Enormous O unpredictability is in reference to the most exceedingly terrible conceivable development rate of the calculation. So O(N log N) implies that it will never keep running in some time more terrible than O(N log N). So in spite of the fact that Al's calculation scales superior to Bob's quadratic algo, it doesn't really mean it is better for ALL info sizes.
Maybe there is critical overhead in building up it, for example, making a lot of clusters or factors. Remember that even an O(N log N) calculation could have 1000 non settled circles that official at O(N) and still be viewed as O(N log N) the length of it is the most exceedingly awful part.
<h2>ANSWER OF EACH PART ARE GIVEN BELOW</h2>
Explanation:
A)
We know, each mole contains 
atoms.
It is given that mass of one oxygen atom is m= 
.
Therefore, mass of one mole of oxygen, 
.
Putting value of n and 
,
B)
Given,
Mass of water in glass=0.050 kg = 50 gm.
From above part mass of one mole of oxygen atoms = 16.0 gm.
Therefore, number of mole of oxygen equivalent to 50 gm oxygen
LEARN MORE :
Avogadro's number
brainly.com/question/12902286
Answer:
2 electrons
Explanation:
There are five 3d orbitals, each of which can hold up to 2 electrons, for 10 total electrons. An orbital is described by the principle quantum number, n, the angular momentum quantum number, l, and the magnetic quantum number, ml.
The chloroplasts i believe is the answer
Explanations:
<u>Question</u> <u>1:</u> Lithium in 20.00+ g is C. or D., but 25.00+ g is D. which means this is the correct option.
I am unsure of <u>Question</u> <u>2</u>. I don't think it is mole though.
<u>Question</u> <u>3:</u> Boron in 25.00-30.00 g is B. or D., but 25.00 g would be C.
<u>Question</u> <u>4:</u> 2.393 x 1024 atoms of Oxygen is 63.58 mole O. I don't know for sure, but I think this is correct.
<u><em>I am NOT professional. There is a chance I am incorrect. Please reply to me if I've made a mistake.</em></u>
