Answer:
The given statement:
You cannot bisect an angle using paper folding constructions is a False Statement.
Step-by-step explanation:
The construction of a angle bisector with the help of paper folding is done by:
- Draw a angle ACB on a piece of paper such that the ray CB lie on the base.
- Fold the paper in such a way that ray AC falls along the ray CB.
- draw the line along the crease that is formed on the paper starting from point C.
- So, the ray so formed is the angle bisector of the angle ACB.
Answer:
f (x)
[tex] \ frac [7] [4] \ time 2x [\tex]
then f (1/7) = 1/2
Your answer to the question is C
Answer:
111.4 degrees
Step-by-step explanation:
Let's write cos x = -0.3646. Or, look up the symbols chart at the bottom of your page and click on Ф to obtain this character: cos Ф = -0.3646.
If Ф is in Quadrant III, then the adjacent side is negative and the hypotenuse is positive.
-1
Type this into your calculator: cos -0.3646. Result: 1.934 (radians)
This converts to degrees as follows:
1.934 rad 180 degr
--------------- * --------------- = 111.4 degrees. Note that this angle is in QIII.
1 π rad
Answer:
Since the p value is lower than the significance level we have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and we can conclude that the true mean is different from 50.5 mpg
Step-by-step explanation:
Data given and notation
represent the sample mean
represent the population standard deviation for the sample
sample size
represent the value that we want to test
represent the significance level for the hypothesis test.
z would represent the statistic (variable of interest)
represent the p value for the test (variable of interest)
Sytem of hypotheses.
We need to conduct a hypothesis in order to check if the true mean is different from 50.5, the system of hypothesis would be:
Null hypothesis:
Alternative hypothesis:
The statistic is given by:
(1)
Replacing we got:
P-value
Since is a two tailed test the p value would be:
Conclusion
Since the p value is lower than the significance level we have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and we can conclude that the true mean is different from 50.5 mpg