No, Your Favorite Product is NOT the Best

GetAgrippa

Platinum Member
I think there are many answers and many facts and often they don’t agree. I’m good with that cause it doesn’t matter whether I agree or not.
 

C.M. Jones

Well-known member
You just wanted that thing about the Pearl tom arms to go away, didn't you? :D
You'll be pleased to know that I don't use them. My only "rack" tom is in a snare basket. The nice thing about Pearl's mounting system is that it involves no permanent attachments. If you remove the mounting hardware from a tom, you'll never even know it was there, perfect for a player who prefers the look and functionality of a snare stand.
 

C.M. Jones

Well-known member
I’m just not satisfied with the discussion of preference and the avoidance of either exploring or articulating what it really is. We know, for the most part, what causes the sounds we are hearing, so I don’t think it’s crazy to try to identify patterns of preference or entertain the idea of some kind of hierarchy.
That's a good point, and I do agree. The difficulty would involve tracing the source of the hierarchy. Is it based exclusively on the sonic properties of drums and cymbals, or does the desire for conformity -- which, in this case, might involve the affiliation of being sophisticated and in possession of first-rate taste and judgement -- shape it in some manner? We'd need to take an array of variables into consideration to address those questions, and more questions would probably emerge. Human behavior can be misleading.
 

NouveauCliche

Senior Member
You'll be pleased to know that I don't use them. My only "rack" tom is in a snare basket. The nice thing about Pearl's mounting system is that it involves no permanent attachments. If you remove the mounting hardware from a tom, you'll never even know it was there, perfect for a player who prefers the look and functionality of a snare stand.

I did always like that facet of their suspension systems.
 

MrInsanePolack

Platinum Member
Line 3 works to 0 = 0.
So does line 2. In algebra, we can eliminate common factors on both sides of the = in the same line because they are redundant to the equation.
1=1
1x=1x
The above equation is the same. We can drop the x because 1) we dont know its value, and 2) doing x to both sides does not change the answer.

So in 4(4-3-1)=5(4-3-1), the common factor is (4-3-1). Since it is on both sides of the equation, we can remove it from the equation. Once we do, we are left with 4=5. While not correct, the equation itself is.
 

beatdat

Senior Member
So does line 2. In algebra, we can eliminate common factors on both sides of the = in the same line because they are redundant to the equation.
1=1
1x=1x
The above equation is the same. We can drop the x because 1) we dont know its value, and 2) doing x to both sides does not change the answer.

So in 4(4-3-1)=5(4-3-1), the common factor is (4-3-1). Since it is on both sides of the equation, we can remove it from the equation. Once we do, we are left with 4=5. While not correct, the equation itself is.
Not so sure about that. I think you'd have to account for the brackets first, which leads to 4*(0)=5*(0); in which case, "eliminating" the common factor would lead to (4*(0))/0= 5. And dividing anything by 0 equals infinity, no?
 

C.M. Jones

Well-known member
In discussions on mathematics, I'm about as useful as a garden hose in the middle of a blizzard. When asked, "If a train is traveling X miles per hour and making five stops for Y minutes, how long will it take to cover 153 miles?", my reply as a kid was "Why not stay home and avoid all the trouble? I'd rather not travel than deal with numbers."

When I add two and two, five is always a possibility.
 
Last edited:

Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX

Well-known member

Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX

Well-known member
In discussions on mathematics, I'm about as useful as a garden hose in the middle of a blizzard. When asked, "If a train is traveling X miles per hour and making five stops for X minutes, how long will it take to cover 153 miles?", my reply as a kid was "Why not stay home and avoid all the trouble? I'd rather not travel than deal with numbers."

When I add two and two, five is always a possibility.

my answer would be: "I would just drive myself and make no stops...going 70mph, would be there in 2 hours ish"
 

MrInsanePolack

Platinum Member
Not so sure about that. I think you'd have to account for the brackets first, which leads to 4*(0)=5*(0); in which case, "eliminating" the common factor would lead to (4*(0))/0= 5. And dividing anything by 0 equals infinity, no?
You dont have to do anything to it. It can be eliminated because doing the same thing on either side doesnt change the outcome. Only if the common factor is in the same line can we do this. The equation must still remain balanced.

We add, subtract, multiply, or divide both sides by a common factor if we need to simplify numbers on only 1 side:

2x+6=10
-6=-6
__________
2x =4
(.5)2x=4(.5)
x=2

In this case we need to get x by itself. We cant just eliminate the 6 because it's only on the left, so we must subtract. If 6 was on both sides, bye bye 6.

Now that x is by itself, we must get it down to 1. In order to do so, we either divide by itself or multiply by its inverse, 1/2 (.5).

We must do all this because there is nothing common on either side. Common factors can be removed, it's that simple.

If I change the above equation it should become evident. Now the same equation looks like this:

2x+(3×2)=4+(3×2)

At this point you drop the (3×2) on either side. You can still show the 1/(3×2) if you want but it isnt necessary.

Regardless of what you do, it must be done on both sides.

As for dividing by 0 you are correct. We dont divide (4-3-1) by 0 in the equation. We would multiply by its inverse, which would be 1/(4-3-1), or divide the entire equation by (4-3-1), which still gives us 4=5.
 

beatdat

Senior Member
You dont have to do anything to it. It can be eliminated because doing the same thing on either side doesnt change the outcome. Only if the common factor is in the same line can we do this. The equation must still remain balanced.

We add, subtract, multiply, or divide both sides by a common factor if we need to simplify numbers on only 1 side:

2x+6=10
-6=-6
__________
2x =4
(.5)2x=4(.5)
x=2

In this case we need to get x by itself. We cant just eliminate the 6 because it's only on the left, so we must subtract. If 6 was on both sides, bye bye 6.

Now that x is by itself, we must get it down to 1. In order to do so, we either divide by itself or multiply by its inverse, 1/2 (.5).

We must do all this because there is nothing common on either side. Common factors can be removed, it's that simple.

If I change the above equation it should become evident. Now the same equation looks like this:

2x+(3×2)=4+(3×2)

At this point you drop the (3×2) on either side. You can still show the 1/(3×2) if you want but it isnt necessary.

Regardless of what you do, it must be done on both sides.

As for dividing by 0 you are correct. We dont divide (4-3-1) by 0 in the equation. We would divide by its inverse, which would be 1/(4-3-1).
I get what you're saying, but we don't simply "eliminate" (ie. just take out) the common factor. What we do is divide one side by the common factor, which reduces it to 1 (at least when real numbers are used). Since the result is always 1 (again, when using real numbers), we are technically "eliminating" the common factor, but that's not what we're actually doing. At least, that's how I remember being taught - been a long time since then.
 

GetAgrippa

Platinum Member
Math as in conveying abstract or exact numerical amounts isn’t limited to humans. I don’t think bees recognize zero but they do apparently convey amounts of a food source and distance to source. I wonder if they measure miles or kilometers - LOL.
 

GetAgrippa

Platinum Member
Math is an inescapable part of about all disciplines - for sure in natural sciences. Nothing in biology makes sense without math, physics, and chemistry. Inescapable in business, engineering, pharmacy-medicine, history has math , even philosophy can touch on math. I’ve never considered myself “good in math” but I use to use it daily for about everything in biomedical research.
 
Top