All categories

3 years ago

Solve the following system of equations 2x+y=11 and -x+2y=2

Mathematics

1 answer:

givi [52]3 years ago

7 0

{2x+y=11
{-x+2y=2 //*2

{2x+y=11
+
{-2x+4y=4

5y=15
y=3
-x+6=2
x=4
Answer
x=4; y=3

You might be interested in

Find the distance between the points with coordinates (-8.6,2.9) and (8.6,2.9)

Karo-lina-s [1.5K]

The answer i got was D-17.2 units. i used the distance formula to solve this problem

3 0

3 years ago

According to the February 2008 Federal Trade Commission report on consumer fraud and identity theft, 23% of all complaints in 20

Murljashka [212]

Answer:

There is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.

Step-by-step explanation:

We are given the following in the question:

Sample size, n = 1432

p = 23% = 0.23

Alpha, α = 0.05

Number of theft complaints , x = 321

First, we design the null and the alternate hypothesis

$H_{0}: p = 0.23\\H_A: p < 0.23$

This is a one-tailed test.

Formula:

$\hat{p} = \dfrac{x}{n} = \dfrac{321}{1432} =0.2241$

$z = \dfrac{\hat{p}-p}{\sqrt{\dfrac{p(1-p)}{n}}}$

Putting the values, we get,

$z = \displaystyle\frac{0.2241-0.23}{\sqrt{\frac{0.23(1-0.23)}{1432}}} = -0.5305$

Now, we calculate the p-value from the table.

P-value = 0.298

Since the p-value is greater than the significance level, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis.

Conclusion:

Thus, there is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.

5 0

3 years ago

What is the x-coordinate of the solution to the following system of equations?

tatyana61 [14]

Answer

X-2y = 2

3x + y = 6

Ox=-2

Ox=0

Ox=2

Ox=3

= 0

Step-by-step explanation:

easy

8 0

3 years ago

The structure of a two-factor study can be presented as a matrix with the levels of one factor determining the rows and the leve

slega [8]

Answer:

Following are the solution to this question:

Step-by-step explanation:

It provides three different hypotheses in such a two-factor ANOVA:

In point A:

H o: With all factor A levels, the ways are equivalent

Ha: A least another element A level does have a transfer to another

In point B:

Ha: The least one Factor A the level does have a transfer to another

H o: With all Factor B levels the results are about the same.

In point C:

Ha: At most one Variable B level does have a transfer than any other level.

H o: There are no interactions among the factors

Ha: The interactions of factors are important

When ANOVA is executed, they get three p-sets (one for all 3 hypotheses)

(a) If Variable A's p-value is much less alpha, we will reject the null and embrace Ha and infer that Factor A is important. Anything else, H o also isn't rejected and that there is no evidence which Factor A is important

(b) If p- is < alpha, otherwise we reject The null, accept Ha, and infer which Factor B is relevant. Factor B is significant. Conversely, we may not condemn H o but claim there isn't enough proof which Factor B is important

(c)

If they reject H o and agree to the point p- for the A x B interaction is a < alpha Ha, and conclude that the interaction from A to B is important. So, perhaps we can deny H o and claim, that neither proof of interactions is sufficient From A to B.

8 0

3 years ago

Are the following lines parallel ?

Zarrin [17]

Answer:

false jfkdigitkhijdkdkcjgjdjjbkdkvkffkb

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers