Answer:
2
Step-by-step explanation:
Given
See attachment for chart
Required
Number of off days
To do this, we simply calculate the expected value of the chart.
This is calculated as:
Where
x = days
f = chances
So, we have:
Answer:
The median is 20.5
the average is 21
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
Maureen ignored the negative(minus) sign in 1.7 thereby turning it into positive 1.7
Step-by-step explanation:
-1.7 + (-6.3)
Correct simplification
-1.7 + (-6.3)
Open parenthesis
= - 1.7 - 6.3
= -8
NOTE:
- * + = -
- * - = +
+ * - = -
+ * + = +
Maureen's simplification
-1.7 + (-6.3)
= 1.7 - 6.3
= -4.6
Maureen ignored the negative(minus) sign in 1.7 thereby turning it into positive 1.7
5000
- Addition (+) and subtraction (-) round by the least number of decimals.
- Multiplication (* or ×) and division (/ or ÷) round by the least number of significant figures.
- Logarithm (log, ln) uses the input's number of significant figures as the result's number of decimals.
- Antilogarithm (n^x.y) uses the power's number of decimals (mantissa) as the result's number of significant figures.
- Exponentiation (n^x) only rounds by the significant figures in the base.
- To count trailing zeros, add a decimal point at the end (e.g. 1000.) or use scientific notation (e.g. 1.000 × 10^3 or 1.000e3).
- Zeros have all their digits counted as significant (e.g. 0 = 1, 0.00 = 3).
- Rounds when required, after parentheses, and on the final step.
<em>-</em><em> </em><em>BRAINLIEST </em><em>answerer</em><em> ❤️</em>
Answer:
The proof contains a simple direct proof, wrapped inside the unnecessary logical packaging of a proof by contradiction framework.
Step-by-step explanation:
The proof is rigourous and well written, so we discard the second answer.
This is not a fake proof by contradiction: it does not have any logical fallacies (circular arguments) or additional assumptions, like, for example, the "proof" of "All the horses are the same color". It is factually correct, but it can be rewritten as a direct proof.
A meaningful proof by contradiction depends strongly on the assumption that the statement to prove is false. In this argument, we only this assumption once, thus it is innecessary. Other proofs by contradiction, like the proof of "The square root of 2 is irrational" or Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, develop a longer argument based on the new assumption, but this proof doesn't.
To rewrite this without the superfluous framework, erase the parts "Suppose that the statement is false" and "The fact that the statement is true contradicts the assumption that the statement is false. Thus, the assumption that the statement was false must have been false. Thus, the statement is true."
