PLEEASSE HELP:))) (theres a pic)
2 answers:
You might be interested in
Answer:
- x = -1/2(1 +√21) ≈ -2.79129
- x = -1/2(1 -√21) ≈ 1.79129
Step-by-step explanation:
We assume the middle term is supposed to be 4x.
We can remove a common factor of 4 to simplify this a bit.
x^2 +x -5 = 0
This is of the form
ax^2 +bx +c = 0
where a=1, b=1, c=-5.
__
The <em>quadratic formula</em> gives the solutions as ...
Filling in the given coefficients, we have ...
x = (-1 ±√(1^2 -4·1·(-5)))/(2·1)
x = (-1±√21)/2
The solutions are x = -1/2(1 +√21) and -1/2(1 -√21).
_____
<em>If what you wrote is what you intend</em>, then the equation simplifies to 4x^2 -16 = 0.
Dividing by 4 and factoring the difference of squares gives ...
x^2 -4 = 0
(x -2)(x +2) = 0
These factors are zero (hence their product is 0) for the values x = 2 and x = -2.
The solutions are x=2 and x=-2.
Answer:
The P-value of this sample is 0 and is less than the significance level (0.05), so the effect is significant and the null hypothesis is rejected.
As there is significant evidence to reject , we can say that there is significant evidence to claim that the mean time delay for the hypothetical population of all persons who may be subjected to the stimulus differs from 1.6 seconds.
The significance level for this test is 0.05.
Step-by-step explanation:
In this case, we want to prove if there is significant evidence that the mean differs from 1.6 seconds. That is the same as having evidence to reject the the hypothesis (the null hypothesis always have the equal sign).
We have to test the null hypothesis
The significance level for this test is 0.05
Calculation of the t-statistic:
If we look up in a t-table for t=9.47 and df=(36-1)=35, we get this value appears with a probability of zero. A large number like that is very unlikely to happen.
The P-value of this sample is 0 and is less than the significance level (0.05), so the effect is significant and the null hypothesis is rejected.
As there is significant evidence to reject , we can say that there is significant evidence to claim that the mean time delay for the hypothetical population of all persons who may be subjected to the stimulus differs from 1.6 seconds.