abondantQ
2020-11-01
Answered

To add:
$0.00236+100.45+48.29$

You can still ask an expert for help

insonsipthinye

Answered 2020-11-02
Author has **83** answers

Definition:
Adding decimals,
Write the decimals so that the decimal points line up vertically.
Add as with whole numbers.
Place the decimal point in the sum so that it lines up vertically with the decimal points in the problem.
Subtracting decimals,
Write the decimals so that the decimal points line up vertically.
Subtract as with whole numbers.
Place the decimal point in the difference so that it lines up vertically with the decimal points in the problem.
Calculation:
$0.00236+100.45+48.29$
100.45 has 3 whole value.
0.00236 and 48.29 has 1 and 2 whole value.
So, add 0s to 0.00236 and 48.29 at the front.
The number becomes 000.00236 and 048.29
000.00236 has 5 decimal places.
100.45 and 048.29 has 2 decimal places
So, add 0s to 100.45 and 048.29 at the end.
The number becomes 100.45000 and 048.2900
Based on the definition,
$0.00236+100.45+48.29=148.74236$
Answer:
$0.00236+100.45+48.29=148.74236$

asked 2021-01-06

The product of 2 decimals is 20.062 one of the factors has 2 decimals .how many decimals in other factors.

asked 2021-05-11

Bethany needs to borrow $\$10,000.$ She can borrow the money at $5.5\mathrm{\%}$ simple interest for 4 yr or she can borrow at $5\mathrm{\%}$ with interest compounded continuously for 4 yr.

a) How much total interest would Bethany pay at$5.5\mathrm{\%}$ simple interest?

b) How much total interest would Bethany pay at$5$ interest compounded continuously?

c) Which option results in less total interest?

a) How much total interest would Bethany pay at

b) How much total interest would Bethany pay at

c) Which option results in less total interest?

asked 2020-10-21

On average, 3 traffic accidents per month occur at a certain intersection. What is the probability
that in any given month at this intersection

(a) exactly 5 accidents will occur?

(b) fewer than 3 accidents will occur?

(c) at least 2 accidents will occur?

(a) exactly 5 accidents will occur?

(b) fewer than 3 accidents will occur?

(c) at least 2 accidents will occur?

asked 2020-12-01

According to a study by Dr. John McDougall of his live-in weight loss program at St. Helena Hospital, the people who follow his program lose between 6 and 15 pounds a month until they approach trim body weight. Let's suppose that the weight loss is uniformly distributed. We are interested in the weight loss of a randomly selected individual following the program for one month. Give the distribution of X. Enter an exact number as an integer, fraction, or decimal.

asked 2022-03-09

Write the equation of the line that passes throught the points$(7,4)$ and $(-1,-2)$ .

Put your answer in fully reduced point-slope form,unless it is a vertical or horizontal line

Put your answer in fully reduced point-slope form,unless it is a vertical or horizontal line

asked 2022-06-16

${e}^{itH}$ notation

recently I saw the notation ${e}^{itH}$, and just wondering how should I interpret it?

In my understanding, $u(t,x)={e}^{itH}{u}_{0}$ is, for example, a solution to Schrodinger-type equation $i{\mathrm{\partial}}_{t}u=-Hu$ with the initial data ${u}_{0}$. In case $H=\mathrm{\Delta}$, the solution to Schrodinger equation is known to involve the Schrodinger kernel in the integrand. In such case, does ${e}^{itH}$ is a short-hand notation for the operator involving the Schrodinger kernel?

Or should I interpret ${e}^{itH}$ as the Taylor series with ${H}^{k}$ terms involved? In this case, does the (operator) series converge once applied to the element in the domain of H?

Also, I would be very glad to get a reference to read more on this type of operators. Thank you very much!

recently I saw the notation ${e}^{itH}$, and just wondering how should I interpret it?

In my understanding, $u(t,x)={e}^{itH}{u}_{0}$ is, for example, a solution to Schrodinger-type equation $i{\mathrm{\partial}}_{t}u=-Hu$ with the initial data ${u}_{0}$. In case $H=\mathrm{\Delta}$, the solution to Schrodinger equation is known to involve the Schrodinger kernel in the integrand. In such case, does ${e}^{itH}$ is a short-hand notation for the operator involving the Schrodinger kernel?

Or should I interpret ${e}^{itH}$ as the Taylor series with ${H}^{k}$ terms involved? In this case, does the (operator) series converge once applied to the element in the domain of H?

Also, I would be very glad to get a reference to read more on this type of operators. Thank you very much!

asked 2022-06-22

In most measure theory text books one derives the Lebesgue anh Borel-Lebesgue measure from Caratheodory's extension to outer measures by first proving that the set of ${\lambda}^{\ast}$ measurable sets is a sigma algebra (the Lebesgue sigma algebra) and that ${\lambda}^{\ast}$ restricted to that sigma algebra is a measure, the Lebesgue measure. This measure space is even complete. However, then still one continues to show that ${\lambda}^{\ast}$ restricted to the sigmal algebra generated by the ring (on which the pre-measure was defined that was used to obtain ${\lambda}^{\ast}$ via Caratheodorys extension) is also a measure, the Borel-Lebesgue measure, and that the generated sigma algebra is the Borel sigma algebra.

So my question is, why is the Borel sigma-algebra "better" than the Lebesgue sigma algebra, because most of the time text books continue to work only on the Borel sigma algebra, even though the Lebesgue sigma algebra is its completetion and has some other favorable properties? I.e., I am just missing an argument in all the lecture notes and text books why we continue to work on the Borel sigma-algebra after having shown that the Lebesgue sigma algebra is larger (and after all we do all the extension from a pre-measure to an outer measure and then restricting to a measure because we want to get a larger set than just the ring on which we initially defined the pre-measure).

So my question is, why is the Borel sigma-algebra "better" than the Lebesgue sigma algebra, because most of the time text books continue to work only on the Borel sigma algebra, even though the Lebesgue sigma algebra is its completetion and has some other favorable properties? I.e., I am just missing an argument in all the lecture notes and text books why we continue to work on the Borel sigma-algebra after having shown that the Lebesgue sigma algebra is larger (and after all we do all the extension from a pre-measure to an outer measure and then restricting to a measure because we want to get a larger set than just the ring on which we initially defined the pre-measure).