Consider the following.
1 answer:
Answer:
Anything in the form x = pi+k*pi, for any integer k
These are not removable discontinuities.
============================================================
Explanation:
Recall that tan(x) = sin(x)/cos(x).
The discontinuities occur whenever cos(x) is equal to zero.
Solving cos(x) = 0 will yield the locations when we have discontinuities.
This all applies to tan(x), but we want to work with tan(x/2) instead.
Simply replace x with x/2 and solve for x like so
cos(x/2) = 0
x/2 = arccos(0)
x/2 = (pi/2) + 2pi*k or x/2 = (-pi/2) + 2pi*k
x = pi + 4pi*k or x = -pi + 4pi*k
Where k is any integer.
If we make a table of some example k values, then we'll find that we could get the following outputs:
- x = -3pi
- x = -pi
- x = pi
- x = 3pi
- x = 5pi
and so on. These are the odd multiples of pi.
So we can effectively condense those x equations into the single equation x = pi+k*pi
That equation is the same as x = (k+1)pi
The graph is below. It shows we have jump discontinuities. These are <u>not</u> removable discontinuities (since we're not removing a single point).
You might be interested in
Complete Question
Country financials, a financial services company, uses surveys of adults age 18 and older to determine if personal financial fitness is changing over time. In February 2012, a sample of 1000 adults showed 410 indicating that their financial security was more that fair. In Feb 2010, a sample of 900 adults showed 315 indicating that their financial security was more than fair.
a
State the hypotheses that can be used to test for a significant difference between the population proportions for the two years.
b
What is the sample proportion indicating that their financial security was more that fair in 2012?In 2010?
c
Conduct the hypothesis test and compute the p-value.At a .05 level of significance what is your conclusion?
Answer:
a
The null hypothesis is
The alternative hypothesis is
b
in 2012
in 2010
c
The p-value is
The conclusion is
There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the proportion of those indicating that financial security is more fair in Feb 2010 is different from the proportion of those indicating that financial security is more fair in Feb 2012.
Step-by-step explanation:
From the question we are told that
The sample size in 2012 is
The number that indicated that their finance was more than fail is k = 410
The sample size in 2010 is
The number that indicated that their finance was more than fail is u = 315
The level of significance is
The alternative hypothesis is
Generally the sample proportion for 2012 is mathematically represented as
=>
=>
Generally the sample proportion for 2010 is mathematically represented as
=>
=>
Generally the pooled sample proportion is mathematically represented as
=>
=>
Generally the test statistics is mathematically represented as
Generally the p- value is mathematically represented as
From the z -table
So
So from the p-value obtained we see that p-value < so we reject the null hypothesis
Thus there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the proportion of financial security is more fair in Feb 2010 is different from the proportion of financial security is more fair in Feb 2012.