Correction:
Because F is not present in the statement, instead of working onP(E)P(F) = P(E∩F), I worked on
P(E∩E') = P(E)P(E').
Answer:
The case is not always true.
Step-by-step explanation:
Given that the odds for E equals the odds against E', then it is correct to say that the E and E' do not intersect.
And for any two mutually exclusive events, E and E',
P(E∩E') = 0
Suppose P(E) is not equal to zero, and P(E') is not equal to zero, then
P(E)P(E') cannot be equal to zero.
So
P(E)P(E') ≠ 0
This makes P(E∩E') different from P(E)P(E')
Therefore,
P(E∩E') ≠ P(E)P(E') in this case.
Answer:
a postulate
Step-by-step explanation:
a postulate which states that through any two points, there is exactly one line
If i were you, i would add one to 7x and fifteen. this gives you x^2+8x+16, a perfect square of x+4.
Answer:
⁸
Step-by-step explanation:
Given expression:
= 
x 
As a rule of exponents;
= 
So;
= x 
= ⁸
