Theoretical probability:
1 ... (16 and 2/3) %
2 ... (16 and 2/3) %
3 ... (16 and 2/3) %
4 ... (16 and 2/3) %
5 ... (16 and 2/3) %
6 ... (16 and 2/3) %
Experimental results:
1 ... 18
2 ... 16
3 ... 16
4 ... 17
5 ... 16
6 ... 17
The total number of rolls in the experiment was
(18 + 16 + 16 + 17 + 16 + 17) = 100
so the expected frequency for each outcome was 16-2/3 times,
and the SIMULATION probabilities were
1 ... 18%
2 ... 16%
3 ... 16%
4 ... 17%
5 ... 16%
6 ... 17%
To me, this looks fantastically close. The cube
could hardly be more fair than it actually is.
Answer:
(-4/3)y
Step-by-step explanation:
The x cancels out, leaving:
-4y/3 or (-4/3)y
It’s actually independent
Answer:
She drew an isosceles because isosceles has two equal sides
Step-by-step explanation:
I think because the state wants people to have a certain amount of knowledge at least thats what i think
I dont agree with them because they teach us (in my opinion) unnecessary math like with a bunch of symbols which is just too much its all extra