Answer:
Flour used to make 9 pizzas = 5 ×
= 3
Flour used for each pizza = 3 ÷ 9
= 3 × (reciprocal of 9)
=
The amount of flour used for each mini pizza is kg.
This problem Is an example of geometrica progression. The formula
for the sum of geometric progression is:
S = a[(r^n)-1] / (r – 1)
Where s is the sum
a is the first term = 1
r is the common ratio = 2 ( because it doubles every year
n is the number of terms = (19) since the first term is when
he was born which he still 0
s = S = 1[(2^19)-1] / (2 – 1)
s = $524,287
<span> </span>
If Tito took a loan of $10000 from a bank to be repaid within 4 years, at 12% Simple interest per annum, then, he will have to pay overall $4800 as interest to the bank over 4 years and a total payment of $14800 at the end of the 4th year to repay and close off the loan.
As per the question statement, a bank charges 12% Simple interest per annum on cash loans to its clients and Tito took a loan of $10000 from the same bank to be repaid within 4 years.
We are required to calculate the overall interest Tito has to pay to bank if he repays and closes the loan at the end of 4th year, and also to calculate the total payment required to repay and close off the loan at the end of the 4th year.
To solve this question, we need to know the formula to calculate the interest amount in case of simple interest which goes as
Interest (I)
where, "P" = Principle amount of Loan,
"R" = Rate of simple interest charged on the principle per annum, and
"T" = Time period within which, the loan is to be repaid.
Here, (P = 10000), (R = 12%) and (T = 4). Then, the overall interest Tito will have to pay at the end of 4th year =
And total amount to be paid to repay and close of the loan at the end of 4th year will be = $[4800 + 10000] = $14800.
- Simple interest: As the name itself suggests, "Simple" interest refers to the straightforward crediting of cash flows associated with some investment or deposit.
To learn more about Simple Interest, click on the link below.
brainly.com/question/25845758
#SPJ9
Answer:
B: Ella got a higher ratio on this week's test.
Step-by-step explanation:
Lets gather info:
13:15 and 16:20.
So, is
Ok. 13/15 is 0.87.
16/20 is 0.8
So Ella got a higher ratio on this weeks test.
So B.
Hope this helps plz hit the crown :D
I'll give you an example from topology that might help - even if you don't know topology, the distinction between the proof styles should be clear.
Proposition: Let
S
be a closed subset of a complete metric space (,)
(
E
,
d
)
. Then the metric space (,)
(
S
,
d
)
is complete.
Proof Outline: Cauchy sequences in (,)
(
S
,
d
)
converge in (,)
(
E
,
d
)
by completeness, and since (,)
(
S
,
d
)
is closed, convergent sequences of points in (,)
(
S
,
d
)
converge in (,)
(
S
,
d
)
, so any Cauchy sequence of points in (,)
(
S
,
d
)
must converge in (,)
(
S
,
d
)
.
Proof: Let ()
(
a
n
)
be a Cauchy sequence in (,)
(
S
,
d
)
. Then each ∈
a
n
∈
E
since ⊆
S
⊆
E
, so we may treat ()
(
a
n
)
as a sequence in (,)
(
E
,
d
)
. By completeness of (,)
(
E
,
d
)
, →
a
n
→
a
for some point ∈
a
∈
E
. Since
S
is closed,
S
contains all of its limit points, implying that any convergent sequence of points of
S
must converge to a point of
S
. This shows that ∈
a
∈
S
, and so we see that →∈
a
n
→
a
∈
S
. As ()
(
a
n
)
was arbitrary, we see that Cauchy sequences in (,)
(
S
,
d
)
converge in (,)
(
S
,
d
)
, which is what we wanted to show.
The main difference here is the level of detail in the proofs. In the outline, we left out most of the details that are intuitively clear, providing the main idea so that a reader could fill in the details for themselves. In the actual proof, we go through the trouble of providing the more subtle details to make the argument more rigorous - ideally, a reader of a more complete proof should not be left wondering about any gaps in logic.
(There is another type of proof called a formal proof, in which everything is derived from first principles using mathematical logic. This type of proof is entirely rigorous but almost always very lengthy, so we typically sacrifice some rigor in favor of clarity.)
As you learn more about a topic, your proofs typically begin to approach proof outlines, since things that may not have seemed obvious before become intuitive and clear. When you are first learning it is best to go through the detailed proof to make sure that you understand everything as well as you think you do, and only once you have mastered a subject do you allow yourself to omit obvious details that should be clear to someone who understands the subject on the same level as you.