You are not logged in.
I would agree with Student B because the probability of tossing heads is always 50%...just because you have already seen the outcome of the first four tosses does not change the likelihood of the next outcome.
Student A's answer implies that once you toss the first four coins, the probability of seeing tails on your next tosses increases...which is obviously incorrect because we know that the coin always has two sides...
well, what are the shapes in the groups?
Answer: A tousand melian...
(if you've heard that before, i apologize for its cheesiness...I think it's hilarious)
I woke everyone in my house up laughing...
Thanks VR...I'm going to be telling that joke all day!
:lol::lol:
This link leads to a list of mathematics websites, organized by topic, which may provide some help...there are some online tutorials, notes, and you'll be able to find lots of examples...hope that helps!
http://www.instruct.langara.bc.ca/~acooper/resourceguide/doResults.php?topicID=2&topicLongName=
Hey Mikau...if it's true, then we should be able to prove it, right? You sound surprised that we need to be that rigorous...There are many theorems that seems to be entirely common sense, but we still need to prove them...that is the essence of mathematics...observation, conjecture, and proof...That is the whole point of axiomatic proof...we can only build on what we know when we are certain that we know it...
Also, 'The Equation that could not be solved', about the insolubility of the quintic, symmetry and Galois theory....(Galois was fascinating)
well, I am confused right away by your objective function...
Why are you maximizing 120B+120Y+120G ?
Since you are selling the paint at $100 per ton, shouldn't it be max 100B+100Y+100G ?
and I'm not sure, but your constraints might need to look like this:
(note: The inequalities here are not strict...so when I use <, I actually mean less than or equal to)
2B+Y < 6
2B+2Y+G > 8
2B+2Y+G < 10
B,Y,G > 0
If this looks like it makes sense, I can help you solve it...If I have misunderstood, I apologize...and please clarify
Yes, you are correct.
All of the other choices would have varied cross-sections...The cylinder is the only one to maintain uniformity throughout.
???Employee theft problem???
whoops!...sorry, same time....
I would guess that you need to say whether your function is going to positive or negative infinity on either side of the asymptotes...
ricky and mikau-
I have to disagree a bit...
I, for one, find it incredibly difficult to understand anything (and particularly that which is math-related), without understanding the reasoning behind it...
It is interesting that you should make these comments, however...
I had assumed that everyone would feel as I do and that most would learn the mechanical processes of "doing" the math more effectively after they have a clear understanding of the conceptual aspects, or the "why" behind the math.
I imagine it depends entirely on individual learning styles...thanks for the insight
totally unrelated and pointless, but...
justlookingforthemoment- A customer walked into my store today and I asked if she needed any help and she said, exactly, "Just looking for the moment"...and I did a sort of double take...:)
I'm not certain that I understand your question...but here goes...
The equation x/3 + 6 = 12 is not multiplying the entire left side of the equation by 1/3....the only thing that is effected by that 1/3 is the x term...then, if you multiplied that entire side by 3, you would be making incorrect adjustments to the constant term (6)...
so if you wanted to use that method (multiplying both sides by the reciprocal) you would need to make the entire left side of the equation into just one fraction ---> (x+18)/3 = 12
I'm not sure that my explanation made sense...hope that helped
(6/3)=2...
2(-1/2)=-1...
the reciprocal of -1 is always -1
There is just a bit of flurries that have collected on the trees...nothing major
Ohmigosh...I don't even want to hear this...It is currently 18°F here...but it feels like 6....
Brrrr....*shivers*
The derivative of e^2 would be 2e because the exponent was a constant and you could use the x^n = nx^(n-1) rule.
eh?
e² is a constant, and so d/dx would just be zero...
Ya...sorry josh...I keep trying to draw different pictures and make something with similar triangles but I cannot visualize...I'll keep at it though...
Have you come up with anything at all? A picture, even?
Is that really all you have to say when I say that you are an embarassment to your generation? (BTW-you are an idiot...I am a woman)
Okay...I'm through with you...enjoy your pathetic rant and utterly wasted life...
Wow....I cannot believe you all actually registered just in order to post this completely idiotic thread...
interesting....now, who can't get any?...my guess is going to have to be the two of you, having nothing better to do than make those stupid posts...
it's CHILDREN like the two of you that make me cringe at the thought of what the world will be like in a few decades when your generation takes over.
Testing..testing......one..two......one..two.......
The shortest math joke...
Ah ha! and admin/mod?