Sure. From those choices, the only one that makes sense is that he
didn't perform enough trials. Technically, you can't expect the experimental
probability to match the theoretical probability until you've rolled it an infinite
number of times.
I have a hunch that even for only 60 trials, such a great discrepancy between
theory and experiment is beginning to suggest that the cubie is loaded. But
you really can't say. You just have to keep trying and watch how the numbers
add up.
20 : 0.75 = 40 : 1.5 = 80 : 3
<h3>
Answer: 3.1691, 5.8, 5.802, 5.82</h3>
Explanation:
The smallest item is 3.1691 which is listed first. This is because 3 is smaller than 5.
Now to sort the values that start with 5.
Think of 5.82 as 5.820; think of 5.8 as 5.800
We can see that 820 is larger than 800, which means 5.820 is larger than 5.800; in short, 5.82 > 5.8
Through similar logic, we can see that 5.82 > 5.802 and it further means 5.82 is the largest item. The next largest is 5.802
The sub-list {5.802, 5.82, 5.8} sorts to {5.8, 5.802, 5.82}. These values are then written after the 3.1691 mentioned. This will produce the fully sorted list from smallest to largest.
Hello!
We are given the weight of Mia's dog and told to find the weight of Lettie's dog based on the known relationship. Using these given values, we can create the following equation (let "w" represent the total weight of Lettie's dog):
w = 32.6(3.8)
Simplify the right side of the equation:
w = 123.88
We have now proven that Lettie's dog weighs 123.88 lbs.
I hope this helps!
Answer: 0.648637
Explanation:
e^3x = 3 + 4
e^3x = 7
3x = In (7)
X = 0.648637
