All categories

2 years ago

What is the scientific notation of (2.4 x 10 at the power of 6) x (3.6 x 10 at the power of 3)

1 answer:

3 0

Go to Khanacademy.com and create a free account, then type in the search box "Scientific Notation" and there will be several videos that come up and they will thoroughly explain it with multiple examples.

You might be interested in

Josh purchased a DVD for $10.80, before taxes. The price was after a 25% discount. What was the original price of the DVD?

andreev551 [17]

Answer:

2.70

Step-by-step explanation:

4 0

2 years ago

Simplify this expression 1/2(362 -4)

Arisa [49]

The answer is 179!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5 0

2 years ago

Find the volume <br> Please help have to turn in a hour from now

pantera1 [17]

Answer:

V ≈ 226.72 cm³

Step-by-step explanation:

Use the formula for volume of a cone using slant height and radius.

V = 1/3 π r² √ l² - r²

Then, plug in dimensions and solve.

V = 1/3 π (10)² √ 10² - 5²

V ≈ 226.72 cm³

Hope I could help!!! Good luck!!!

5 0

2 years ago

A data mining routine has been applied to a transaction dataset and has classified 88 records as fraudulent (30 correctly so) an

chubhunter [2.5K]

Answer:

The classification matrix is attached below

Part a

The classification error rate for the records those are truly fraudulent is 65.91%.

Part b

The classification error rate for records that are truly non-fraudulent is 96.64%

Step-by-step explanation:

The classification matrix is obtained as shown below:

The transaction dataset has 30 fraudulent correctly classified records out of 88 records, that is, 30 records are correctly predicted given that an instance is negative.

Also, there would be 88 - 30 = 58 non-fraudulent incorrectly classified records, that is, 58 records are incorrectly predicted given that an instance is positive.

The transaction dataset has 920 non-fraudulent correctly classified records out of 952 records, that is, 920 records are correctly predicted given that an instance is positive.

Also, there would be 952 - 920 = 32 fraudulent incorrectly classified records, that is, 32 records incorrectly predicted given that an instance is negative.

That is,

Predicted value

Active value Fraudulent Non-fraudulent

Fraudlent 30 58

non-fraudulent 32 920

The classification matrix is obtained by using the information related to the transaction data, which is classified into fraudulent records and non-fraudulent records.

The error rate is obtained as shown below:

The error rate is obtained by taking the ratio of $\left( {b + c} \right)(b+c)$ and the total number of records.

The classification matrix is, shown above

The total number of records is, $30 + 58 + 32 + 920 = 1,040$

The error rate is,

$\begin{array}{c}\\{\rm{Error}}\,{\rm{rate}} = \frac{{b + c}}{{{\rm{Total}}}}\\\\ = \frac{{58 + 32}}{{1,040}}\\\\ = \frac{{90}}{{1,040}}\\\\ = 0.0865\\\end{array}$

The percentage is $0.0865 \times 100 = 8.65$

(a)

The classification error rate for the records those are truly fraudulent is obtained by taking the rate ratio of b and $\left( {a + b} \right)(a+b)$ .

The classification error rate for the records those are truly fraudulent is obtained as shown below:

The classification matrix is, shown above and in the attachment

The error rate for truly fraudulent is,

$\begin{array}{c}\\FP = \frac{b}{{a + b}}\\\\ = \frac{{58}}{{30 + 58}}\\\\ = \frac{{58}}{{88}}\\\\ = 0.6591\\\end{array}$

The percentage is, $0.6591 \times 100 = 65.91$

(b)

The classification error rate for records that are truly non-fraudulent is obtained by taking the ratio of d and $\left( {c + d} \right)(c+d)$ .

The classification error rate for records that are truly non-fraudulent is obtained as shown below:

The classification matrix is, shown in the attachment

The error rate for truly non-fraudulent is,

$\begin{array}{c}\\TP = \frac{d}{{c + d}}\\\\ = \frac{{920}}{{32 + 920}}\\\\ = \frac{{920}}{{952}}\\\\ = 0.9664\\\end{array}$

The percentage is, $0.9664 \times 100 = 96.64$

8 0

2 years ago

6 Cassius is purchasing flower baskets to

Hunter-Best [27]

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

i took the test

4 0

2 years ago