The answer is: No, because we also need to know the type of proportionality
In mathematics, we talk about proportionality when two variables are related and this relationship is that there is a constant ratio between them. There are two types of proportionality.
1. Direct Proportionality:
If there are two variables x and y, we can write the relationship between them as follows:
So, by substituting the point in this equation we have that the constant of proportionality is:
2. Inverse Proportionality:
In this case, the relationship is:
So, the constant of proportionality is:
As you can see, we have found two different values of the constant of proportionality. So, it is necessary to know the type of proportionality.
Answer:
True
Step-by-step explanation:
Using a random chance procedure to assign subjects to treatment or control reduces bias. d. In a blind experiment, the subjects do not know whether they are in the treatment group or control group.
$50 each.................... hope it helped
Answer:
19 red beads
Step-by-step explanation:
We first need to find a common denominator of 4/9, 1/5 and 1/4.
The common denominator is 180. Like in an expression, what we do to one side we have to do to the other.
Silver - 180/9 = 20 ; 20*4 = 80 so there are roughly 80 sliver beads.
Gold - 180/5 = 36 ; 36*1 = 36 so there are roughly 36 gold beads.
Blue - 180/4 = 45 ; 45*1 = 45 so there are roughly 56 blue beads.
180 - (silver+gold+blue) = red beads
180-161 = 19 red beads b/c ----->
80+36+45+19 = 180
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
You can start this in may ways but let's start by isolating one of the parenthesis:
x (x² - 5) = - (x - 3)
x³ - 5x = -x + 3 (here I multiplied x for what's inside the parenthesis and the "minus" signal by the other parenthesis which was (x - 3))
x³ - 5x + x = 3
x³ -4x = 3
x³ -4x -3 = 0 (now this right here is a "depressed cubic equation" and it's one of the toughest sit of all time, so good luck with that, you might wanna take a look at this:
ytb/watch?v=rNDy2ZFvG1E
or maybe I'm doing something wrong and it's simpler than that, but whaterver...)
