Internal places

[John David]

Hi All

Not that it is of any relevance, but when I first came across the S/D/TB decison many years ago ( in the days when one didn't ring Singles in T B much!) I thought it would be an improvement if the definition was reversed - Surprise to be methods without external places (that is once I had found someone who could tell me what a cross-section was and understood the definition) - Is it made plain in the current proposals?

John David

Guernsey

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:44 AM, John David <johne...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Not that it is of any relevance, but when I first came across the

> S/D/TB decison many years ago ( in the days when one didn't ring

> Singles in T B much!) I thought it would be an improvement if the

> definition was reversed - Surprise to be methods without external

> places (that is once I had found someone who could tell me what a

> cross-section was and understood the definition)

But that is not an equivalent definition. Apart from oddities like little methods where the hunt bell never leads nor lies there would be *no* surprise methods.

-- 

Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>

"Unsheathe your dagger definitions."  -- James Joyce, _Ulysses_

[Graham John]

On 9 March 2017 at 08:44, John David <johne...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I thought it would be an improvement if the definition was reversed -
> Surprise to be methods without external places

But Surprise methods may have external places at cross sections. Take the example of Copper Surprise Major. It has 1458 at the third cross section.

Graham

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

> But Surprise methods may have external places at cross sections.

> Take the example of Copper Surprise Major. It has 1458 at the third

> cross section.

Oh, I see. So by "external places" you took him to mean not "an external place", but rather "both a bell leading and a bell lying". But, even leaving aside the sort of example you cite, that completely falls apart at odd stages.

-- 

Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>

"The best way to explain synthetic collateralized debt obligations

involves a blackjack table and the singer Selena Gomez."

  -- Neil Erwin, reviewing the film _The Big Short_, in

     _The New York Times_, 22 December 2015

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

> So by "external places" you took him to mean not "an external

> place", but rather "both a bell leading and a bell lying". But, even

> leaving aside the sort of example you cite, that completely falls

> apart at odd stages.

OK, now I think I get it. I believe that a formulation like the following is clearly equivalent to that currently in the decisions:

A treble dodging method is treble bob if at each cross section the only places that are made are leading and/or lying places. It is surprise if at each cross section it is not true that the only places that are made are leading and/or lying places. It is delight otherwise.

This appears to work for things like Copper as well as at odd stages. As it must, since, I think, it actually is the same as the current definition, just with a definition of internal places plugged directly into it.

That said, while equivalent to the current decisions, it is only equivalent to v7DFR if that conjecture I asked about last night is true; reformulating the v7DFR defintion in these terms would be considerably more complicated.

I also fail to see what advantage this formulation has. It seems more convoluted than the current one.

-- 

Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>

"We used to get much better history in the old days."

                   -- Terry Pratchett, _Small Gods_