Answer:
1/10
Step-by-step explanation:
1/5 to land on the spinner, and 1/2 to land on tails. Compound prob = we gotta multiply the probabilities so we get 1/10
Ther is 4 juice cartons. 4+9=13. so it would be 4/13
Answer:
(a) d = 0.012v^2
(b) 4.8 m
(c) 25 m/s
Step-by-step explanation:
(a) Writing an equation to fit a bunch of data is often a matter of trial and error. You can often get an idea of the sort of function that is involved by graphing the data points.*
When we do that, we see the relationship is non-linear with an upward curvature. It might be described by a polynomial or exponential function.
When we try a quadratic equation, we find the fit is really quite good. The graphing calculator that does this quadratic regression analysis tells us the equation is essentially ...
d = 0.012·v^2
__
(b) The equation predicts a depth of 4.8 m.
d = 0.012·20^2 = 4.8
__
(c) Solving for speed, we get a speed of 25 m/s.
7.5 = 0.012v^2
625 = v^2 . . . . . . divide by .012
25 = v . . . . . . . . . take the square root
_____
* The energy of a falling object is proportional to the square of its speed. If we assume that the depth of penetration into the clay is proportional to the energy absorbed, then it is not surprising to see a quadratic relationship between speed and distance. What is surprising is that this relationship would show up in middle school math problem, not a high-school physics problem.
Essentially, you have to assume the form of the equation, then find the coefficients that make it so. Working with the evenly spaced table values of 5, 10, 15 m/s can simplify the effort.
A graphing calculator or spreadsheet can do the bulk of the work once the data is entered.
Divide 914/420, move the decimal over to the right two places and you'll get approximately 217.5%
EDIT: My mistake, read question wrong.


<u></u>117.62%
Subtract the difference and divide by original number (: Move decimal place over two places.
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
I'm sure he was making a joke at the expense of people who rely on mathematics rather than common sense. It is funny, but then Twain was a remarkably funny author..
The problem is that the comparison is apt using some sort of proportion, but it is absurd to think that the land holding the river would also shrink a proportional amount.
The river reached a minimum (presumably) in 1875 by cutting out all the loops that were there in 1700. The Mississippi was then a straight line from it's beginning to its delta on the gulf of Mexico. It could not get any shorter. Still, Twain managed to get laughs with his whimsical humor.
Thanks for posting. This made my evening.