Ringing Forums

there's nothing wrong with ringing this however I'm surprised to be seeing accepted as a method. — J Martin Rushton

There is indeed nothing wrong with ringing it, so if someone does ring it how should they describe it?
The rationale behind the development of the Framework for Method Ringing was to provide the tools to describe what people choose to ring, rather than to determine that some things were legitimate, and by implication others were not.
The aim was that from a report of the ringing it would be clear what was rung, with any aspect that would not reasonably be assumed made explicit. Anyone who wanted to form a judgment about it would be free to do so, but judgements would not be centrally imposed.
This was extensively discussed and publicised at the time, several years ago now.

Interesting. I thought that a repeated row made it false and unacceptable for record purposes. Is this a new change in definitions or have I been misinformed?

Minimus ringers ran out of new methods to ring for which a single extent was possible. They then started exploring methods that comprised multiple extents. Great Massingham TP Minimus is an example. While it is false within each lead, the plain course contains exactly three extents, so is true - making it easy to ring true performances. Methods like Bristol Minimus (now Demi-Bristol Alliance Minimus), which has been rung at least since the 1970s are trickier, since the plain course is false - while containing one extent, it contains multiple rows from more than one other extent. Nevertheless, that can be rung in true performances by varying the hunt bell.

On higher numbers, methods inadvertently false in the plain course were created as link methods in spliced. The methods are generally rung a lead at a time, and in combination with other methods form true peals. The former Methods Committee of the Central Council came under much criticism for introducing a concept of non-method blocks to describe them, when it was much more straightforward to remove the rule that said that methods had to be true in the plain course. The Framework for Method Ringing, implemented in 2019, did just that.

OK, thanks. That answers my question, as the saying goes; if you don't ask you don't learn.

...so if someone does ring it how should they describe it? — John Harrison

With Bellboard and a laptop, they could just provide a list of the rows that were rung.

they could just provide a list of the rows that were rung — PeterScott

They could but that would not be very convenient for either them or anyone reading about it.
The aim of the Framework, or any naming system, is to enable more compact description without loss of accuracy.

The aim of the Framework, or any naming system, is to enable more compact description without loss of accuracy. — John Harrison

The most compact description of the ringing would seem to be within the performance report
-1234-1234-14.34.14-1234-12,34 (30 characters)

compared with
Great Massingham Treble Place Minimus (37 characters)
:-)

The most compact description of the ringing would seem to be within the performance report -1234-1234-14.34.14-1234-12,34 (30 characters) — PeterScott

But which could you remember a month later?

But which could you remember a month later? — Graham John

I would probably need both, so that when the tower captain says "Catch hold for this brilliant new method I've found - Great Massingham Treble Place Minimus", then I could work out the line from the place notation ...

Hmmmm, both events are, imho, unlikely. I might do better converting the place notation to some practical ringing with a pair-of-handbells ...

Angels and pins come to mind. Anything complex will have edge cases.
Think from a practical perspective:
"Go Great Massingham"
If you are ringing four you don't need telling that it's Minimus, and at that point you probably aren't interested in the class.
Now compare with:
"Go -1234-1234-14.34.14-1234-12,34".
Really?
If names weren't useful humanity wouldn't have invented them.

...Think from a practical perspective: "Go Great Massingham"... — John Harrison

Yes, quite so. Conductors and their bands need to know what they are ringing before they start, and which calls there are likely to be. For example, in my experience, handbell performances are usually up-down-and-off without anyone saying "Go".

My point is different to that (lots of head-of-pin-dancing, maybe, but lots of ringing is like that) :-)

Framework for Method Ringing ... provides the tools to describe what people choose to ring, rather than to determine that some things are legitimate, and by implication others are not. — ibid

The Framework is indeed permissive and wide-ranging in defining what a ringing Performance can contain...
... while still defining restrictive rules about how methods may be named and added to the
Methods Library.

An innovative idea in a Performance is something we all support/encourage...

There is indeed nothing wrong with ringing it, so if someone does ring it how should they describe it? — ibid

but there some new methods which are impossible to use the Methods Library to describe. ...

... hence my earlier suggestion that a list of the rows does at least give a definitive account of what was rung.

I'll do some examples ... later ... :-)

Minimus ringers ran out of new methods to ring for which a single extent was possible. — Graham John

They may have run out of methods that to which they were allowed to give a name :angry:, but ...

(from a dusty folder of computery dated 1990 ...), there are over ten thousand (10,792) different Minimus extents, in which the twentyfour rows are connect by the traditional changes (x 12 14 34). Some are familiar - Plain Bob Minimus for example, and its reverse Reverse Bob Minimus, while both place notations can be rotated for any of the other three bells to be in the hunt; there are 10,784 more to find, and they are all summarised on this Join-The-Dots diagram:

For an example set of extents, draw a circuit which visits each of the twenty-four nodes (blobs) exactly once: each node uses one of its four connecting lines on the way in, and a different one on the way out. To convert to place notation, follow the circuit from any node, interpreting each double-line as X; each thin line as 14; each thick line as 12 and each dotted line as 34. In most cases that will give twentyfour different extents by rotation (starting at a different node in the diagram). There are another twentyfour by traversing the circuit in the opposite direction. By swapping the interpretations of the thick and dotted lines (swapping the 34s with the 12s - in ringing terms, the Reverse methods), gives another fortyeight extents for a total of ninetysix.

For a completed example ciruit click and starting from the top node with the blue line (colours for clarity only) gives the place notation
x14x14.12x12.14x12x14.34x34.14x14x34x14x34 Crossbank Minimus
which we rang and named here, for fun. Ringing the place notation backwards and rotating would give Bankcross Minimus and their reverses are Reverse Crossbank Minimus and Reverse Bankcross Minimus

Sadly I could carry on with the relationship of circuits to extents and counts of both, the history of method naming and its rules, method symmetry, their reversals and ringing them backwards ...

A lot of those Hamiltonian paths are likely to be not asymmetric single lead methods that aren't nice to ring.
I assume you got the figure from the article on the web by polster & Ross, but I don't remember them using diagrams.
To see how the diagram is derived you might be interested in: https://jaharrison.me.uk/Ringing/RingingShapes/.

... figure [10792 Minimus extents] from the article on the web by Polster & Ross — John Harrison

Yes, thay have the same count (website dated 1Dec2009) as from my 1990-dated computer program. I had the number written in my Ringers' Diary for many years and was reassured by another independent analysis referenced in a Ringing Theory discussion in 2004.

A lot of those Hamiltonian paths are likely to be not asymmetric single lead methods... — John Harrison

Yes, having blown the cobwebs off my 1990-printout, I had the same classification of them as AlexanderHolroyd used in 2004 here

If rotations, reversals and mirror images are discounted, the number drops to 162 — Holroyd

Of those 162, there are 75 one-part extents with no symmetry, hence 7200 of the 10792 have four separate blue lines (example as above Crossbank Minimus): and of those, 288 do have a hunt bell.

I enjoyed the Ringing Shapes, thanks