS From alan.reading at googlemail.com Mon Feb 6 17:01:21 2012 From: alan.reading at googlemail.com (Alan Reading) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:01:21 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Bristol Royal compositions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it not worth pointing out that the composition by John Warboys with the 167890 single and 65432 part end has little bell coursing orders throughout (apart from a few transitional leads when the tenors are on the front of course). I'm not denying the quality of David's composition but it contains 8 leads of the (none little-bell) 34256 coursing order in the 2nd part. I know it's not exactly a duffer course but it may offer some justification for the 167890 call. Cheers, Alan On 6 February 2012 13:23, Philip Earis wrote: > I've rung a couple of peals of Bristol Royal in the past week, each with > new compositions. > > The first composition by DJP (from > http://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/view.php?id=120852) in particular deserves > widespread attention. > > 5040 Bristol Surprise Royal > Composed by D J Pipe > 23456 V O I > 35426 - > 54326 - > 32546 - - > 24365 - - > 64352 S S > 43652 - > 65432 - - > 2 Part > > It just hits all the buttons - indeed, it is arguably the best two part > tenors-together B10 composition judged against many criteria. David's new > composition uses the 65432 part-end, the advantages of which I highlighted > in my compositions of the decade article on royal. John Warboys has a > similar composition on his website (http://website.lineone.net/~jswcomps/), > but this has a 167890 single instead of the arguably more elegant SV SI > that David uses. > > > The second peal was by James Marchbank ( > www.campanophile.com/view.aspx?136591), also using 8ths place calls: > > 5000 Bristol Royal > 1 3 4 5 7 8 9 > - > - 2 2 > - > - - - > - (8 leads) > - - - > - - > - - - > - - > s s > - - > - > > Whilst this doesn't have the same elegance of David's comp, there are some > very nice features, and the use of calls at 8,9 to flip the tenors works > well. > > I've come to the view that using 8ths place calls is by far the most > elegant solution for Bristol Royal - I don't know why so many continue to > stick with 4ths place. There seems to have been much less experimentation > with 8ths place call comps, especially those affecting the tenors (though > Alan Reading has a few existing examples similar to James' new comp - see > http://www.simonreading.dsl.pipex.com/5000%20(no6)%20Bristol%20Surprise%20Royal.htm > ). > > And given the high number of peals of B10 that are rung, that fact that > something as simple as David's new comp is seemingly previously > undiscovered is very surprising indeed. > > > > > > DISCLAIMER: > > This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of > the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright > material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person > without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please > contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully > formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the > RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this > respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any > resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot > restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a > finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or > attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening. The Royal > Society of Chemistry is a charity, registered in England and Wales, number > 207890 - Registered office: Thomas Graham House, Science Park, Milton Road, > Cambridge CB4 0WF > > _______________________________________________ > ringing-theory mailing list > ringing-theory at bellringers.net > http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net > From matthew at frye.org.uk Mon Feb 6 17:13:30 2012 From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:13:30 +0000 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: <1328513210.96936.YahooMailClassic@web87211.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <1328513210.96936.YahooMailClassic@web87211.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <288A3CA3-0DA9-4892-8C98-2C516363B3E1@frye.org.uk> On 6 Feb 2012, at 07:26, Alex Hunt wrote: > Criteria 5 & 6 might benefit from an exception for lead heads. > > Plain Bob at odd stages should be saved from being "irregular!. Well, I think this (and the rest of the thread) shows the utter futility of attempting to set in stone what is "regular". It also shows the futility of trying to set a single set of rules (for anything) that apply equally well across many stages/types of method. Plain bob triples is *obviously* a regular method, but I don't think many would think of surprise minor methods with 4 blows in one position as regular. I think you are really best describing precisely what you mean by regular each time you use it unless it is obvious from context, eg "41 regular surprise minor". MF From graham at changeringing.co.uk Mon Feb 6 17:16:25 2012 From: graham at changeringing.co.uk (Graham John) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:16:25 +0000 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method Message-ID: <40506.1328548585@changeringing.co.uk> Don wrote: > Many of the things that are prohibited by your > proposed definition of "regular"... Hang on! I am neither prohibiting anything, nor defining anything new here. I can't understand why anyone would choose to ring something because it is deemed 'regular' unless they were already disposed to ring such methods. However, given the degree of emotion expressed on the topic, and the difficulty of identifying a suitable definition, I shall content myself with providing the underlying filters that avoid the need to use the word 'regular', such as plain bob leadhead, palindromic, penultimate place, single change, four blows plus a few additional ones, such as adjacent internal places. Graham BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } From Simon.Gay at glasgow.ac.uk Mon Feb 6 17:33:45 2012 From: Simon.Gay at glasgow.ac.uk (Simon J. Gay) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:33:45 +0000 Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method In-Reply-To: <288A3CA3-0DA9-4892-8C98-2C516363B3E1@frye.org.uk> References: <1328513210.96936.YahooMailClassic@web87211.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <288A3CA3-0DA9-4892-8C98-2C516363B3E1@frye.org.uk> Message-ID: I think the main use I would make of the term "regular" would be in the phrase "regular lead ends", meaning Plain Bob lead ends. It does seem that methods with non-regular lead ends are less favoured, but I think this is largely for the following practical reasons: - With non-regular lead ends, you don't have the familiar (from regular lead ends) system for relating the coursing order to the lead end, so for a particular non-regular lead end, the conductor would have to learn the relevant system; this makes it more difficult to work out which place bells people should be ringing in the event of a mistake. - Methods with non-regular lead ends don't have their falseness groups catalogued according to the standard system, which makes it difficult to find off-the-shelf compositions. - The place bell order has to be learnt explicitly; it won't be one of the familiar orders arising from regular lead ends. These points are probably of little concern to a composer/conductor who is going to (1) design a method and produce a composition to get the best from it (2) ring with a band who don't need many familiar features in order to learn methods, and are able to ring them without needing to be put right. So I would advocate using "regular" *only* in the phrase "regular lead ends", and not talking about "regular methods" at all; certainly not describing particular structural features such as single changes, four blows in one place etc. as "irregular". Simon Gay On 6 Feb 2012, at 17:13, Matthew Frye wrote: > > On 6 Feb 2012, at 07:26, Alex Hunt wrote: >> Criteria 5 & 6 might benefit from an exception for lead heads. >> >> Plain Bob at odd stages should be saved from being "irregular!. > > Well, I think this (and the rest of the thread) shows the utter futility of attempting to set in stone what is "regular". It also shows the futility of trying to set a single set of rules (for anything) that apply equally well across many stages/types of method. > Plain bob triples is *obviously* a regular method, but I don't think many would think of surprise minor methods with 4 blows in one position as regular. > > I think you are really best describing precisely what you mean by regular each time you use it unless it is obvious from context, eg "41 regular surprise minor". > > MF > _______________________________________________ > ringing-theory mailing list > ringing-theory at bellringers.net > http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401 From graham at changeringing.co.uk Tue Feb 7 23:53:16 2012 From: graham at changeringing.co.uk (Graham John) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:53:16 -0000 Subject: [r-t] Bristol Royal compositions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003601cce5f3$aa61ede0$ff25c9a0$@changeringing.co.uk> PJE wrote: > I've come to the view that using 8ths place calls is by far the most > elegant solution for Bristol Royal - I don't know why so many continue > to stick with 4ths place. Adding 6ths place bobs before to 4ths place calls can also neatly join the musical courses. Note the partend of the two-part:-) Graham 5120 Bristol Surprise Royal by Graham A C John 23456 B M W H --------------------- (53624) -s s (54263) 3 - (34562) 1 - (65243) - - 65432 1 - --------------------- 2 part, Before = 16 Bob 10 56s & 10 65s 22 2345s including 2 12345s 41 3456s including 18 23456s 41 5432s including 18 65432s 22 6543s including 9 76543s 5120 Bristol Surprise Royal by Graham A C John 23456 B M W H --------------------- 64235 4 - (63425) 3 - - (53624) 1 - (25634) 5 - (42635) 1 - - 23456 1 --------------------- Before = 16 Bob 8 56s & 8 65s 44 3456s including 18 23456s 44 5432s including 18 65432s 22 6543s including 7 76543s From robin at robinw.org.uk Wed Feb 8 10:06:42 2012 From: robin at robinw.org.uk (Robin Woolley) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:06:42 -0000 Subject: [r-t] regularity Message-ID: <005501cce649$7cf95d60$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> I agree with Simon Gay - I use 'regular' to mean a method with plain-bob lead-heads. Why are non-plain-bob lead-heads irregular in my book? For one reason taking Minor as an example, 2nds place and 6ths place irregular methods have different lead-ends sets: 2nds place: {63542, 56423, 32654, 45236} 6ths place: {25634, 43265, 56423, 64352} A consequence of this is that the lead-ends of plain bob are 'regular' also. 'regular' can have several meanings, of course. 'usual' is probably closest. (CUP on-line) Best wishes Robin From Simon.Gay at glasgow.ac.uk Wed Feb 8 13:28:14 2012 From: Simon.Gay at glasgow.ac.uk (Simon J. Gay) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:28:14 +0000 Subject: [r-t] regularity In-Reply-To: <005501cce649$7cf95d60$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> References: <005501cce649$7cf95d60$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> Message-ID: <77FCCA74-0015-4D29-A9DD-9133DF0A29BA@dcs.gla.ac.uk> Rephrasing this slightly: The Plain Bob lead heads are the only set L of lead heads such that if a 2nds place method has lead heads L then its nths place version also has lead heads L. I'm not sure whether I knew that explicitly. It's quite easy to see: for example, consider a 2nds place minor method and think about the last lead of the course, which produces 123456 as the final lead head. Ringing a 6ths place lead end instead of 2nds place would produce 142635, which generates the set of Plain Bob lead heads. So if the 6ths place version is to have the same lead heads as the 2nds place version, then that set of lead heads must be the Plain Bob lead heads. It seems more or less equivalent to the observation that the lead heads and lead ends of Plain Bob, with the treble removed, form plain hunting. Simon On 8 Feb 2012, at 10:06, Robin Woolley wrote: > I agree with Simon Gay - I use 'regular' to mean a method with plain-bob > lead-heads. > > Why are non-plain-bob lead-heads irregular in my book? For one reason > taking Minor as an example, 2nds place and 6ths place irregular methods have > different lead-ends sets: > > 2nds place: {63542, 56423, 32654, 45236} > 6ths place: {25634, 43265, 56423, 64352} > > A consequence of this is that the lead-ends of plain bob are 'regular' also. > > 'regular' can have several meanings, of course. 'usual' is probably closest. > (CUP on-line) > > Best wishes > Robin > > > > _______________________________________________ > ringing-theory mailing list > ringing-theory at bellringers.net > http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401 From dfm at ringing.org Wed Feb 8 13:45:03 2012 From: dfm at ringing.org (Don Morrison) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:45:03 -0500 Subject: [r-t] regularity In-Reply-To: <005501cce649$7cf95d60$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> References: <005501cce649$7cf95d60$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Robin Woolley wrote: > I use 'regular' to mean a method with plain-bob > lead-heads. I presume you really mean "Plain Bob lead heads AND lead ends"? The following asymmetric surprise major method, a slight fiddle on Ashtead, has Plain Bob lead heads, but if I correctly understand your intention in using the word, I doubt you'd consider it "regular": x5x6x56x36x4x3x4x7x4x3x34x36x56x6x5x6 (lh 17856342) -- Don Morrison "Am I incapable of truth because I don't know what it is? Whatever truth may be, it's not the opposite of lie." -- Ned Rorem, _A Ned Rorem Reader_ From robin at robinw.org.uk Thu Feb 9 12:33:22 2012 From: robin at robinw.org.uk (Robin Woolley) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:33:22 -0000 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9 References: Message-ID: <000601cce727$0573d5c0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> Hi All Don wrote "I presume you really mean "Plain Bob lead heads AND lead ends"? You can't have one without the other. As regards the Ashtead variation - no I would not think of it as regular.. Thinking about this in terms of the CUP 'usual' definition - non-2nds or nths lead-heads in even bell ringing is not usual. Without looking at it further, the 4ths place variation must have a different lead-end from the 6ths place one which is not a property *I* associate with regularity. At least, the people I generally ring with are always a little happier if I say the new method I want them to learn is regular. Best wishes Robin From dfm at ringing.org Thu Feb 9 12:37:41 2012 From: dfm at ringing.org (Don Morrison) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:37:41 -0500 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Robin Woolley wrote: > Don wrote "I presume you really mean "Plain Bob lead heads AND lead ends"? > You can't have one without the other. I'm confused. Doesn't that Ashtead variation I sent have Plain Bob lead heads, but NON-Plain Bob lead ends? -- Don Morrison "I was brought up in the violin factory, and, at times, when I had a fight with my brothers and sisters, we would hit one another with violins." -- Shinichi Suzuki, _Nurtured by Love_, tr Waltraud Susuzki From alan.reading at googlemail.com Thu Feb 9 12:41:22 2012 From: alan.reading at googlemail.com (Alan Reading) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:41:22 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9 February 2012 12:37, Don Morrison wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Robin Woolley wrote: > > Don wrote "I presume you really mean "Plain Bob lead heads AND lead > ends"? > > You can't have one without the other. > > I'm confused. Doesn't that Ashtead variation I sent have Plain Bob > lead heads, but NON-Plain Bob lead ends? > Thats what I was thinking! I suppose you can't have one without the other if the method is conventionally symmetrical - but I didn't think that was really the point. > > > > -- > Don Morrison > "I was brought up in the violin factory, and, at times, when I had a > fight with my brothers and sisters, we would hit one another with > violins." > -- Shinichi Suzuki, _Nurtured by Love_, tr Waltraud Susuzki > > _______________________________________________ > ringing-theory mailing list > ringing-theory at bellringers.net > http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net > From peter.king at imperial.ac.uk Thu Feb 9 14:31:17 2012 From: peter.king at imperial.ac.uk (King, Peter R) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:31:17 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think you can't have one without the other if you have 12 or 1n lead ends. The example was 16 (or 1 n-2) > -----Original Message----- > From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net [mailto:ringing-theory- > bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of Alan Reading > Sent: 09 February 2012 12:41 > To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net > Subject: Re: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory > Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) > > On 9 February 2012 12:37, Don Morrison wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Robin Woolley > wrote: > > > Don wrote "I presume you really mean "Plain Bob lead heads AND lead > > ends"? > > > You can't have one without the other. > > > > I'm confused. Doesn't that Ashtead variation I sent have Plain Bob > > lead heads, but NON-Plain Bob lead ends? > > > > Thats what I was thinking! > I suppose you can't have one without the other if the method is > conventionally symmetrical - but I didn't think that was really the > point. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Don Morrison > > "I was brought up in the violin factory, and, at times, when I had a > > fight with my brothers and sisters, we would hit one another with > > violins." > > -- Shinichi Suzuki, _Nurtured by Love_, tr Waltraud Susuzki > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ringing-theory mailing list > > ringing-theory at bellringers.net > > http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing- > theory_bellringers.net > > > _______________________________________________ > ringing-theory mailing list > ringing-theory at bellringers.net > http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net From dfm at ringing.org Thu Feb 9 14:56:55 2012 From: dfm at ringing.org (Don Morrison) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:56:55 -0500 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:31 AM, King, Peter R wrote: > I think you can't have one without the other if you have 12 or 1n lead ends. Yes, at even stages, for single hunt methods, I believe a) Plain Bob lead heads and either place notation 12 or 1n across the lead end and b) Plain Bob lead heads and lead ends are equivalent. However, I believe Robin did not explicitly state the second half of critera (a). And, in any case, I think criteria (b) may be more useful, as they seem more succinct, and work for odd stages, too. -- Don Morrison "I like large parties. They're so intimate. At small parties there isn't any privacy." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald, _The Great Gatsby_ From alan.reading at googlemail.com Thu Feb 9 15:09:53 2012 From: alan.reading at googlemail.com (Alan Reading) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:09:53 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And at even stages I believe Plain Bob lead heads + conventional symmetry implies place notation 12 or 1n across the lead end. On 9 February 2012 14:56, Don Morrison wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:31 AM, King, Peter R > wrote: > > I think you can't have one without the other if you have 12 or 1n lead > ends. > > Yes, at even stages, for single hunt methods, I believe > > a) Plain Bob lead heads and either place notation 12 or 1n across the > lead end > > and > > b) Plain Bob lead heads and lead ends > > are equivalent. However, I believe Robin did not explicitly state the > second half of critera (a). And, in any case, I think criteria (b) may > be more useful, as they seem more succinct, and work for odd stages, > too. > > > > -- > Don Morrison > "I like large parties. They're so intimate. At small parties there > isn't any privacy." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald, _The Great Gatsby_ > > _______________________________________________ > ringing-theory mailing list > ringing-theory at bellringers.net > http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net > From pabs at cantab.net Thu Feb 9 15:14:41 2012 From: pabs at cantab.net (Philip Saddleton) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:14:41 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F33E2E1.4050500@cantab.net> or more succinctly c) Plain Bob lead ends Philip Don Morrison said on 09/02/2012 14:56: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:31 AM, King, Peter R wrote: >> I think you can't have one without the other if you have 12 or 1n lead ends. > > Yes, at even stages, for single hunt methods, I believe > > a) Plain Bob lead heads and either place notation 12 or 1n across the > lead end > > and > > b) Plain Bob lead heads and lead ends > > are equivalent. However, I believe Robin did not explicitly state the > second half of critera (a). And, in any case, I think criteria (b) may > be more useful, as they seem more succinct, and work for odd stages, > too. > > > From edward.w.martin at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 15:49:58 2012 From: edward.w.martin at gmail.com (edward martin) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:49:58 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In even bell methods, if the lead block is symmetrical about the treble then the lead heads and lead ends must be in plain bob group (ie the 2-3-4-5-6 etc will be in a plain hunt relationship because of the half-lead pivot bell and its specific conjugate pairs ) On 8 bells these are 2 ; 3x4 5x6 7x8 4 : 2x6 3x8 5x7 etc Also, given the same half-lead pivots, an assymetric lead block can also produce plain bob leads if Court places are made e.g: Ring plain bob for half-lead rows 86745231 87654321 then pn x 18 x 38 x 14 x gives 15372846 then either 2nds or 8ths for 15738264 or 13527486 Similarly in twin hunt triples methods the two pivot points are when 1,2 cross in 1-2 and in 6-7 at both these points there will be two rows of plain hunt on the 5 'working bells' If the lead block is symmetric then the 5 bells will be in the same coursing order (& give same lead heads as occur in Grandsire, St Clements etc Calgary Bob Triples is assymetric with PN 3 1 7 1 7 1 7 for 6473521 and 6745312 but then 7 3 7 1 5 1 gives 1275634 I suppose that if we must define regular methods then they would have to have the working bells be in the same coursing order through lead-end lead-head AND be symmetric about the path of the treble Eddie From matthew at frye.org.uk Thu Feb 9 16:52:57 2012 From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:52:57 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5152479B-5AB3-4E56-BE29-ABFAB2539213@frye.org.uk> On 9 Feb 2012, at 15:49, edward martin wrote: > In even bell methods, if the lead block is symmetrical about the > treble then the lead heads and lead ends must be in plain bob group Not what you mean, surely? eg King Edward S Minor (Cambridge with 36 half lead) is perfectly symmetrical but first lead end is 156423. What you say is only true if the correct pairs of bells you then identify actually *do* swap, but this is certainly not required. I'm not sure what your later point is about twin-hunt triples methods. What you describe certainly is a way of looking at *some* methods with the correct lead ends, but it probably only covers quite a small minority of them. MF From peter.king at imperial.ac.uk Thu Feb 9 18:45:14 2012 From: peter.king at imperial.ac.uk (King, Peter R) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:45:14 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: <4F33E2E1.4050500@cantab.net> References: , <4F33E2E1.4050500@cantab.net> Message-ID: Doesn't Philips comment answer it? For single hunt methods on even or odd stages a plain bob lead end must have a plain bob lead head with place notation 12 or 1n (or 12n or 1 for odd stages). Any other place notation could be considered a bobbed lead of a method with said pn (I know that the definition of calls is considered to be independent of the definition of the method but would anyone really think that Ebor is anything other than Cambridge with a bob at the lead end?). The original post from Graham was whether or not the term regular was useful. Given the properties of the plain bob lead end/heads then I think it is. In the same way that separating out cyclic methods (which is on the basis of the lead heads) is useful. I suspect that part of the problem is that the complementary term, "irregular" is somewhat pejorative in the way that "non-cyclic" isn't. Perhaps there is a more neutral term (I certainly don't like "standard" the implication being that other methods are "sub standard"). I don't think this a value judgement it is simply a way of classifying methods based on one element of their structure which is useful to ringers, conductors and composers. Given that "regular" methods form a useful (in my opinion) set as does cyclic, are there any other lead end/head sets that are useful in any way? ________________________________________ From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net [ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] on behalf of Philip Saddleton [pabs at cantab.net] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 3:14 PM To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net Subject: Re: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) or more succinctly c) Plain Bob lead ends Philip Don Morrison said on 09/02/2012 14:56: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:31 AM, King, Peter R wrote: >> I think you can't have one without the other if you have 12 or 1n lead ends. > > Yes, at even stages, for single hunt methods, I believe > > a) Plain Bob lead heads and either place notation 12 or 1n across the > lead end > > and > > b) Plain Bob lead heads and lead ends > > are equivalent. However, I believe Robin did not explicitly state the > second half of critera (a). And, in any case, I think criteria (b) may > be more useful, as they seem more succinct, and work for odd stages, > too. > > > _______________________________________________ ringing-theory mailing list ringing-theory at bellringers.net http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net From dfm at ringing.org Thu Feb 9 20:26:24 2012 From: dfm at ringing.org (Don Morrison) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:26:24 -0500 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: References: <4F33E2E1.4050500@cantab.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:45 PM, King, Peter R wrote: > For single hunt methods on even or odd stages a plain bob lead end must have a plain bob lead head with place notation 12 or 1n (or 12n or 1 for odd stages). Careful. I think you mean *all* of its lead ends being Plain Bob (not "a Plain Bob lead end") imply its lead heads are Plain Bob. It's easy to have a method with only some of its lead ends Plain Bob, but without any of its non-rounds lead heads being Plain Bob. For example, any method without Plain Bob lead heads, but a seconds place lead end, does have at least one Plain Bob lead end. Less trivial examples are also possible, I believe. I believe Philip's point was that the only way to have the complete set of lead ends of a method be the same as those of Plain Bob at the same stage, is if the set of lead heads are the same as those of Plain Bob, too. I presume he will correct me if I am mistaken. -- Don Morrison "Ironically, Poets are popularly supposed to treat of matters ethereally remote from the day-to-day concerns of the man in the street. In reality, they bring us down _to_ Reality -- and with a bump." -- Christopher Palmer, notes on Britten's _War Requiem_ From pabs at cantab.net Thu Feb 9 20:54:04 2012 From: pabs at cantab.net (Philip Saddleton) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:54:04 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: References: <4F33E2E1.4050500@cantab.net> Message-ID: <4F34326C.9010608@cantab.net> Correct. If you are looking for a sufficient condition that does not involve the complete set, it is that there are two Plain Bob lead ends with the transposition between them being of order n-1 (which is trivially true if n-1 is prime). [the transposition can be used to define a coursing order, and two methods with the same coursing order must have the same set of lead heads] Philip Don Morrison said on 09/02/2012 20:26: > I believe Philip's point was that the only way to have the complete > set of lead ends of a method be the same as those of Plain Bob at the > same stage, is if the set of lead heads are the same as those of Plain > Bob, too. I presume he will correct me if I am mistaken. From peter.king at imperial.ac.uk Thu Feb 9 21:07:18 2012 From: peter.king at imperial.ac.uk (King, Peter R) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:07:18 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: References: <4F33E2E1.4050500@cantab.net> , Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:45 PM, King, Peter R wrote: > For single hunt methods on even or odd stages a plain bob lead end must have a plain bob lead head with place notation 12 or 1n (or 12n or 1 for odd stages). Careful. I think you mean *all* of its lead ends being Plain Bob (not "a Plain Bob lead end") imply its lead heads are Plain Bob. Yes sorry meant all lead ends I was being sloppy being stuck on a freezing platformwaiting for a non-existant train! From edward.w.martin at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 22:12:33 2012 From: edward.w.martin at gmail.com (edward martin) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 22:12:33 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: <5152479B-5AB3-4E56-BE29-ABFAB2539213@frye.org.uk> References: <5152479B-5AB3-4E56-BE29-ABFAB2539213@frye.org.uk> Message-ID: On 9 February 2012 16:52, Matthew Frye wrote: > > On 9 Feb 2012, at 15:49, edward martin wrote: >> In even bell methods, if the lead block is symmetrical about the >> treble then the lead heads and lead ends must be in plain bob group > > Not what you mean, surely? eg King Edward S Minor (Cambridge with 36 half lead) is perfectly symmetrical but first lead end is 156423. What you say is only true if the correct pairs of bells you then identify actually *do* swap, but this is certainly not required. Perhaps you actually didn't read what I said: (It was poorly phrased but I DID say "because of the half-lead pivot bell and its specific conjugate pairs " ie "In even bell methods, if the lead block is symmetrical about the treble then the lead heads and lead ends must be in plain bob group (ie the 2-3-4-5-6 etc will be in a plain hunt relationship because of the half-lead pivot bell and its specific conjugate pairs ) On 8 bells these are 2 ; 3x4 5x6 7x8 4 : 2x6 3x8 5x7 etc" > > I'm not sure what your later point is about twin-hunt triples methods. What you describe certainly is a way of looking at *some* methods with the correct lead ends, but it probably only covers quite a small minority of them. Please be assured that out of the 66 Twin-hunt Triples methods with five leads to a plain course, 24 of them are palindromic ;and in each of these, because the correct pivot has its specific conjugate pairs, 11 of them have Grandsire type leads For this to happen the pivots and conj. pairs must be 3; 4x5; 6x7 or 4; 6x3; 7x5 or 6; 7x4; 5x3 or 7; 5x6; 3x4 or 5; 3x7; 4x6 These 11 pallindromic methods have PN: 3.1.5.1.7.1. 7. 1.7.1.7.1. 5.1. 275634 = Single Oxford Bob 3.1.5.1.7.3. 7. 1.7.3.7.1. 5.1. 267453 = Hereward Bob 3.1.5.1.7.3. 7. 5.7.3.7.1. 5.1. 246375 = Double Oxford Bob 3.1.7.1.7.1. 7. 1.7.1.7.1. 7.1. 253746 = Grandsire 3.1.7.1.7.1. 7. 5.7.1.7.1. 7.1. 275634 = Double Grandsire 3.1.7.1.7.3. 7. 3.7.3.7.1. 7.1. 246375 = St. Clement?s College Bob 7.1.5.1.7.1. 7. 1.7.1.7.1. 5.1. 253746 = Single Court Bob 7.1.5.1.7.3. 7. 1.7.3.7.1. 5.1. 275634 = Double Court Bob 7.1.5.1.7.3. 7. 5.7.3.7.1. 5.1. 267453 = London Bob 7.1.7.1.7.1. 7. 5.7.1.7.1. 7.1. 253746 = Reverse Grandsire 7.1.7.1.7.3. 7. 3.7.3.7.1. 7.1. 267453 = College Bob Of the remaining 42 non-pallindromic Twin Hunt Triples methods, 10 of them have this same set of leads 3.1.5.1.7.3. 7. 1.7.1.7.1. 7.1. 275634 = (Yorkshire Court? Not yet named) 3.1.5.1.7.3. 7. 5.7.1.7.1. 7.1. 267453 = Not yet named 3.1.7.1.7.1. 7. 1.7.3.7.1. 5.1. 275634 = Calvary Bob 3.1.7.1.7.1. 7. 5.7.3.7.1. 5.1. 267453 = Not yet named 5.1.5.1.7.3. 7. 1.7.1.7.1. 5.1. 275634 = Not yet named 5.1.7.1.7.1. 7. 5.7.1.7.1. 5.1. 275634 = Not yet named 7.1.5.1.7.3. 7. 1.7.1.7.1. 7.1. 253746 = Not yet named 7.1.5.1.7.3. 7. 5.7.1.7.1. 7.1. 275634 = Not yet named 7.1.7.1.7.1. 7. 1.7.3.7.1. 5.1. 253746 = Not yet named 7.1.7.1.7.1. 7. 5.7.3.7.1. 5.1. 275634 = Not yet named Eddie From matthew at frye.org.uk Fri Feb 10 00:20:28 2012 From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:20:28 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: References: <5152479B-5AB3-4E56-BE29-ABFAB2539213@frye.org.uk> Message-ID: <57135B34-024E-424F-9210-AC4D38E29B9D@frye.org.uk> On 9 Feb 2012, at 22:12, edward martin wrote: > On 9 February 2012 16:52, Matthew Frye wrote: >> >> On 9 Feb 2012, at 15:49, edward martin wrote: >>> In even bell methods, if the lead block is symmetrical about the >>> treble then the lead heads and lead ends must be in plain bob group >> >> Not what you mean, surely? eg King Edward S Minor (Cambridge with 36 half lead) is perfectly symmetrical but first lead end is 156423. What you say is only true if the correct pairs of bells you then identify actually *do* swap, but this is certainly not required. > > Perhaps you actually didn't read what I said: (It was poorly phrased > but I DID say "because of the half-lead pivot bell and its specific > conjugate pairs " ie > "In even bell methods, if the lead block is symmetrical about the > treble then the lead heads and lead ends must be in plain bob group > (ie the 2-3-4-5-6 etc will be in a plain hunt relationship because of > the half-lead pivot bell and its specific conjugate pairs ) > On 8 bells these are > 2 ; 3x4 5x6 7x8 > 4 : 2x6 3x8 5x7 etc" I very much did read what you said, did you? I interpret what you wrote as saying that ALL palindromic methods give pb lead ends, BECAUSE they have the correct bells swapping at the half lead. This should be IF they have the correct bells swapping at the half lead THEN they will give pb lead ends. I think there's a similar confusion RE your twin-hunt triples. MF From robin at robinw.org.uk Fri Feb 10 07:22:51 2012 From: robin at robinw.org.uk (Robin Woolley) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:22:51 -0000 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 References: Message-ID: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> Gosh! Never in the field of human campanology has so much verbiage been generated by just one word! I do wish to pick up on something Eddie Martin said: "I suppose that if we must define regular methods then they would have to have the working bells be in the same coursing order through lead-end lead-head AND be symmetric about the path of the treble". I consider Bishopthorpe Bob Minor to be regular. Don said "However, I believe Robin did not explicitly state the second half of criteria (a)." I thought I had when I said "A consequence of this is that the lead-ends of plain bob are 'regular' also". Best wishes Robin From edward.w.martin at gmail.com Fri Feb 10 07:34:54 2012 From: edward.w.martin at gmail.com (edward martin) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:34:54 +0000 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> Message-ID: On 10 February 2012 07:22, Robin Woolley wrote: > I consider Bishopthorpe Bob Minor to be regular. Why? From bex280 at hotmail.com Fri Feb 10 07:43:31 2012 From: bex280 at hotmail.com (Stephen Beckingham) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:43:31 +0000 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: , <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58>, Message-ID: > On 10 February 2012 07:22, Robin Woolley wrote: > > I consider Bishopthorpe Bob Minor to be regular. I'd agree. I would term it a regular asymmetric method. In my opinion the term "regular" is now most commonly used to describe the fact that a method has "plain Bob" lead ends. Other things, such as no penultimate places other than at half-lead are considered "desirable" by some people, but I would still term the method "regular". SJB From edward.w.martin at gmail.com Fri Feb 10 08:15:13 2012 From: edward.w.martin at gmail.com (edward martin) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:15:13 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: <57135B34-024E-424F-9210-AC4D38E29B9D@frye.org.uk> References: <5152479B-5AB3-4E56-BE29-ABFAB2539213@frye.org.uk> <57135B34-024E-424F-9210-AC4D38E29B9D@frye.org.uk> Message-ID: On 10 February 2012 00:20, Matthew Frye wrote: > > I very much did read what you said, did you? > I interpret what you wrote as saying that ALL palindromic methods give pb lead ends, BECAUSE they have the correct bells swapping at the half lead. This should be IF they have the correct bells swapping at the half lead THEN they will give pb lead ends. I agree that had I better phrased it my intention was to convey that at the half-lead, if one notes the pivot bell and the pairs of bells that switch places AND if the method is palindromic about the path of the treble, then a particular set of lead Heads & lead ends is inevitable For this set to be as in Plain Bob, the working bells must be in their plain hunt coursing order This relationship can be seen if you write out plain hunt on 2-3-4-5-6 noting each bell as it makes a place and the particular pairs that switch places. 2; 3x4; 5x6 4; 2x6; 3x5 6; 4x5; 2x3 5; 6x3; 4x2 3; 5x2; 6x4 > > I think there's a similar confusion RE your twin-hunt triples. > Believe it or believe it not, a similar situation DOES exist with twin hunt methods where the pivot points are when the 1,2 cross in 1-2 and in 6-7 (in triples) 8-9 (in Caters) etc I hope that this is not too confusing but it is a demonstrable fact that some asymmetric even-bell methods can still have Plain Bob lead ends & lead heads; Likewise some asymmetric twin-hunt methods can still have Grandsire type leads Therefore, to be considered 'regular' it does not seem to be enough to say that an even bell method must have plain bob leads nor that a twin hunt method must have Grandsire leads because these can be achieved with either palindromic or asymmetric lead blocks. This is all that I was admittedly struggling to try to get across...Does that help? Eddie From peter.king at imperial.ac.uk Fri Feb 10 08:26:22 2012 From: peter.king at imperial.ac.uk (King, Peter R) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:26:22 +0000 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: , <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58>, , Message-ID: >I'd agree. I would term it a regular asymmetric method. In my opinion the term "regular" is now most commonly >used to describe the fact that a method has "plain Bob" lead ends. For what it is worth that is how Method Master describes it - a regular assymetric method. I would also agree that the symmetry and lead ends are separate issues. These are also not value judgements about methods but simply facts about their structure. Whether it is useful to define lots of different characteristics of methods is debateable but I would have thought that knowing what kind of symmetry a method has and what kind of lead end groups it belongs to are sufficiently useful to use specific terms for them. From edward.w.martin at gmail.com Fri Feb 10 09:23:46 2012 From: edward.w.martin at gmail.com (edward martin) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:23:46 +0000 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> Message-ID: On 10 February 2012 07:43, Stephen Beckingham wrote: > >> On 10 February 2012 07:22, Robin Woolley wrote: >> > ?I consider Bishopthorpe Bob Minor to be regular. > > I'd agree. I would term it a regular asymmetric method. In my opinion the term "regular" is now most commonly used to describe the fact that a method has "plain Bob" lead ends. Other things, such as no penultimate places other than at half-lead are considered "desirable" by some people, but I would still term the method "regular". > SJB The problem that I have with this is that if the average Joe wanted to call a 720 of Bishopthorpe Bob Minor, seeing that it has PB leadings and being told that it is a 'regular asymmetric method' might not realise that calling the standard 720 with its bobs at WHW and a single half-way & end, contains only 702 true changes Eddie From peter.king at imperial.ac.uk Fri Feb 10 09:55:57 2012 From: peter.king at imperial.ac.uk (King, Peter R) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:55:57 +0000 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> , Message-ID: Isn't Bishopthorpe half lead spliced Buxton and Childwall. That might alert someone to potential problems. mAlso calling it an assymetric regular method might help as the standard calling is only guaranteed for symmetric regular methods (I hope that's correct otherwise I shall receive a torrent of corrections!) ________________________________________ From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net [ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] on behalf of edward martin [edward.w.martin at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 9:23 AM To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net Subject: Re: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 On 10 February 2012 07:43, Stephen Beckingham wrote: > >> On 10 February 2012 07:22, Robin Woolley wrote: >> > I consider Bishopthorpe Bob Minor to be regular. > > I'd agree. I would term it a regular asymmetric method. In my opinion the term "regular" is now most commonly used to describe the fact that a method has "plain Bob" lead ends. Other things, such as no penultimate places other than at half-lead are considered "desirable" by some people, but I would still term the method "regular". > SJB The problem that I have with this is that if the average Joe wanted to call a 720 of Bishopthorpe Bob Minor, seeing that it has PB leadings and being told that it is a 'regular asymmetric method' might not realise that calling the standard 720 with its bobs at WHW and a single half-way & end, contains only 702 true changes Eddie _______________________________________________ ringing-theory mailing list ringing-theory at bellringers.net http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net From edward.w.martin at gmail.com Fri Feb 10 10:20:16 2012 From: edward.w.martin at gmail.com (edward martin) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:20:16 +0000 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> Message-ID: On 10 February 2012 09:55, King, Peter R wrote: > calling it an assymetric regular method ?might help as the standard calling is only guaranteed for symmetric regular methods > ________________________________________ It's quite a while back now, but I think that this thread started by someone asking how does one define a 'regular' method? I don't know where or by whom the standard calling is only guaranteed for symmetric regular methods (which of course begs the question what is a regular method? ) but I believe that the standard 720 can be successfully applied to any Treble dominated Minor method (plain or treble bob) whose lead block is symmetric, it doesn't matter whether the plain course has Plain Bob leadings or not. If this is indeed the case, then it would seem to me that for Minor methods, the primary condition of a 'regular' method would have to be that its lead block is symmetric. Eddie From matthew at frye.org.uk Fri Feb 10 12:16:13 2012 From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:16:13 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Plain Bob lead heads/ends (was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9) In-Reply-To: References: <5152479B-5AB3-4E56-BE29-ABFAB2539213@frye.org.uk> <57135B34-024E-424F-9210-AC4D38E29B9D@frye.org.uk> Message-ID: <7F62E90D-6B57-43EF-A406-5200D0276CBE@frye.org.uk> On 10 Feb 2012, at 08:15, edward martin wrote: > On 10 February 2012 00:20, Matthew Frye wrote: >> >> I very much did read what you said, did you? >> I interpret what you wrote as saying that ALL palindromic methods give pb lead ends, BECAUSE they have the correct bells swapping at the half lead. This should be IF they have the correct bells swapping at the half lead THEN they will give pb lead ends. > > I agree that had I better phrased it my intention was to convey that > at the half-lead, if one notes the pivot bell and the pairs of bells > that switch places AND if the method is palindromic about the path of > the treble, then a particular set of lead Heads & lead ends is > inevitable For this set to be as in Plain Bob, the working bells must > be in their plain hunt coursing order I still think I prefer my phrasing to yours, but we do seem to be agreeing! Slightly reluctant to quibble any more terminology, but I'm not particularly happy about the use of the phrase "coursing order" in this context as it implies (to me) a greater relationship than just the pairs of bells swapping (ie, where the pair are relative to eachother). eg compare Beverley & Cambridge, I would say each has a different apparent coursing order at the half lead, but still same pivot and pairs swapping. > Believe it or believe it not, a similar situation DOES exist with twin > hunt methods where the pivot points are when the 1,2 cross in 1-2 and > in 6-7 (in triples) 8-9 (in Caters) etc > > I hope that this is not too confusing but it is a demonstrable fact > that some asymmetric even-bell methods can still have Plain Bob lead > ends & lead heads; > Likewise some asymmetric twin-hunt methods can still have Grandsire type leads I am well aware of basic method construction... > Therefore, to be considered 'regular' it does not seem to be enough to > say that an even bell method must have plain bob leads nor that a twin > hunt method must have Grandsire leads because these can be achieved > with either palindromic or asymmetric lead blocks. Well, yes. I thought this was implicit in much of the earlier discussion. MF From matthew at frye.org.uk Fri Feb 10 12:25:36 2012 From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:25:36 +0000 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> Message-ID: <7A1EB8F6-8E19-48F2-99F1-B273F426EE5A@frye.org.uk> On 10 Feb 2012, at 10:20, edward martin wrote: > I don't know where or by whom the standard calling is only guaranteed > for symmetric regular methods (which of course begs the question what > is a regular method? ) but I believe that the standard 720 can be > successfully applied to any Treble dominated Minor method (plain or > treble bob) whose lead block is symmetric, it doesn't matter whether > the plain course has Plain Bob leadings or not. There are internal falseness issues with the standard 720 for treble bob methods with single changes in the wrong place. I also might want to take some time to convince myself that it works for *all* lead end orders. On 10 Feb 2012, at 10:20, edward martin wrote: > If this is indeed the > case, then it would seem to me that for Minor methods, the primary > condition of a 'regular' method would have to be that its lead block > is symmetric. So are you suggesting a new definition of "regular" to be (for minor at least) "produces a 720 with a standard composition"? MF From peter.king at imperial.ac.uk Fri Feb 10 12:28:26 2012 From: peter.king at imperial.ac.uk (King, Peter R) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:28:26 +0000 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> , Message-ID: OK I stand corrected. However, terms like symmetric, having plain bob lead ends are unambiguous. Defined the conventionally "irregular" is largely useless. If I'm told a method is irregular I don't know which criterion (criteria) it fails, so I am no better off. I think it is useful to know whether a method has plain bob lead ends or not and think it would be useful to have a term that expresses that. Regular may not be appropriate because it carries too much baggage, but it works for me. ________________________________________ From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net [ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] on behalf of edward martin [edward.w.martin at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:20 AM To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net Subject: Re: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 On 10 February 2012 09:55, King, Peter R wrote: > calling it an assymetric regular method might help as the standard calling is only guaranteed for symmetric regular methods > ________________________________________ It's quite a while back now, but I think that this thread started by someone asking how does one define a 'regular' method? I don't know where or by whom the standard calling is only guaranteed for symmetric regular methods (which of course begs the question what is a regular method? ) but I believe that the standard 720 can be successfully applied to any Treble dominated Minor method (plain or treble bob) whose lead block is symmetric, it doesn't matter whether the plain course has Plain Bob leadings or not. If this is indeed the case, then it would seem to me that for Minor methods, the primary condition of a 'regular' method would have to be that its lead block is symmetric. Eddie _______________________________________________ ringing-theory mailing list ringing-theory at bellringers.net http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net From dfm at ringing.org Fri Feb 10 12:30:49 2012 From: dfm at ringing.org (Don Morrison) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:30:49 -0500 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 4:55 AM, King, Peter R wrote: > the standard calling is only guaranteed for symmetric regular methods Well, that all depends upon what "regular" means, doesn't it. If by "regular" you mean "plain bob lead ends" then that is insufficient for the standard calling to work. You need to correct flow of in- and out-of-course changes, too. However, while not explicitly stated, it appeared from something he wrote that Eddie might mean "regular" to mean "the usual calling is guaranteed to work," or something equivalent. Oh, and assuming you define the standard calling in terms of a suitable pair of bells being affected or not instead of simply with Wrongs and Homes, I believe it is true for any set of lead ends corresponding to a five lead course, so long as the method has the usual symmetry, has the treble the right number of blows in each position, and the method has the correct flow of in- and out-of-course rows; Plain Bob-ness is not required. If I'm mistaken about that, I'm sure we'll hear it soon! :-) -- Don Morrison "What would a Martian visitor think to see a human being laugh? It must look truly horrible: the sight of furious gestures, flailing limbs, and thorax heaving in frenzied contortions." -- Marvin Minsky, _The Society of Mind_ From dfm at ringing.org Fri Feb 10 12:40:09 2012 From: dfm at ringing.org (Don Morrison) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:40:09 -0500 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:28 AM, King, Peter R wrote: > terms like symmetric, having plain bob lead ends are unambiguous. Not really. Most of the time when we hear "symmetric" we assume the usual, palindromic symmetry, which is fortunate, or we'd have even more threads like this one. But there are lots of other possible symmetries, several of which have been used in methods that have been rung more than once. Do you consider "123465" to be a Plain Bob lead head? Most people don't, but I believe it's included in the definition Richard Smith gave of what he considers to be Plain Bob lead heads. And from his defintion, it's not clear (at least to me) what he considers Plain Bob lead ends to be. The only reason this ambiguity doesn't cause frequent confusion is that we all usually implicitly assume exactly one hunt bell, the treble. But it would be easy to have conversations where we considered a broader class of methods for which Richard's definition became particularly useful. -- Don Morrison "He sometimes wondered if the mating call of the male [kakapo] didn't actively repel the female, which is the sort of biological absurdity you otherwise find only in discotheques." -- Douglas Adams, _Last Chance to See_ From pabs at cantab.net Fri Feb 10 14:34:39 2012 From: pabs at cantab.net (Philip Saddleton) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:34:39 +0000 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> Message-ID: <4F352AFF.7000909@cantab.net> You are not mistaken. Put another way, the standard calling defines which Q-sets are bobbed (those where a given bell is unaffected except where another bell is also unaffected). Let's define sufficient conditions for a method with a hunt bell such that any touch where the hunt bell is unaffected and all the elements of a Q-set are either bobbed or plained is guaranteed to be true: - the lead has palindromic symmetry - the changes at the apices are even - the bob occurs at an apex and is also even - there are not two rows in a half-lead with the treble in the same place and of the same parity [With these conditions, given any row the rows either side of it are uniquely determined - the parity determines its position in the half lead, and if it is at an apex the Q-set rule determines the change at the apex. This is what I would described as a "rule-based" composition.] Now with these conditions, the standard calling for Minor is true. It will also give an extent if: - the hunt bell rings twice in each place in a half-lead - the plain course is five leads long - the bob affects three bells [These guarantee that calling a bob whenever one bell is unaffected gives a two course touch of 240 with each other working bell unaffected once: omitting this bob and repeating twice gives a 720.] Philip Don Morrison said on 10/02/2012 12:30: > Oh, and assuming you define the standard calling in terms of a > suitable pair of bells being affected or not instead of simply with > Wrongs and Homes, I believe it is true for any set of lead ends > corresponding to a five lead course, so long as the method has the > usual symmetry, has the treble the right number of blows in each > position, and the method has the correct flow of in- and out-of-course > rows; Plain Bob-ness is not required. If I'm mistaken about that, I'm > sure we'll hear it soon! From edward.w.martin at gmail.com Fri Feb 10 14:38:35 2012 From: edward.w.martin at gmail.com (edward martin) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:38:35 +0000 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: <7A1EB8F6-8E19-48F2-99F1-B273F426EE5A@frye.org.uk> References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> <7A1EB8F6-8E19-48F2-99F1-B273F426EE5A@frye.org.uk> Message-ID: On 10 February 2012 12:25, Matthew Frye wrote: > > > There are internal falseness issues with the standard 720 for treble bob methods with single changes in the wrong place. I'm having difficulty picturing what you mean by "single changes in the wrong place"? I reason that if the full lead block is such that the second half-lead place notation is the exact mirror image of the first half-lead place notation and this is brought about by having only one bell make a place when treble is making 6ths, this bell will retrace its work and the other bells will each retrace the path of its partner such that the relationship of any two rows which are equidistant from the half lead will have treble and pivot bell repeating positions with the others simply having swapped in pairs; Thus we can adequately express the whole lead block by merely comparing its lead head and lead end - whether or not the treble is plain or treble bob. ( This certainly does not work in Major, but I don't see how it cannot work in Minor) > I also might want to take some time to convince myself that it works for *all* lead end orders. > Give it a go. Note that the problem is to join two skeleton courses in which the 1,5 & 6 occuppy every possible positional relationship. To make it simpler: consider only plain Minor The plain course (by definition) contains the rows 1 x x x 6 5 1 x x x 5 6 the other rows 1 x x 5 x 6 1 x 5 x x 6 1 5 x x x 6 and their partners with 6 in 5ths are distrbuted with any one of them to the plain course, the other two to the other course Robert Roan figured out the solution 400 years ago by applying Reverse Grandsire Doubles to the 5 working bells. Eddie From Simon.Gay at glasgow.ac.uk Fri Feb 10 14:49:35 2012 From: Simon.Gay at glasgow.ac.uk (Simon J. Gay) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:49:35 +0000 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> <7A1EB8F6-8E19-48F2-99F1-B273F426EE5A@frye.org.uk> Message-ID: On 10 Feb 2012, at 14:38, edward martin wrote: > On 10 February 2012 12:25, Matthew Frye wrote: >> >> >> There are internal falseness issues with the standard 720 for treble bob methods with single changes in the wrong place. > > I'm having difficulty picturing what you mean by "single changes in > the wrong place"? For example: Kelvinbridge Surprise Minor 123456 + x 214365 - 36 124635 - x 216453 + 14 261435 + x 624153 - 12 621435 - x 264153 + 1236 264513 - x 625431 + 1234 624513 - x 265431 + 36 625341 + palindromic, lead end 16 All the changes with the treble in 5th place are -, and all the changes with the treble in 6th place are +. So the standard calling doesn't give a true extent. For this reason the method isn't listed in TDMM. Note that this method is excluded by Philip's conditions for the standard calling to be true. Simon > > I reason that if the full lead block is such that the second half-lead > place notation is the exact mirror image of the first half-lead place > notation and this is brought about by having only one bell make a > place when treble is making 6ths, this bell will retrace its work and > the other bells will each retrace the path of its partner such that > the relationship of any two rows which are equidistant from the half > lead will have treble and pivot bell repeating positions with the > others simply having swapped in pairs; Thus we can adequately express > the whole lead block by merely comparing its lead head and lead end - > whether or not the treble is plain or treble bob. ( This certainly > does not work in Major, but I don't see how it cannot work in Minor) > >> I also might want to take some time to convince myself that it works for *all* lead end orders. >> > > Give it a go. > Note that the problem is to join two skeleton courses in which the 1,5 > & 6 occuppy every possible positional relationship. > To make it simpler: consider only plain Minor > The plain course (by definition) contains the rows > 1 x x x 6 5 > 1 x x x 5 6 > the other rows > 1 x x 5 x 6 > 1 x 5 x x 6 > 1 5 x x x 6 > and their partners with 6 in 5ths are distrbuted with any one of them > to the plain course, the other two to the other course > > Robert Roan figured out the solution 400 years ago by applying Reverse > Grandsire Doubles to the 5 working bells. > > Eddie > > _______________________________________________ > ringing-theory mailing list > ringing-theory at bellringers.net > http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401 From dfm at ringing.org Fri Feb 10 14:59:40 2012 From: dfm at ringing.org (Don Morrison) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:59:40 -0500 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Robin Woolley wrote: > Never in the field of human campanology has so much verbiage been generated > by just one word! I don't know about that. Search the early history of the change-ringers list for "moon." :-) -- Don Morrison "The dramatic is by definition exceptional; dramas would be ruined if they impartially described reality." -- Will and Ariel Durant, _The Age of Reason Begins_ From ted.steele at tesco.net Fri Feb 10 15:53:35 2012 From: ted.steele at tesco.net (Ted Steele) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:53:35 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Standard call for minor - was ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: <7A1EB8F6-8E19-48F2-99F1-B273F426EE5A@frye.org.uk> References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> <7A1EB8F6-8E19-48F2-99F1-B273F426EE5A@frye.org.uk> Message-ID: <4F353D7F.6010203@tesco.net> On 10/02/2012 12:25, Matthew Frye wrote: > There are internal falseness issues with the standard 720 for treble bob methods with single changes in the wrong place. The notion of a standard calling that is true to pretty much any minor, seems to me to have been quite generally accepted by average conductors for a long time. I just looked at my old copy of the CCCBR Collection of Minor Methods where the standard calling of 720 is given. There is certainly no hint that it may not be true for some methods. Despite the fact that any exceptions would not have been in the collection I wonder how many false peals have crept through as a consequence of an assumption that the standard calling was universally true. After all, it is not usual to quote the comps for individual 720s unless there be a special reason. Ted From dfm at ringing.org Fri Feb 10 16:07:51 2012 From: dfm at ringing.org (Don Morrison) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:07:51 -0500 Subject: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: <7A1EB8F6-8E19-48F2-99F1-B273F426EE5A@frye.org.uk> References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> <7A1EB8F6-8E19-48F2-99F1-B273F426EE5A@frye.org.uk> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Matthew Frye wrote: > There are internal falseness issues with the standard 720 for treble bob methods with single changes in the wrong place. BTW, it's not just single changes. Arranging the double changes in a cross section inappropriately results in the same difficulty. -- Don Morrison "What makes beliefs true is not logic, but results." -- Louis Menand (paraphrasing William James and Charles Renouvier), _The Metaphysical Club_ From matthew at frye.org.uk Fri Feb 10 16:41:55 2012 From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:41:55 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Minor extents with single changes In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> <7A1EB8F6-8E19-48F2-99F1-B273F426EE5A@frye.org.uk> Message-ID: On 10 Feb 2012, at 16:07, Don Morrison wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Matthew Frye wrote: >> There are internal falseness issues with the standard 720 for treble bob methods with single changes in the wrong place. > > BTW, it's not just single changes. Arranging the double changes in a > cross section inappropriately results in the same difficulty. Yes, I didn't think of that, would clearly cause problems too. Tangentially: I know such methods* don't produce extents in general, but are there specific cases where they can? I can't see a reason they shouldn't if you allow singles and have a carefully crafted method, but I am not aware of any examples. *I should probably define which such methods I'm talking about for the avoidance of doubt/avoidance of dozens of messages attempting to clear it up. I'm interested in treble dodging (single dodges) minor methods with palindromic symmetry in which one or more treble positions appear twice + or twice - in each half lead. As exemplified by Kelvinbridge S Minor. (5 leads to the plain course would be nice, but not really necessary.) MF From dfm at ringing.org Fri Feb 10 17:28:31 2012 From: dfm at ringing.org (Don Morrison) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:28:31 -0500 Subject: [r-t] Minor extents with single changes In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cce7c4$d1eeb4b0$0202a8c0@adminc2105ce58> <7A1EB8F6-8E19-48F2-99F1-B273F426EE5A@frye.org.uk> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Matthew Frye wrote: > Tangentially: I know such methods* don't produce extents in general, but are there specific cases where they can? I can't see a reason they shouldn't if you allow singles and have a carefully crafted method, but I am not aware of any examples. Whatever the answer about extents, as you are probably aware, but some reading this list may not be: 1440s are easily produced for the general case. -- Don Morrison "On one occasion Newton invited some friends to his chamber. As he went to his study to fetch more wine, some thought came into his head. So absorbed did he become that he completely forgot about the wine and his friends waiting downstairs. Either his mind was indeed very far away, or the company was extremely boring. Absentmindedness can be a very useful skill." -- Marcello Gleiser, _The Dancing Universe_ From johnedavid at hotmail.com Sat Feb 11 11:36:41 2012 From: johnedavid at hotmail.com (John David) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:36:41 +0000 Subject: [r-t] re : Regular methods Message-ID: Does not the whole problem to some extent depend on the original Central Council definitions? in particular (I quote from "History and Art p600)" C 2 d "the working bells shall be in the same coursing order at each lead head and lead end in the plain course" and (p602) "this means that all methods must have what are known as Bob Major Lead Ends" and defined (p602-3) the ideal succession of Nature of Rows (which I would summarise as being "as few places as possible"). I realise that these definitions have been amended later, but I think the problem arose from the C C definitions and their variable application. John David Guernsey From jonathan.agg at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 23:29:23 2012 From: jonathan.agg at gmail.com (Jonathan Agg) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:29:23 +0000 Subject: [r-t] 4-bell runs Message-ID: <4F3AEE53.2090606@gmail.com> I noticed on bellboard that the "Pipe classic 12-part" contains 3456 four bell rollups. Is this a record for a peal? I'd guess a plain course of Bristol 36 would contain more, what's the most anyone's found for say 12 bells or fewer? It would be quite fun to get a composition that contains more than 5000! http://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/comp.php?id=133 Jonathan From holroyd at math.ubc.ca Wed Feb 15 03:30:27 2012 From: holroyd at math.ubc.ca (Alexander Holroyd) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:30:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [r-t] 4-bell runs In-Reply-To: <4F3AEE53.2090606@gmail.com> References: <4F3AEE53.2090606@gmail.com> Message-ID: 3456 is a very appropriate number! I thought 1680 was alot in this one: http://www.math.ubc.ca/~holroyd/comps/www12.txt On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Jonathan Agg wrote: > I noticed on bellboard that the "Pipe classic 12-part" contains 3456 four > bell rollups. Is this a record for a peal? I'd guess a plain course of > Bristol 36 would contain more, what's the most anyone's found for say 12 > bells or fewer? > > It would be quite fun to get a composition that contains more than 5000! > > http://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/comp.php?id=133 > > Jonathan > > > _______________________________________________ > ringing-theory mailing list > ringing-theory at bellringers.net > http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net > From alan.reading at googlemail.com Wed Feb 15 10:46:36 2012 From: alan.reading at googlemail.com (Alan Reading) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:46:36 +0000 Subject: [r-t] 4-bell runs In-Reply-To: <4F3AEE53.2090606@gmail.com> References: <4F3AEE53.2090606@gmail.com> Message-ID: I presume this figure is arrived at by counting the number of 4-bell runs of a given type (eg (90ET) anywhere within the change, multiplying by 2 to account for inverses (since the comp is palindromic there will be the same number), and then multiplying by the number of parts? This means it counts things like T123, ET12 etc in a 12-part (or T234, ET23 etc in an 11-part). It's a good way to compare cyclic compositions but perhaps calling it the "number of four bell rollups" is a little misleading. I believe this measure gives 4356 for the Pipe 11-part. I'm sure even more is possible with more designer methods although at some point it's going to become a trade off between the size of the score and the desirability of the methods. Cheers, Alan On 14 February 2012 23:29, Jonathan Agg wrote: > I noticed on bellboard that the "Pipe classic 12-part" contains 3456 four > bell rollups. Is this a record for a peal? I'd guess a plain course of > Bristol 36 would contain more, what's the most anyone's found for say 12 > bells or fewer? > > It would be quite fun to get a composition that contains more than 5000! > > http://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/**comp.php?id=133 > > Jonathan > > > ______________________________**_________________ > ringing-theory mailing list > ringing-theory at bellringers.net > http://bellringers.net/**mailman/listinfo/ringing-**theory_bellringers.net > From simon.bond.lists at googlemail.com Wed Feb 15 12:08:52 2012 From: simon.bond.lists at googlemail.com (Simon Bond) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:08:52 +0000 Subject: [r-t] 4-bell runs Message-ID: <4F3BA054.3020507@googlemail.com> Alan Reading wrote: > I believe this measure gives 4356 for the Pipe 11-part. The 4-bell count for the 11-part is only 3210 (another good number). SAB From alan.reading at googlemail.com Wed Feb 15 12:22:28 2012 From: alan.reading at googlemail.com (Alan Reading) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:22:28 +0000 Subject: [r-t] 4-bell runs In-Reply-To: <4F3BA054.3020507@googlemail.com> References: <4F3BA054.3020507@googlemail.com> Message-ID: On 15 February 2012 12:08, Simon Bond wrote: > Alan Reading wrote: > > > I believe this measure gives 4356 for the Pipe 11-part. > > The 4-bell count for the 11-part is only 3210 (another good number). > I presume that figure is based on removing 6x198 (to discount the none-runs) from 4356 which gives 3168, I guess the extra 42 are 1234's and 4321's? In which case Andrew's figure for the 12-part was presumably calculated the same way so apologies. Cheers, Alan ______________________________**_________________ ringing-theory mailing list ringing-theory at bellringers.net http://bellringers.net/**mailman/listinfo/ringing-**theory_bellringers.net From alan.reading at googlemail.com Wed Feb 15 12:23:40 2012 From: alan.reading at googlemail.com (Alan Reading) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:23:40 +0000 Subject: [r-t] 4-bell runs In-Reply-To: References: <4F3BA054.3020507@googlemail.com> Message-ID: On 15 February 2012 12:22, Alan Reading wrote: > On 15 February 2012 12:08, Simon Bond wrote: > >> Alan Reading wrote: >> >> > I believe this measure gives 4356 for the Pipe 11-part. >> >> The 4-bell count for the 11-part is only 3210 (another good number). >> > > I presume that figure is based on removing 6x198 (to discount the > none-runs) from 4356 which gives 3168, I guess the extra 42 are 1234's and > 4321's? > In which case Andrew's figure for the 12-part was presumably > calculated the same way so apologies. > > Jonathon's even! > > > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > ringing-theory mailing list > ringing-theory at bellringers.net > http://bellringers.net/**mailman/listinfo/ringing-**theory_bellringers.net > > From dfm at ringing.org Wed Feb 15 12:24:34 2012 From: dfm at ringing.org (Don Morrison) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:24:34 -0500 Subject: [r-t] 4-bell runs In-Reply-To: References: <4F3AEE53.2090606@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Alan Reading wrote: > I presume this figure is arrived at by counting the number of 4-bell runs > of a given type (eg (90ET) anywhere within the change, In this measure does a 567890ET count as one run? Two runs? Five runs? Or something else? -- Don Morrison "Geography is only physics slowed down, with a few trees stuck on it." -- Terry Pratchett, _Jingo_ From alan.reading at googlemail.com Wed Feb 15 12:30:43 2012 From: alan.reading at googlemail.com (Alan Reading) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:30:43 +0000 Subject: [r-t] 4-bell runs In-Reply-To: References: <4F3AEE53.2090606@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 15 February 2012 12:24, Don Morrison wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Alan Reading > wrote: > > I presume this figure is arrived at by counting the number of 4-bell runs > > of a given type (eg (90ET) anywhere within the change, > > In this measure does a 567890ET count as one run? Two runs? Five runs? > 5 runs. I think it's right the weight a long run more highly but perhaps this is where the measure falls down. Is an 8-bell run really worth 5 times a 4-bell run? Cheers, Alan > Or something else? > > > -- > Don Morrison > "Geography is only physics slowed down, with a few > trees stuck on it." -- Terry Pratchett, _Jingo_ > > _______________________________________________ > ringing-theory mailing list > ringing-theory at bellringers.net > http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net > From simon.bond.lists at googlemail.com Wed Feb 15 12:33:02 2012 From: simon.bond.lists at googlemail.com (Simon Bond) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:33:02 +0000 Subject: [r-t] 4-bell runs In-Reply-To: References: <4F3BA054.3020507@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <4F3BA5FE.705@googlemail.com> On 15/02/2012 12:22, Alan Reading wrote: > I presume that figure is based on removing 6x198 (to discount the > none-runs) from 4356 which gives 3168, I guess the extra 42 are 1234's > and 4321's? The 11-part doesn't stand up to this sort of analysis (or rather the one that resulted in the figure 4356). Each part generates a different number of 4-runs varying from 253 in the penultimate part up to 399 in the last part. I'm afraid my method for counting these is just to put all the rows into a spreadsheet and do some string processing. It turns up the same figure of 3456 for the 12-part. SAB From alan.reading at googlemail.com Wed Feb 15 12:44:20 2012 From: alan.reading at googlemail.com (Alan Reading) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:44:20 +0000 Subject: [r-t] 4-bell runs In-Reply-To: <4F3BA5FE.705@googlemail.com> References: <4F3BA054.3020507@googlemail.com> <4F3BA5FE.705@googlemail.com> Message-ID: > > The 11-part doesn't stand up to this sort of analysis (or rather the one > that resulted in the figure 4356). Each part generates a different number > of 4-runs varying from 253 in the penultimate part up to 399 in the last > part. > I agree there will be a different number of runs (now we are defining things like ET23's not to count) in each part but there must be the same number of each of 90ET, 890E, 7890, 6789, ..., 2345. There are 198 90ET's anywhere within the change, so therefore there are 198x8 = 1584 forward four bell runs, and because the composition is palindromic there are 1584 backward runs. So total=3168. The 1234's and 4321's (if you count them) must be done separately for an 11-part and I've no idea what the total number is but if it's 42 we are in agreement! Cheers, Alan On 15 February 2012 12:33, Simon Bond wrote: > On 15/02/2012 12:22, Alan Reading wrote: > >> I presume that figure is based on removing 6x198 (to discount the >> none-runs) from 4356 which gives 3168, I guess the extra 42 are 1234's and >> 4321's? >> > > The 11-part doesn't stand up to this sort of analysis (or rather the one > that resulted in the figure 4356). Each part generates a different number > of 4-runs varying from 253 in the penultimate part up to 399 in the last > part. I'm afraid my method for counting these is just to put all the rows > into a spreadsheet and do some string processing. It turns up the same > figure of 3456 for the 12-part. > > SAB > > > ______________________________**_________________ > ringing-theory mailing list > ringing-theory at bellringers.net > http://bellringers.net/**mailman/listinfo/ringing-**theory_bellringers.net > From john.goldthorpe at omnieng.co.uk Mon Feb 20 17:31:22 2012 From: john.goldthorpe at omnieng.co.uk (John M Goldthorpe) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:31:22 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Cam and Granta Message-ID: From gaataylor at blueyonder.co.uk Mon Feb 20 18:09:24 2012 From: gaataylor at blueyonder.co.uk (Glenn Taylor) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:09:24 -0000 Subject: [r-t] Cam and Granta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004b01cceffa$c763a300$562ae900$@co.uk> ? -----Original Message----- From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of John M Goldthorpe Sent: 20 February 2012 17:31 To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net Subject: [r-t] Cam and Granta _______________________________________________ ringing-theory mailing list ringing-theory at bellringers.net http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net From gaataylor at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Feb 21 21:17:28 2012 From: gaataylor at blueyonder.co.uk (Glenn Taylor) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:17:28 -0000 Subject: [r-t] Cam and Granta In-Reply-To: <004b01cceffa$c763a300$562ae900$@co.uk> References: <004b01cceffa$c763a300$562ae900$@co.uk> Message-ID: <000901ccf0de$3743d4e0$a5cb7ea0$@co.uk> Can anyone help John Goldthorpe out with a "definition" of the Cam and Granta TB variations? He writes: ---- I just want to know which way round the Cam and Granta variations of Kent are. I know they are Kent TB with either Bastow LC or Kent LC in the middle leads, but I'm not sure which is which. As the Yorkshire Association Peal Secretary, I have had to check a composition from last year which claims to be the Granta variation and has Bastow LC as the other method. Google turns up a page with a couple of peals on it which claim the opposite ---- Cheers, Glenn From rchat at allton.org.uk Tue Feb 21 21:32:04 2012 From: rchat at allton.org.uk (Richard Allton) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:32:04 -0000 Subject: [r-t] Cam and Granta In-Reply-To: <000901ccf0de$3743d4e0$a5cb7ea0$@co.uk> References: <004b01cceffa$c763a300$562ae900$@co.uk> <000901ccf0de$3743d4e0$a5cb7ea0$@co.uk> Message-ID: <003b01ccf0e0$41c06490$c5412db0$@org.uk> In the RW 1921p67, H Law James describes Granta using Bastow for the variation, and provides a composition on p392. Cheers Richard Can anyone help John Goldthorpe out with a "definition" of the Cam and Granta TB variations? He writes: ---- I just want to know which way round the Cam and Granta variations of Kent are. I know they are Kent TB with either Bastow LC or Kent LC in the middle leads, but I'm not sure which is which. As the Yorkshire Association Peal Secretary, I have had to check a composition from last year which claims to be the Granta variation and has Bastow LC as the other method. Google turns up a page with a couple of peals on it which claim the opposite ---- Cheers, Glenn From pabs at cantab.net Tue Feb 21 21:39:04 2012 From: pabs at cantab.net (Philip Saddleton) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:39:04 +0000 Subject: [r-t] Cam and Granta In-Reply-To: <000901ccf0de$3743d4e0$a5cb7ea0$@co.uk> References: <004b01cceffa$c763a300$562ae900$@co.uk> <000901ccf0de$3743d4e0$a5cb7ea0$@co.uk> Message-ID: <4F440EF8.5000508@cantab.net> It appears I have got it wrong in my CUG records. The first peal in the Granta variation (RW 21/222) does not explain what it is, but the first in the Cam variation (RW 21/269) has the footnote "First peal in this variation, which is the same as the Granta variation, except that Kent places are made in 3-4 instead of a dodge, when the treble is in the slow." Philip Glenn Taylor said on 21/02/2012 21:17: > > Can anyone help John Goldthorpe out with a "definition" of the Cam and > Granta TB variations? He writes: > > ---- > I just want to know which way round the Cam and Granta variations of Kent > are. I know they are Kent TB with either Bastow LC or Kent LC in the middle > leads, but I'm not sure which is which. As the Yorkshire Association Peal > Secretary, I have had to check a composition from last year which claims to > be the Granta variation and has Bastow LC as the other method. Google turns > up a page with a couple of peals on it which claim the opposite > ---- > > Cheers, > > Glenn From pje24 at cantab.net Sun Feb 26 13:15:10 2012 From: pje24 at cantab.net (Philip Earis) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:15:10 -0000 (UTC) Subject: [r-t] Brian Price Message-ID: <59528.10.0.16.53.1330262110.squirrel@webmail.cantab.net> Roger Bailey gives some sad news on the ringing-chat mailing list: === It is my sad duty to report the death of Brian Price earlier this week. Born in Tenby in 1926, Brian was taught to ring at Ebbw Vale by the late Bill Thompsett and did much of his early ringing with the Cambridge University Guild whilst an undergraduate at Emmanuel College in the late 1940's. His subsequent teaching career took him to many parts of the country, and he finally settled in London where he became a regular ringer at a number of towers, including Barnes, Bermondsey and Willesden until becoming disabled by chronic heart disease. Brian will chiefly be remembered by ringers as a pioneer of computer-assisted peal composition, beginning in 1953 on the recently constructed Manchester Mark I machine. He narrowly failed to solve the problem of composing a bobs-only peal of Stedman Triples, but went to produce many novel peals in other methods, including the compositions used in several recent record lengths. The funeral will take place on Friday 2nd March at 3 p.m. at the West London Crematorium in Kensal Green Cemetery === Brian was a formidable composer, and a true pioneer both of formalising how mathematical concepts can apply to change ringing, and of using computers for ringing applications. His "The Composition of Peals in Parts" (http://www.ringing.info/bdp/peals-in-parts/parts-0.html) is a seminal work. Furthermore, Brian is probably the ringer most closely associated with first recognising the potential of palindromic structures. These have huge use and application across many different areas of ringing, and Brian's work here has been extremely influential. His paper "The Structure of Palindromic Peals" (http://www.ringing.info/bdp/palindromes/palindrome-0.html) remains a very fresh read, with ideas and possible applications dripping off every page. Roger can I'm sure give more justice to Brian's work. Brian's long length of 17280 London major was rung recently, and his (unrung) 28512 of Bristol Major remains, I think, the longest conventional composition in the method. Brian was a true giant of the scientific side of composition, and the world of ringing theory is much poorer for his passing.