<div dir="ltr"><div>How's this:</div>
<div>The 5040 can be set out in 60 blocks where every lead is a common single. The problem then is to link these 60 blocks without using bobs or any other device other than plain leads.</div>
<div>Because plain leads exist in sets of 5, it seems to me that we are once again up against the old q-set difficulty of adding an even number to an odd wch can never result in the total being even. I think it brings me back to my old gripe about 'New Grandsire' For, as I recall (& I don't recall things too well) when I was looking for as many all singles as poss, I came up against blocks which cannot be rung to Grandsire (start with 7ths and end with 3rds) but would be ok if we called this 'New Grandsire'. </div>
<div>But, on the insistance of the current Methods Committee Chairman, 'New Grandsire' is really Grandsire.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Having initially called "Go Grandsire", when the conducter came to the (New Grandsire) biits, what would he call other than an expletive?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Eddie<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2008/7/16 edward martin <<a href="mailto:edward.w.martin@gmail.com">edward.w.martin@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I am truly flattered Don.</div>
<div>It is possible to get 5040s of ANY twin hunt triples method, only using Holt's singles. From a ringer's point of view they are nasty, but from a composer's point of view they directly link two leads with no other complications.</div>
<div>but, young Ben raises a question which right now I don't have time to look into. I rather think that it is not poss but am at that stage of life where I can't remember where I last put down my spectacles let alone proof of such interesting topics... must go now</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Eddie<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2008/7/16 Don Morrison <<a href="mailto:dfm@ringing.org" target="_blank">dfm@ringing.org</a>>:
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Ben Willetts <<a href="mailto:ben@benjw.org.uk" target="_blank">ben@benjw.org.uk</a>> wrote:<br>>> Is it possible to have an extent of Grandsire Triples using only one<br>
>> kind of call, which I presume would be some sort of funny single?<br>><br>> I take it that it is not, then, possible to get an extent with just ordinary<br>> singles. Why not?<br><br></div>I conjecture that it is likely not possible, based on none having<br>
been published, to the best of my knowledge, but there being at least<br>one published by Eddie Martin that appeared to be trying to maximize<br>the number of singles used. But I really don't know.<br><br>But then, twenty years ago such a conjecture would have applied to<br>
bobs only Stedman Triples, too, wouldn't it?<br><br>Certainly an ordinary singles only composition would be a better<br>solution than a funny singles only composition.<br>
<div><br><br>--<br>Don Morrison <<a href="mailto:dfm@ringing.org" target="_blank">dfm@ringing.org</a>><br></div>"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful,<br>is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I<br>
say that there is plenty more stupidity than hydrogen, and that<br>is the basic building block of the universe." -- Frank Zappa<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div><br>_______________________________________________<br>ringing-theory mailing list<br><a href="mailto:ringing-theory@bellringers.net" target="_blank">ringing-theory@bellringers.net</a><br><a href="http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net" target="_blank">http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>