[r-t] What's the meaning of a method having aparticularfalsecourse head
Don Morrison
dfm at mv.com
Sat Apr 23 14:08:06 UTC 2005
On Apr 23, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Graham John wrote:
> 1. A Handbook of Composition by John Leary (CC pub 1993)
>
> Appendix 1 pg 51.
>
> "Group A is not shown. It contains the remaining in-course FCH, which
> is
> 23456, and represents the trivial case of the plain course being false
> against itself."
This seems ambiguous. It could mean "the case of the plain course being
false within itself", which is the interpretation I believe you
prefer, and what I had always assumed. But it could at least as easily
mean "the case of ringing the plain course twice producing falseness",
which is the interpretation I believe Richard would favor. The presence
of the word "trivial" would seem to favour Richard's interpretation
since a method being false in the plain course is a relatively obscure
and serious matter, while ringing the same course twice producing
falseness is indeed a trivial source of falseness.
> 2. Any sources listing falseness groups of methods never mention Group
> A
> (because the methods in collections are true in the plain course) e.g.
>
> - Wratten
> - Collections of Rung Surprise (CC pub)
> - Collection of Universal Compositions
> - Methodmaster FCH derivation
> - Also the method names CRU, Roald Dahl, Deng, Bendigo etc would not
> have
> been so named if it was a convention to include A.
I think this is rather a large leap. Whichever interpretation we choose
to put on A falseness it is an obscure thing to worry about, and
something we would naturally elide from most discussion of false course
head groups. Indeed, Philip Earis, who favors the "A as the kind of
falseness every method has" interpretation omitted it when describing
True Surprise, even though by his convention it is also A false. And in
CRU and True I believe the out of course only FCHs were also elided.
It really does appear to me that up until a few days ago we were all
likely making an assumption about what A falseness means, and had not
all been making the same one. I wonder how much of each of our
interpretations is based on some objective benefit to the underlying
definition we assume, and how much is simply habit based on what we
first assumed, possibly decades ago.
Perhaps it's simply a reflection of my own bias, but I'm still puzzled
about why those preferring the "A falseness means the trivial case all
methods have of the same course being rung twice being false against
itself" interpretation do prefer it. It was at some point in this
discussion described as an "identity" but that can't really be the case
here, can it? The false course head "groups" do not form a mathematical
group, and I'm unaware of anyone ever having defined an operation on
them for which there would be an identity. I suppose something could be
defined just out of perversity, but is there any utility in having an
identity for the elements of the partitioning of FCHs?
A further point possibly in favour of using the "A means the plain
course is internally false" interpretation is sort of the flip side of
the argument "A is pretty much meaningless if every method has it": if
we choose Graham's interpretation we have a pleasantly succinct way of
saying the plain course of a method is false in itself. But if we
choose Richard's interpretation we have no way to represent a method
false within its plain course in a listing of FCH groups.
I'm intrigued, too, that no one has yet really offered a definition of
what it means for a method to have a particular FCH. We continue to
talk about attributes of it and in particular try to describe what we
mean by A falseness, but I don't think I've ever actually seen a
definition of it!
I would have thought it would be something like
i) A method is said to have FCH x if and only if two rows, a and b,
occurring at different points in its plain course are related such that
x permuted by a = b or x permuted by b = a.
Richard's interpretation would, I think, be
ii) A method is said to have FCH x if and only if two rows, a and b,
possibly different ones or possibly the same row, are related such that
x permuted by a = b or x permuted by b = a.
Definition (ii) seems to me less natural. Perhaps that's just taste, or
even more likely my wording is a reflection of my own biases. Might
someone with the opposite biases propose how they'd define FCH so we
can compare. If one interpretation really does have a more natural
definition perhaps that will help explain why some of seem to cling
strongly to one interpretation and others strongly to the other.
Anyway, can anyone in the "Richard's interpretation" camp perhaps
explain a little more *why* you favour the interpretation you do?
Thanks!
--
Don Morrison <dfm at mv.com>
"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085,
for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our
permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give
a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote
it, that's all we wanted to do." -- Woody Guthrie, in a mimeographed
song book, as quoted by Pete Seeger in an NPR interview in 1976
More information about the ringing-theory
mailing list