Answer:
Horizontal line
Step-by-step explanation:
uehdjd
Answer:
To round a number to the nearest 1000, look at the hundreds digit. If the hundreds digit is 5 or more, round up. If the hundreds digit is 4 or less, round down
Answer:
(1) 0.5933
(2) 0.8955
Step-by-step explanation:
We are given that all bags entering a research facility are screened.
Let Probability that bags entering the building contains forbidden material,
P(F) = 0.69
Probability that bags entering the building does not contains forbidden material, P(NF) = 1 - 0.69 = 0.31
Let event A = alarm gets triggered
Probability that alarm gets trigger given the bags contain forbidden material, P(A/F) = 0.77
Probability that alarm gets trigger given the bags does not contain forbidden material, P(A/NF) = 0.20
(1) Probability that a bag triggers the alarm, P(A) ;
P(A) = P(F) * P(A/F) + P(NF) * P(A/NF)
= (0.69 * 0.77) + (0.31 * 0.20) = 0.5313 + 0.062
= 0.5933
Therefore, probability that a bag triggers the alarm is 0.5933 .
(2) Probability that a bag that triggers the alarm will actually contain forbidden material is given by P(F/A) ;
Using Bayes' Theorem;
P(F/A) = 
= 
= 
= 0.8955
example: Two polygons are congruent if they are the same size and shape - that is, if their corresponding angles and sides are equal.
This question is in reverse (in two ways):
<span>1. The definition of an additive inverse of a number is precisely that which, when added to the number, will give a sum of zero. </span>
<span>The real problem, in certain fields, is usually to show that for all numbers in that field, there exists an additive inverse. </span>
<span>Therefore, if you tell me that you have a number, and its additive inverse, and you plan to add them together, then I can tell you in advance that the sum MUST be zero. </span>
<span>2. In your question, you use the word "difference", which does not work (unless the number is zero - 0 is an integer AND a rational number, and its additive inverse is -0 which is the same as 0 - the difference would be 0 - -0 = 0). </span>
<span>For example, given the number 3, and its additive inverse -3, if you add them, you get zero: </span>
<span>3 + (-3) = 0 </span>
<span>However, their "difference" will be 6 (or -6, depending which way you do the difference): </span>
<span>3 - (-3) = 6 </span>
<span>-3 - 3 = -6 </span>
<span>(because -3 is a number in the integers, then it has an additive inverse, also in the integers, of +3). </span>
<span>--- </span>
<span>A rational number is simply a number that can be expressed as the "ratio" of two integers. For example, the number 4/7 is the ratio of "four to seven". </span>
<span>It can be written as an endless decimal expansion </span>
<span>0.571428571428571428....(forever), but that does not change its nature, because it CAN be written as a ratio, it is "rational". </span>
<span>Integers are rational numbers as well (because you can always write 3/1, the ratio of 3 to 1, to express the integer we call "3") </span>
<span>The additive inverse of a rational number, written as a ratio, is found by simply flipping the sign of the numerator (top) </span>
<span>The additive inverse of 4/7 is -4/7 </span>
<span>and if you ADD those two numbers together, you get zero (as per the definition of "additive inverse") </span>
<span>(4/7) + (-4/7) = 0/7 = 0 </span>
<span>If you need to "prove" it, you begin by the existence of additive inverses in the integers. </span>
<span>ALL integers each have an additive inverse. </span>
<span>For example, the additive inverse of 4 is -4 </span>
<span>Next, show that this (in the integers) can be applied to the rationals in this manner: </span>
<span>(4/7) + (-4/7) = ? </span>
<span>common denominator, therefore you can factor out the denominator: </span>
<span>(4 + -4)/7 = ? </span>
<span>Inside the bracket is the sum of an integer with its additive inverse, therefore the sum is zero </span>
<span>(0)/7 = 0/7 = 0 </span>
<span>Since this is true for ALL integers, then it must also be true for ALL rational numbers.</span>
