The sum clearly diverges. This is indisputable. The point of the claim above, that

is to demonstrate that a sum of infinitely many terms can be manipulated in a variety of ways to end up with a contradictory result. It's an artifact of trying to do computations with an infinite number of terms.
The mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan famously demonstrated the above as follows: Suppose the series converges to some constant, call it

. Then

Now, recall the geometric power series

which holds for any

. It has derivative

Taking

, we end up with

and so

But as mentioned above, neither power series converges unless

. What Ramanujan did was to consider the sum

as a limit of the power series evaluated at

:

then arrived at the conclusion that

.
But again, let's emphasize that this result is patently wrong, and only serves to demonstrate that one can't manipulate a sum of infinitely many terms like one would a sum of a finite number of terms.
Answer:
The UCL is 
The LCL is 
Step-by-step explanation:
From the question we are told that
The quantity of each sample is n = 30
The average of defective products is 
Now the upper control limit [UCL] is mathematically represented as

substituting values


The upper control limit (LCL) is mathematically represented as

substituting values


Point S makes the two connected angles the same. They both have right angles.
And one side of each is congruent.
This means you know 2 angles are the same and one side is the same.
You would use ASA (Angle, Side, Angle)
Answer:
C
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
x = 2.67°
GKJ = 40°
Step-by-step explanation:
Angle HKJ = 6x + 4
Angle HKG = 9x - 4
Segment bisects Angle GKJ, it means that angle HKJ is the same as angle HKG.
You have the measure of both angles in terms of x.
Angle HKJ = Angle HKG
6x + 4 = 9x - 4
4 + 4 = 9x - 6x
8 = 3x
2.67 = x
Angle HKJ:
6(2.67) + 4 = 20°
Angle HKG:
9(2.67) - 4 = 20°
Angle GKJ = HKJ + HKG = 20 + 20 = 40°