B M W H 2 3 4 5 6
-------------------------
- S 4 6 3 5 2 The search was
- S 6 4 5 2 3 completed on
- - S 2 3 5 4 6 15 February 1988
- S 3 2 4 6 5
- - 4 6 3 2 5
-------------------------
Four times repeated
25, 30, 55, 60, 85, 90, 91, 96, 101, 106, 111, 116.
The tree was run on 16 February 1988, the longest touch produced being 4,224. This came out in various forms, two of which are given below. Both are palindromes. The touches as given form two separate two-part blocks, which are not joined. Had the touches been of peal length, there was hope of finding links, as the blocks came out in various similar forms.
4,224 4,224
B M W H 2 3 4 5 6 B M W H 2 3 4 5 6
------------------------- --------------------------
- S 5 4 2 3 6 S - 4 5 3 2 6
- S 4 5 3 6 2 - - 4 5 2 6 3
- S 3 2 5 6 4 S - 2 3 5 6 4
- S 2 3 6 4 5 - S 3 2 6 4 5
- - S 4 5 6 3 2 - - S 4 5 6 2 3
- S 5 4 3 2 6 - - 4 5 2 3 6
------------------------- -------------------------
B M W H 2 3 4 5 6
-------------------------
- S 5 4 2 3 6
- 4 3 5 6 2
- S 3 4 6 2 5
-* - 5 6 4 2 3
- - - 3 2 4 6 5
-------------------------
Three times repeated, S for B
at * in alternate parts.
This was carried out on 17 February 1988.
As there were no linking calls on the plan, a block to be of use had to be truly 4-part, i.e. must have had an odd number of singles in the part.
The solutions tended to be longer when there were more short courses in them. The longest solution with long courses was 3,584, and a peal of 5,120 consisted entirely of short courses. This latter solution turned up repeatedly with its various starts and reversals, but with no actual variation in calling (it will be found in the list of solutions later). It is interesting to note that 8 of the 10 courses per part form an open-ended palindrome, although the full peal is not one.
3,584 4,224
M W H 2 3 4 5 6 B M W H 2 3 4 5 6
------------------------ -------------------------
- - S 5 2 6 3 4 - - 4 5 2 3 6
- S 3 6 5 2 4 - S 5 4 3 6 2
- - S 2 3 4 6 5 S S 2 3 4 6 5
- - - 5 6 4 3 2 - - 2 3 6 5 4
------------------------ - - - 4 5 6 3 2
3 times repeated - - 4 5 3 2 6
-------------------------
3 times repeated
The search was completed on 19 February 1988.
The whole search took about half an hour, and the longest touch produced was the following palindrome, which appeared a number of times:
4,224
B M W H 2 3 4 5 6
-------------------------
S S 6 4 3 5 2
- S 4 6 5 2 3
S -* 5 2 6 4 3
- - 5 2 4 3 6
-------------------------
Five times repeated, with
S for -* half way and end
The complete tree search took about an hour, on 20 February 1988. The hope that 2-part blocks would emerge, to be linked by options, did not materialise. The only long touches were the following two palindromes, which would be difficult to use as they are 3-part and links of two pairs crossing would be difficult or impossible to find.
4,224 4,608
B M W H 2 3 4 5 6 B H 2 3 4 5 6
------------------------- -----------------
- S 4 6 3 5 2 - 3 5 2 6 4
- S 6 4 5 2 3 - S 5 3 6 4 2
- - 5 2 6 4 3 - 3 4 5 2 6
- - 5 2 4 3 6 - - 3 4 2 6 5
------------------------- - S 4 3 6 5 2
- - 4 3 5 2 6
-----------------
4,800
B M W H 2 3 4 5 6
-----------------------------
- 4 3 6 5 2
- S S 5 2 3 6 4
- - 5 2 6 4 3 (the last call, the bob at
- 6 5 2 4 3 home, is at an apex of the
- 2 6 5 4 3 palindrome and is a
- S 6 2 4 3 5 disposable call, P or B, but
S - 3 5 4 2 6 a plain lead brings rounds)
- - 4 2 3 5 6
-----------------------------
Repeat twice
Four distinct sets of peals were produced:
Compared with the other 2-part search it proved disappointing. The longest length produced with some full courses was 4,736, and the only peal produced was the 5,120 in short courses composed previously by N.J. Diserens. This peal appeared twelve times in all, with no variations. Fourteen of its twenty courses (per part) form an open- ended palindrome and the singles, one per part, are integrated into the composition, and cannot be regarded as linking two round blocks.
During a palindromic tree search, a 'backwards' branch of the tree is explored at the same time as a 'forwards' one. An extra data file, the inverse call matrix, has to be computed, recording which types will give which. Starting at an arbitrary type, the tree search builds up a touch backwards as well as forwards - if a bob at Middle is chosen for the forwards branch, then a bob at Wrong has to be made in reverse on the end of the backwards branch, i.e. the section type has to be found which will produce the type already on the end of the branch by a bob at Wrong. As a result of this double process, each decision made (P, B or S) results in two new types on the chain instead of one, thus cutting down enormously the time taken for an exhaustive tree search.
There is a possible further economy of time in the testing of falsity. After checking that the two new types in the chain (the ones on the ends) are not the same (which would otherwise give a round block) or are false with one another, they must be checked against all the existing types in the chain. Is it necessary to check both? The answer is yes, and no! Yes, it is necessary to check them both if a search in parts is being carried out, but no, it is not necessary if the search is a general (one-part) search. At first it was thought unnecessary to test both, until a 2-part search produced a wealth of results and rounds was observed half way through the second part of a "peal"!
It was also discovered by comparing results that the removal of options such as one of a B/S pair in a palindromic part search was too restricting - the existence of an option at one end of the chain does not imply an option at the other.
This experimenting suggested the idea of a general (one-part) search for palindromes. The program SEARCH was rewritten in Fortran for use on a large mainframe computer, and a trial run produced Middleton's peal in a twinkling of an eye! The necessary three data files (calls, inverse calls, falsity) were calculated on a micro by the simple expedient of setting the identity Group (order 1) on the existing BASIC programs, and they were subsequently transferred to the mainframe.
The palindromic version of SEARCH was programmed to cope with five types of apex for start and finish - plain, bob or single at Home, bob at Before, and the mid-lead between Middle and Wrong. Five separate tree searches were carried out, one for each start, and five different tests for a round block were programmed. Every distinct result came out twice, in mutually 'half-reverse' pairs.
As an heuristic way of producing peals, the palindromic search has proved successful, but the use of a method for which logical reasons are not forthcoming is slightly disturbing. Why are peals 'likely' to be palindromes? Some peals are not palindromes, and palindromes can easily be produced which are false, so there is no simple explanation. Palindromes appear to be a feature of the structure of treble bob (including surprise) methods.
The answer may possibly be found in a consideration of probability. A palindromic structure may increase the chance of a randomly-produced block being true for the same reason that it is not necessary to test for the truth of both new additions to the palindromic tree.
Occasionally the search produced solutions in the 4900s. Would it be possible to add a true coda of four leads and two changes, ending in rounds just after the Wrong, or a prelude of two leads and 30 changes starting at the treble's snap lead??
The simplest way of adding a coda is as follows: if a touch ends in a bob or single at Home, a coda may be added by changing bob to single or vice versa, and the touch will then come round without a further call. This might be done to a touch of 4,928 or 4,992 (154 or 156 leads) giving a peal of 5,058 or 5,122 which would be virtually in two parts (other more complex codas, extending back into the previous course, were found to be unworkable).
The search program was modified to carry out the following steps: