All categories

2 years ago

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