1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Anton [14]
2 years ago
8

Solve for x . Help me solve them

Mathematics
1 answer:
Tresset [83]2 years ago
8 0

\\(1).\\\\(1.7898)^{2x} = (1.7898)^6\\\\\implies \ln(1.7898)^{2x} = \ln(1.7898)^6\\\\\implies 2x \ln(1.7898) = 6 \ln(1.7898)\\\\\implies 2x =6\\\\\implies x = \dfrac 62 =3\\\\(3).\\\\2^{5x -6} = 4^{x+9}\\\\\implies 2^{5x -6} = (2^2)^{x+9}\\\\\implies 2^{5x-6} = 2^{2x+18}\\\\\implies \ln(2^{5x-6}) = \ln(2^{2x+18})\\\\\implies (5x -6) \ln 2 = (2x +18) \ln 2\\\\\implies 5x -6 = 2x +18\\\\\implies 5x -2x = 18 +6\\\\\implies 3x = 24\\\\\implies x = \dfrac{24}3 =8

You might be interested in
How did you compute sums of dollar amounts that were not whole numbers?
soldier1979 [14.2K]

Answer:

$7.34

Step-by-step explanation:

To compute sum of dollars that are not whole numbers. Using the sum of$5.89 and$1.45 as an illustration :

$5.89 + $1.45

Taking the whole numbers first:

$5 + $1 = $6

Take the sum of the decimals :

$0.89 + $0.45 = $1.34

Sum initial whole + whole of sum of decimal

$6 + $1 = $7

Remaining decimal : $1.34 - $1 = $0.34

$7 + $0.34 = $7.34

8 0
3 years ago
shi x, miao w, and tchetgen tchetgen ej. (2020). multiply robust causal inference with double negative control adjustment for ca
fomenos

Reliable causal inference based on observational studies is seriously threatened by unmeasured confounding.

What is unmeasured cofounding?

  • By definition, an unmeasured confounder is a variable that is connected to both the exposed and the result and could explain the apparent observed link.
  • The validity of interpretation in observational studies is threatened by unmeasured confounding. The use of negative control group to reduce unmeasured confounding has grown in acceptance and popularity in recent years.

Although they've been utilised mostly for bias detection, negative controls have a long history in laboratory sciences and epidemiology of ruling out non-causal causes. A pair of negative control exposure and outcome variables can be utilised to non-parametrically determine the average treatment effect (ATE) from observational data that is vulnerable to uncontrolled confounding, according to a recent study by Miao and colleagues.

Reliable causal inference based on observational studies is seriously threatened by unmeasured confounding.

Learn more about unmeasured confounding here:

brainly.com/question/10863424

#SPJ4

5 0
1 year ago
Solve for b, then solve for each angle in the triangle
lesya692 [45]

We know that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle equals 180, then,in this case we have the following equation:

b+2b+(b+16)=180

then, solving for b, we get:

\begin{gathered} b+2b+(b+16)=180 \\ \Rightarrow4b+16=180 \\ \Rightarrow4b=180-16=164 \\ \Rightarrow b=\frac{164}{4}=41 \\ b=41 \end{gathered}

now that we have that b = 41, we can find the measure of each angle:

\begin{gathered} b=41 \\ 2b=2(41)=82 \\ b+16=41+16=57 \end{gathered}

7 0
8 months ago
Combine and simplify the following radical expression <br><br> ASAP ASAP ASAP ASAP
Montano1993 [528]

Answer:

\sqrt[3]{3}

Step-by-step explanation:

Our expression is: \frac{1}{3} \sqrt[3]{81}.

Let's focus on the cube root of 81 first. What's the prime factorisation of 81? It's simply: 3 * 3 * 3 * 3, or 3^3*3. Put this in for 81:

\sqrt[3]{81} =\sqrt[3]{3^3*3}=\sqrt[3]{3^3} *\sqrt[3]{3}

We know that the cube root of 3 cubed will cancel out to become 3, but the cube root of 3 cannot be further simplified, so we keep that. Our outcome is then:

\sqrt[3]{3^3} *\sqrt[3]{3}=3\sqrt[3]{3}

Now, let's multiply this by 1/3, as shown in the original problem:

\frac{1}{3}* 3\sqrt[3]{3}=\sqrt[3]{3}

Thus, the answer is \sqrt[3]{3}.

<em>~ an aesthetics lover</em>

6 0
3 years ago
Based on the family the graph below belongs to, which equation could represent the graph?
Ostrovityanka [42]

Answer:

Equation 1 is the equation which represents the graph.

Step-by-step explanation:

6 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • PLEASE HELP QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE THANK YOU VERY MUCH :) ​
    8·2 answers
  • Walgreens is offered a chain discount on cosmetics from Libby Corp. of 8/5/2; Roma Company offers a chain discount of 7/6/4. Wha
    13·1 answer
  • 5÷5/6 =<br> Divide please help me
    8·1 answer
  • A submarine submerged at a depth of -35.25 meters dives an additional 8.5 meters.
    9·1 answer
  • What numbers is 90 divisble by
    10·2 answers
  • trevon spent 8 hours and 15 minutes at an amusement park yesterday he spent 75% of the time at the park about how much time did
    10·2 answers
  • How do write 110 as a sum of hundreds and tens
    5·2 answers
  • Find the midpoint of the line segment whose endpoints are given (3/5 , -6/7),(2/5,5/7)
    10·1 answer
  • Find the value of 3/27​
    12·1 answer
  • Giúp mik vs=)) mik đang cần gấp
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!