Step-by-step explanation:
x² - 2 = 2^(2/3) + 2^(-2/3)
x² = 2^(2/3) + 2 + 2^(-2/3)
x² = (2^(1/3))² + 2 × 2^(1/3) × 2^(-1/3) +
(2^(-1/3))² (It is in the form of a²+2ab+b²)
x² = (2^(1/3) + 2^(-1/3))²
x = 2^(1/3) + 2^(-1/3)
To answer the question we need to know if 35 out of 50 states is equal or greater than 3/4 if that is the case, the Constitution will be ammended, and that is represented like this:
35/50 >= 3/4
that inequality is saying that 35 states out of 50 is equal or greater than 3/4, lets simplify and modify the fractions to compare easily:
<span>35/50 >= 3/4
</span>7/10 <span>>= 3/4
</span>now we need to find the least common multiplier of 10 and 4 to take the fractions to a common denominator and compare easy. Lets multiply numerator and denominator for a correct number to get the fractions to denominator common 20, the lcm:
7/10 <span>>= 3/4
</span>(2/2)(7/10) >= (5/5)(3/4)
2*7/2*10 >= 5*3/5*4
14/20 >= 15/20
we can see that the inequality does not hold, so,
<span>35/50 >= 3/4
</span>does not hold either, therefore the Constitution cannot be ammended
Answer:
For this case we want to check if the true mean for the depth of groves cut into aluminium by a machine is equal to 1.7 (null hypothesis) and the alternative hypothesis would be the complement different from 1.7. And the best system of hypothesis are:
Null hypothesis: 
Alternative hypothesis ![\mu \neq 1.7[/tx]And the best system of hypothesis are:3. This two-sided test: H0: μ = 1.7 mm H1: μ ≠ 1.7 mmStep-by-step explanation:For this case we want to check if the true mean for the depth of groves cut into aluminium by a machine is equal to 1.7 (null hypothesis) and the alternative hypothesis would be the complement different from 1.7. And the best system of hypothesis are:Null hypothesis: [tex]\mu =1.7](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cmu%20%5Cneq%201.7%5B%2Ftx%5D%3C%2Fp%3E%3Cp%3EAnd%20the%20best%20system%20of%20hypothesis%20are%3A%3C%2Fp%3E%3Cp%3E3.%20This%20two-sided%20test%3A%0A%3C%2Fp%3E%3Cp%3EH0%3A%20%CE%BC%20%3D%201.7%20mm%0A%3C%2Fp%3E%3Cp%3EH1%3A%20%CE%BC%20%E2%89%A0%201.7%20mm%3C%2Fp%3E%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3EStep-by-step%20explanation%3A%3C%2Fstrong%3E%3C%2Fp%3E%3Cp%3EFor%20this%20case%20we%20want%20to%20check%20if%20the%20true%20mean%20for%20the%20depth%20of%20groves%20cut%20into%20aluminium%20by%20a%20machine%20is%20equal%20to%201.7%20%28null%20hypothesis%29%20and%20the%20alternative%20hypothesis%20would%20be%20the%20complement%20different%20from%201.7.%20And%20the%20best%20system%20of%20hypothesis%20are%3A%3C%2Fp%3E%3Cp%3ENull%20hypothesis%3A%20%5Btex%5D%5Cmu%20%3D1.7)
Alternative hypothesis [tex]\mu \neq 1.7[/tx]
And the best system of hypothesis are:
3. This two-sided test:
H0: μ = 1.7 mm
H1: μ ≠ 1.7 mm
The poverty level cutoff in 1987 to the nearest dollar was $10787.
<h3>
How to find a midpoint?</h3>
The midpoint as the point that divides the line segment exactly in half having two equal segments. Therefore, the midpoint presents the same distance between the endpoints for the line segment. The midpoint formula is:
.
For solving this exercise, first you need plot the points in a chart. See the image.
Your question asks to approximate the poverty level cutoff in 1987 to the nearest dollar using the midpoint formula. Note that the year 1987 is between 1980 and 1990, thus you should apply the midpoint formula from data for this year (1987).



The answer for your question will be the value that you calculated for the y-coordinate. Then, the poverty level cutoff in 1987 to the nearest dollar was $10787.
Read more about the midpoint segment here:
brainly.com/question/11408596