I hope this helps you
|HJ|=20/3 pi
|HJ|=4/9pi÷360.pi.r^2
20/3=4/9÷360.pi.r^2
20.270÷pi=r^2
5400÷3=r^2
1800=r^2
r=30 square root of 2
Answer:
x = 30
Step-by-step explanation:
6(x-2)=8(x-9)
6x-12=8x-72
6x-6x-12+72=8x-6x-72+72
60=2x
x = 30
check:
6(30-2)=8(30-9)
6(28)=8(21)
168=168 ✅
They both equal 78 degrees because they are the same angle which means that they have the same degrees for f and e.
Answer:
No, because the 95% confidence interval contains the hypothesized value of zero.
Step-by-step explanation:
Hello!
You have the information regarding two calcium supplements.
X₁: Calcium content of supplement 1
n₁= 12
X[bar]₁= 1000mg
S₁= 23 mg
X₂: Calcium content of supplement 2
n₂= 15
X[bar]₂= 1016mg
S₂= 24mg
It is known that X₁~N(μ₁; σ²₁), X₂~N(μ₂;δ²₂) and σ²₁=δ²₂=?
The claim is that both supplements have the same average calcium content:
H₀: μ₁ - μ₂ = 0
H₁: μ₁ - μ₂ ≠ 0
α: 0.05
The confidence level and significance level are to be complementary, so if 1 - α: 0.95 then α:0.05
since these are two independent samples from normal populations and the population variances are equal, you have to use a pooled variance t-test to construct the interval:
[(X[bar]₁-X[bar]₂) ±
*
]


[(1000-1016)±2.060*23.57*
]
[-34.80;2.80] mg
The 95% CI contains the value under the null hypothesis: "zero", so the decision is to not reject the null hypothesis. Then using a 5% significance level you can conclude that there is no difference between the average calcium content of supplements 1 and 2.
I hope it helps!
Answer:
the third one
Step-by-step explanation:
8x + 40 ≥ 0
8x ≥ -40
x ≥ -5