Answer: 99 cent store
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
As you can see from the graph I attached you, the possible solutions in the interval from 0 to 2π are approximately:
So, it's useful to solve the equation too, in order to verify the result:
Taking the inverse sine of both sides:
Using this result we can conclude the solutions in the interval from 0 to 2π are approximately:
Looking at this in terms of sets, let's call O the set of all owls, and F the set of all things that can fly. What this original statement is saying every animal that's a member of the set of all owls is also a member of the set of all things that can fly, or in other words, O⊂F (O is a subset of F). Negating this tells us that, while there's <em>at least one</em> element of O that also belongs to F, O is not contained entirely in F (O⊆F, in notation), so a good negation or our original statement might be:
<em>Not all owls can fly.</em>
Answer:
The statement is false.
Step-by-step explanation:
If the modeling is with multiple variables it is necessary for all the variables to be modeled well such that the criticality of the model is dependent on all the variograms. It is not dependent on the cross variograms only.
ratio of 6:10, if you divide both numbers by 2 you get a ratio of 3:5
multiply by 2 you get 12:20
multiply by 1.5 you get 9:15
D is not equivalent
