All categories

3 years ago

Which statement comparing these measures is true? A microgram is 1,000 times greater than a milligram.

Mathematics

1 answer:

ololo11 [35]3 years ago

3 0

The statement is false.

The statement below is true.
A milligram is 1000 times greater than a microgram.

You might be interested in

I need help for the 5th time

Leviafan [203]

Answer:

3.2t - 2.4

Step-by-step explanation:

Given

- 3.6 - 1.9t + 1.2 + 5.1t ← collect like terms

= (- 1.9t + 5.1t) + (- 3.6 + 1.2)

= 3.2t + (- 2.4)

= 3.2t - 2.4

8 0

2 years ago

X^2+y^2=169, 3x+2y=39 please answer using substitution and each step

Oksanka [162]

Answer:

x=13,y=0

Step-by-step explanation:

We are given a system of equations

${x}^{2} + {y}^{2} = 169 - - eqn \: 1 \\ 3x + 2y = 39 - - eqn \: 2$

For equation 1,square all terms to reduce it

√x²+√y²=169

x+y=13

Make x the subject as required by the question to use substitution method

x=13-y

Plug x=13-y into eqn 2

3(13-y)+2y=39

39-3y+2y=39

39-y=39

y=39-39=0

Plug y=0 into equation 1

x+0=13

x=0

7 0

2 years ago

2. Solve the system of equations. Write your answer in parametric vector notation. X, +5x2 + 4x3 + 3x4 +9xs = 18 2x, +6x2 + 4x3

ratelena [41]

Answer:

The system is inconsistent.

Step-by-step explanation:

The system is

$x_1+5x_2+4x_3+3x_4+9x_5=18\\2x_1+6x_2+4x_3+6x_4+6x_5=28\\3x_1+7x_2+4x_3+10x_4+x_5=41\\4x_1+6x_2+2x_3+7x_4+4x_5=29$

The associated matrix to the system is

$\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}1&5&4&3&9&18\\2&6&4&6&6&28\\3&7&4&10&1&41\\4&6&2&7&4&29\end{array}\right]$

Now we use row operations to find the echelon form of the matrix:

1. We substract to row 2, two times the row 1.

We substract to row 3, three times the row 1.

We substract to row 4, four times the row 1 and obtain the matrix

$\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}1&5&4&3&9&18\\0&-4&-4&0&-12&-8\\0&-8&-8&1&-26&-13\\0&-14&-14&-5&-32&-43\end{array}\right]$

2. We multiply the second row of the preview step by -1/4. We obtain the matrix

$\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}1&5&4&3&9&18\\0&1&1&0&3&2\\0&-8&-8&1&-26&-13\\0&-14&-14&-5&-32&-43\end{array}\right]$

We add to row 3, eight times the row 2.

We add to row 4, fourtheen times the row 2 and obtain the matrix

$\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}1&5&4&3&9&18\\0&1&1&0&3&2\\0&0&0&1&-2&3\\0&0&0&-5&10&-155\end{array}\right]$

4. We add to row 4 of the preview step, five times the row 3 and obtain the matrix

$\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}1&5&4&3&9&18\\0&1&1&0&3&2\\0&0&0&1&-2&3\\0&0&0&0&0&-140\end{array}\right]$

Using backward substitution we have that

$0x_5=-140$ , then $0=-140$ and this is absurd. Then The system is inconsistent.

4 0

3 years ago

The sodium content of a popular sports drink is listed as 200 mg in a 32-oz bottle. Analysis of 20 bottles indicates a sample me

julia-pushkina [17]

Answer:

The sample does not contradicts the manufacturer's claim.

Step-by-step explanation:

We are given the following in the question:

Population mean, μ = 200 mg

Sample mean, $\bar{x}$ = 211.5 mg

Sample size, n = 20

Alpha, α = 0.05

Sample standard deviation, s = 18.5 mg

a) First, we design the null and the alternate hypothesis for a two tailed test

$H_{0}: \mu = 200\\H_A: \mu \neq 200$

We use Two-tailed t test to perform this hypothesis.

b) Formula:

$t_{stat} = \displaystyle\frac{\bar{x} - \mu}{\frac{s}{\sqrt{n}} }$ Putting all the values, we have

$t_{stat} = \displaystyle\frac{211.5 - 200}{\frac{18.5}{\sqrt{20}} } = 2.7799$

c) Now,

$t_{critical} \text{ at 0.05 level of significance, 19 degree of freedom } = \pm 2.0930$

Since, the calculated t-statistic does not lie in the range of the acceptance region(-2.0930,2.0930), we reject the null hypothesis.

Thus, the sample does not contradicts the manufacturer's claim.

d) P-value = 0.011934

Since the p-value is less than the significance level, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis.

Yes, both approach the critical value and the p-value approach gave the same results.

4 0

3 years ago

Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay

Taya2010 [7]

Answer:

thats pretty gay my guy

Step-by-step explanation:

7 0

2 years ago