Answer:
Only natural numbers (i.e., non-negative integers) can be the exponents of variables in a polynomial.
Step-by-step explanation:
The exponent of variables in a polynomial should be natural numbers (
,
,
,
,
.)
is equal to
. In this expression,
is the variable. Its exponent is
, which isn't a natural number.
- On the other hand,
is equivalent to
. The exponent of variable
is
, which is indeed a natural number.
isn't a polynomial because the exponent of variable
isn't a natural number. On the other hand,
is indeed a polynomial over the set of real numbers.
Answer:
40x-17
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
x > -1
Step-by-step explanation:
Simplify the inequality using the distributive property (multiply the term outside the bracket with each number inside the bracket). Then, isolate 'x' by performing the reverse operations for every number that's on the same side as 'x'. (Reverse operations 'cancel out' a number.)
18 < -3(4x - 2) Expand this to simplify
18 < (-3)(4x) - (-3)(2) Multiply -3 with 4x and -2
18 < -12x + 6 Start isolating 'x'
18 - 6 < -12x + 6 - 6 Subtract 6 from both sides
18 - 6 < -12x '+ 6' is cancelled out on the right side
12 < -12x Subtracted 6 from 18 on the left side
12/-12 < -12x/-12 Divide both sides by -12
12/-12 < x 'x' is isolated. Simplify left side
-1 < x Answer
x > -1 Standard formatting puts variable on the left side

That's the simplest form of 15/35. You can use
3/7 to get other equivalent fractions by multiplying the numerator and denominator by the same number. Other examples are
9/21, 6/14, and 12/28.
Hope this helps!
Answer:
<u>B. There is sufficient evidence that the mean of the pressure required to open a certain valve has changed. </u>
Step-by-step explanation:
We make this conclusion based on these reasons:
- We are told that the "null hypothesis was rejected" after the <em>"manager feels that the pressure variability has changed.,</em> meaning the <u>null hypothesis was the opposite of what occurred; that is to say, it is the alternate hypothesis that proved true instead.</u>
- <em>"changes in the manufacturing process"</em> form what can be called "sufficient evidence" that the mean of the pressure required to open the valve has changed, thereby going against the null hypothesis.
It is based on the above reasons that the null hypothesis was rejected.