All categories

3 years ago

6 yards 9 feet 4 inches multiplied by 2

1 answer:

3 0

1 yard is 3 feet
1 foot is 12 inches

Convert everything into inches:
9 x 12 = 108 in.
6 x 3 = 18 ft.
18 x 12 = 216

Add the inches together:
108 + 216 = 324 in

Multiply the inches by 2:
324 x 2 = 648 in

The answer is 648 inches.

You might be interested in

Help me please..............

larisa [96]

Answer:

a.)48

b.)528

c.)448

Step-by-step explanation:

a.)8x8=64. 4x4=16 64-16=48

b.)48(from a. answer)x11=528

c.)11x8(x2 for the other side)=176. 11x4x4=176.

48x2=96. 176+176+96=448

3 0

3 years ago

Help meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Airida [17]

Answer: 19.6 feet

Step-by-step explanation:

Using the Pythagorean theorem,

$x^2 +(x+6)^2 =48^2\\\\x^2 +x^2 +12x+36=2304\\\\2x^2 +12x-2268=0\\\\x^2 +6x-1134=0\\\\x=\frac{-6 \pm \sqrt{6^2 -4(1)(-1134)}}{2(1)}\\\\x \approx 30.8 \text{ } (x > 0)\\\\\implies x+(x+6) \approx 67.6\\\\\therefore (x+(x+6))-48 \approx 19.6$

4 0

10 months ago

if 200 volts comes from 110 turns on a coil, give the number of turns on a coil that yields 154 volts

grigory [225]

Answer:

23.7

Step-by-step explanation:

6 0

2 years ago

In your own words, write a verbal expression for the following algebraic expression.<br> 18p

maxonik [38]

Step-by-step explanation:

18p is a multiplication expression in itself.

It could be written as 18 x p. I am confused on what you mean as 'verbal' so i'm gonna take a wild guess and say word form.

eighteen times p???

Sorry if it's wrong.

6 0

3 years ago

The least-squares regression model y =−3.4+5.2x and correlation coefficient r=−0.66 were calculated for a set of bivariate data

Makovka662 [10]

Answer:

$r=\frac{n(\sum xy)-(\sum x)(\sum y)}{\sqrt{[n\sum x^2 -(\sum x)^2][n\sum y^2 -(\sum y)^2]}}$

For this case the value of r = -0.66

Now we can calculate the determination coeffcient:

$r^2 = (-0.66)^2 = 0.4356$

And then we can conclude that 43.56% of the variation in y can be explained by the explanatory variable

And then 100-43.56 = 56.44 % of the variation in y that cannot be explained by the explanatory variable

Step-by-step explanation:

For this case we need to calculate the slope with the following formula:

$m=\frac{S_{xy}}{S_{xx}}$

Where:

$S_{xy}=\sum_{i=1}^n x_i y_i -\frac{(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i)(\sum_{i=1}^n y_i)}{n}$

$S_{xx}=\sum_{i=1}^n x^2_i -\frac{(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i)^2}{n}$

$\bar x= \frac{\sum x_i}{n}$

$\bar y= \frac{\sum y_i}{n}$

And we can find the intercept using this:

$b=\bar y -m \bar x$

And the model obtained for this case is:

$y = -3.4 +5.2 x$

The correlation coefficient is a "statistical measure that calculates the strength of the relationship between the relative movements of two variables". It's denoted by r and its always between -1 and 1.

And in order to calculate the correlation coefficient we can use this formula:

$r=\frac{n(\sum xy)-(\sum x)(\sum y)}{\sqrt{[n\sum x^2 -(\sum x)^2][n\sum y^2 -(\sum y)^2]}}$

For this case the value of r = -0.66

Now we can calculate the determination coeffcient:

$r^2 = (-0.66)^2 = 0.4356$

And then we can conclude that 43.56% of the variation in y can be explained by the explanatory variable

And then 100-43.56 = 56.44 % of the variation in y that cannot be explained by the explanatory variable

8 0

2 years ago