#### Steve30907

##### Well-known member

That's Mr. Roboto's big secret.Not according to Stix

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Neal Pert
- Start date

That's Mr. Roboto's big secret.Not according to Stix

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.You just wanted that thing about the Pearl tom arms to go away, didn't you?

I agreePlay what you love, love what you play.

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.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.

Line 3 works to 0 = 0.Here you go:

View attachment 109062

Here you go:

View attachment 109062

Was just about to say the same thing.Line 3 works to 0 = 0.

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.

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.Line 3 works to 0 = 0.

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?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.

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.

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

Last edited:

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"

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.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?

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.

I shudder at the thought of you counting off a tune in 4/4 @C.M. Jones !!When I add two and two, five is always a possibility.

Ha! Luckily, my math aversion doesn't extend to time signatures. But if music involved calculus or differential equations, I'd need a very patient tutor -- and probably a prescription for Valium.I shudder at the thought of you counting off a tune in 4/4 @C.M. Jones !!

Last edited:

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.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).