All categories

3 years ago

Rewrite the expression as an equivalent power with a negative exponent. a. 1/49 b. 27/125

1 answer:

3 0

$\dfrac{1}{49}=\left(\dfrac{1}{7}\right)^2=7^{-2}\\
\dfrac{27}{125}=\left(\dfrac{3}{5}\right)^3=\left(\dfrac{5}{3}\right)^{-3}$

You might be interested in

Hey! please help i’ll give brainliest! if it lets me:)

8090 [49]

I think it’s the first one

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Which Store has a better deal per can of soda? Explain.

V125BC [204]

Answer:

store A has a better deal. as you can get 12 soda's for the price of $7.20

Step-by-step explanation:

3.60 x 2 = $7.20

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

I need help ASAP!!!!!!!

katrin2010 [14]

Answer:

2*(2)+3/2-1=7

Step-by-step explanation:

7 0

3 years ago

Somebody please assist me here

Anettt [7]

The base case of $n=1$ is trivially true, since

$\displaystyle P\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^1 E_i\right) = P(E_1) = \sum_{i=1}^1 P(E_i)$

but I think the case of $n=2$ may be a bit more convincing in this role. We have by the inclusion/exclusion principle

$\displaystyle P\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^2 E_i\right) = P(E_1 \cup E_2) \\\\ P\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^2 E_i\right) = P(E_1) + P(E_2) - P(E_1 \cap E_2) \\\\ P\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^2 E_i\right) \le P(E_1) + P(E_2) \\\\ P\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^2 E_i\right) \le \sum_{i=1}^2 P(E_i)$

with equality if $E_1\cap E_2=\emptyset$ .

Now assume the case of $n=k$ is true, that

$\displaystyle P\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^k E_i\right) \le \sum_{i=1}^k P(E_i)$

We want to use this to prove the claim for $n=k+1$ , that

$\displaystyle P\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{k+1} E_i\right) \le \sum_{i=1}^{k+1} P(E_i)$

The I/EP tells us

$\displaystyle P\left(\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{k+1} E_i\right) = P\left(\left(\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^k E_i\right) \cup E_{k+1}\right) \\\\ P\left(\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{k+1} E_i\right) = P\left(\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^k E_i\right) + P(E_{k+1}) - P\left(\left(\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^k E_i\right) \cap E_{k+1}\right)$

and by the same argument as in the $n=2$ case, this leads to

$\displaystyle P\left(\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{k+1} E_i\right) = P\left(\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^k E_i\right) + P(E_{k+1}) - P\left(\left(\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^k E_i\right) \cap E_{k+1}\right) \\\\ P\left(\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{k+1} E_i\right) \le P\left(\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^k E_i\right) + P(E_{k+1})$

By the induction hypothesis, we have an upper bound for the probability of the union of the $E_1$ through $E_k$ . The result follows.

$\displaystyle P\left(\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{k+1} E_i\right) \le P\left(\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^k E_i\right) + P(E_{k+1}) \\\\ P\left(\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{k+1} E_i\right) \le \sum_{i=1}^k P(E_i) + P(E_{k+1}) \\\\ P\left(\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{k+1} E_i\right) \le \sum_{i=1}^{k+1} P(E_i)$

5 0

2 years ago

Help me please (question is below btw)

kkurt [141]

Answer:

2 (4x+3y)

Step-by-step explanation:

Hope this helps :)

3 0

3 years ago