Can someone help meeeeee???

Jason alleges that if the means and mean absolute deviation of two different lists of numbers are the same, then all of the numb

olga55 [171]

Yes he is correct................................................................................................................................................................

3 0

3 years ago

5) Two machines M1, M2 are used to manufacture resistors with a design

Basile [38]

Answer:

Since M1 has the higher probability of being in the desired range, we choose M1.

Step-by-step explanation:

Problems of normally distributed samples are solved using the z-score formula.

In a set with mean $\mu$ and standard deviation $\sigma$ , the zscore of a measure X is given by:

$Z = \frac{X - \mu}{\sigma}$

The Z-score measures how many standard deviations the measure is from the mean. After finding the Z-score, we look at the z-score table and find the p-value associated with this z-score. This p-value is the probability that the value of the measure is smaller than X, that is, the percentile of X. Subtracting 1 by the pvalue, we get the probability that the value of the measure is greater than X.

Two machines M1, M2 are used to manufacture resistors with a design specification of 1000 ohm with 10% tolerance.

So we need the machines to be within 1000 - 0.1*1000 = 900 ohms and 1000 + 0.1*1000 = 1100 ohms.

For each machine, we need to find the probabilty of the machine being in this range. We choose the one with the higher probability.

M1:

Resistors of M1 are found to follow normal distribution with mean 1050 ohm and standard deviation of 100 ohm. This means that $\mu = 1050, \sigma = 100$

The probability is the pvalue of Z when X = 1100 subtracted by the pvalue of Z when X = 900. So

X = 1100

$Z = \frac{X - \mu}{\sigma}$

$Z = \frac{1100 - 1050}{100}$

$Z = 0.5$

$Z = 0.5$ has a pvalue of 0.6915.

X = 900

$Z = \frac{X - \mu}{\sigma}$

$Z = \frac{900 - 1050}{100}$

$Z = -1.5$

$Z = -1.5$ has a pvalue of 0.0668

0.6915 - 0.0668 = 0.6247.

M1 has a 62.47% probability of being in the desired range.

M2:

M2 are found to follow normal distribution with mean 1000 ohm and standard deviation of 120 ohm. This means that $\mu = 1000, \sigma = 120$

X = 1100

$Z = \frac{X - \mu}{\sigma}$

$Z = \frac{1100 - 1000}{120}$

$Z = 0.83$

$Z = 0.83$ has a pvalue of 0.7967.

X = 900

$Z = \frac{X - \mu}{\sigma}$

$Z = \frac{900 - 1000}{120}$

$Z = -0.83$

$Z = -0.83$ has a pvalue of 0.2033

0.7967 - 0.2033 = 0.5934

M2 has a 59.34% probability of being in the desired range.

Since M1 has the higher probability of being in the desired range, we choose M1.

8 0

3 years ago

HELP ASAP IM STRUGGLING : The instructions on a box of chicken patties state that one patty should be cooked for 2.5 minutes in

AveGali [126]

Answer:

y= 1.5x + 2.5

Step-by-step explanation:

So slope intercept form is y= mx + b.

y is the number of minutes, so that will be on the left of the equal sign, not part of the math side of the actual equation, because it's the answer.

1.5x is the mx part because it's 1.5 minutes for each extra patty. So that would explain the x attached to it. so for each extra patty you add, that's what x would be.

The + 2.5 at the end, is just the time for the initial patty.

Hope this helps and is easy to understand! :)

4 0

4 years ago

Please walk me through how to do this so I can di the other questions

Naddik [55]

Answer:

Axis is a vertical line at x = 2

Vertex is (2, -1)

y-intercept is (0, 3)

Solutions are x = 1 and x = 3

Step-by-step explanation:

To draw the graph of the quadratic equation you must find at least 5 points lie on the graph by choose values of x and find their values of y

Let us do that

Use x = -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

∵ y = x² - 4x + 3

∵ x = -1

∴ y = (-1)² - 4(-1) + 3 = 1 + 4 + 3 = 8

→ Plot point (-1, 8)

∵ x = 0

∴ y = (0)² - 4(0) + 3 = 0 + 0 + 3 = 3

→ Plot point (0, 3)

∵ x = 1

∴ y = (1)² - 4(1) + 3 = 1 - 4 + 3 = 0

→ Plot point (1, 0)

∵ x = 2

∴ y = (2)² - 4(2) + 3 = 4 - 8 + 3 = -1

→ Plot point (2, -1)

∵ x = 3

∴ y = (3)² - 4(3) + 3 = 9 - 12 + 3 = 0

→ Plot point (3, 0)

∵ x = 4

∴ y = (4)² - 4(4) + 3 = 16 - 16 + 3 = 3

→ Plot point (4, 3)

∵ x = 5

∴ y = (5)² - 4(5) + 3 = 25 - 20 + 3 = 8

→ Plot point (5, 8)

→ Join all the points to form the parabola

From the graph

∵ The axis of symmetry is the vertical line passes through the vertex point

∵ x-coordinate of the vertex point is 2

∴ Axis is a vertical line at x = 2

∵ The coordinates of the vertex point of the parabola are (2, -1)

∴ Vertex is (2, -1)

∵ The parabola intersects the y-axis at point (0, 3)

∴ y-intercept is (0, 3)

∵ x² - 4x + 3 = 0

∵ The solutions of the equation are the values of x at y = 0

→ That means the intersection points of the parabola and the x-axis

∵ The parabola intersects the x-axis at points (1, 0) and (3, 0)

∴ Solutions are x = 1 and x = 3

3 0

3 years ago

Is the formula for percentages compound interest is P=I/N???

vampirchik [111]

Answer an essay on nothing

Step-by-step explanation:

In philosophy there is a lot of emphasis on what exists. We call this ontology, which means, the study of being. What is less often examined is what does not exist.

It is understandable that we focus on what exists, as its effects are perhaps more visible. However, gaps or non-existence can also quite clearly have an impact on us in a number of ways. After all, death, often dreaded and feared, is merely the lack of existence in this world (unless you believe in ghosts). We are affected also by living people who are not there, objects that are not in our lives, and knowledge we never grasp.

Upon further contemplation, this seems quite odd and raises many questions. How can things that do not exist have such bearing upon our lives? Does nothing have a type of existence all of its own? And how do we start our inquiry into things we can’t interact with directly because they’re not there? When one opens a box, and exclaims “There is nothing inside it!”, is that different from a real emptiness or nothingness? Why is nothingness such a hard concept for philosophy to conceptualize?

Let us delve into our proposed box, and think inside it a little. When someone opens an empty box, they do not literally find it devoid of any sort of being at all, since there is still air, light, and possibly dust present. So the box is not truly empty. Rather, the word ‘empty’ here is used in conjunction with a prior assumption. Boxes were meant to hold things, not to just exist on their own. Inside they might have a present; an old family relic; a pizza; or maybe even another box. Since boxes have this purpose of containing things ascribed to them, there is always an expectation there will be something in a box. Therefore, this situation of nothingness arises from our expectations, or from our being accustomed. The same is true of statements such as “There is no one on this chair.” But if someone said, “There is no one on this blender”, they might get some odd looks. This is because a chair is understood as something that holds people, whereas a blender most likely not.

The same effect of expectation and corresponding absence arises with death. We do not often mourn people we only might have met; but we do mourn those we have known. This pain stems from expecting a presence and having none. Even people who have not experienced the presence of someone themselves can still feel their absence due to an expectation being confounded. Children who lose one or both of their parents early in life often feel that lack of being through the influence of the culturally usual idea of a family. Just as we have cultural notions about the box or chair, there is a standard idea of a nuclear family, containing two parents, and an absence can be noted even by those who have never known their parents.

This first type of nothingness I call ‘perceptive nothingness’. This nothingness is a negation of expectation: expecting something and being denied that expectation by reality. It is constructed by the individual human mind, frequently through comparison with a socially constructed concept.

Pure nothingness, on the other hand, does not contain anything at all: no air, no light, no dust. We cannot experience it with our senses, but we can conceive it with the mind. Possibly, this sort of absolute nothing might have existed before our universe sprang into being. Or can something not arise from nothing? In which case, pure nothing can never have existed.

If we can for a moment talk in terms of a place devoid of all being, this would contain nothing in its pure form. But that raises the question, Can a space contain nothing; or, if there is space, is that not a form of existence in itself?

This question brings to mind what’s so baffling about nothing: it cannot exist. If nothing existed, it would be something. So nothing, by definition, is not able to ‘be’.

Is absolute nothing possible, then? Perhaps not. Perhaps for example we need something to define nothing; and if there is something, then there is not absolutely nothing. What’s more, if there were truly nothing, it would be impossible to define it. The world would not be conscious of this nothingness. Only because there is a world filled with Being can we imagine a dull and empty one. Nothingness arises from Somethingness, then: without being to compare it to, nothingness has no existence. Once again, pure nothingness has shown itself to be negation.

4 0

2 years ago