Adrianna Macias
2022-07-31
Answered

is the product of a rational number and an integer is not an integer true or false?

You can still ask an expert for help

uavklarajo

Answered 2022-08-01
Author has **17** answers

Every integer is a rational number, since each integer n can be written in the form n/1. Product of a rational number and an integer depends on whether the rational number is integer or not. If the rational number is an integer, then the product is integer. If the rational number is not an integer, the product is not an integer.

asked 2021-08-17

The solution of the given proportion.

Given:$\frac{2n-4}{5}=\frac{3n+3}{10}$

Given:

asked 2022-07-13

I am trying to find the %Accuracy, in which I used this equation: %Accuracy = 100-%Error.

So far, I have faced two problems with this equation:

1. When the Exact Value is Zero, the fraction can’t be used -> Solved by adding the same value to both Exact and Measured, to avoid the null denominator

2. When the Measured value is twice bigger or smaller, the %Accuracy value will be in negative values, In which I don't see the meaning behind it.

For example:

if: Exact = 20; Measured = 25; %Accuracy = 75%;

But, when: Exact = 20; Measured = 45; %Accuracy = -25%;

What is the meaning of -25%? and How to change the range of [0-100], to take the values that are outside of it accurately?

So far, I have faced two problems with this equation:

1. When the Exact Value is Zero, the fraction can’t be used -> Solved by adding the same value to both Exact and Measured, to avoid the null denominator

2. When the Measured value is twice bigger or smaller, the %Accuracy value will be in negative values, In which I don't see the meaning behind it.

For example:

if: Exact = 20; Measured = 25; %Accuracy = 75%;

But, when: Exact = 20; Measured = 45; %Accuracy = -25%;

What is the meaning of -25%? and How to change the range of [0-100], to take the values that are outside of it accurately?

asked 2022-07-15

Is ${n}^{\mathrm{log}c}={c}^{\mathrm{log}n}$ true?

If so, please explain.

If so, please explain.

asked 2021-09-20

One way to find the formula of a line passing through (15,16) and (30,25) is by using a table, as shown below. Complete parts (a) and (b) below.

a) Complete the box in the first row.

b) Report the formula of the line in slope-intercept form.

asked 2022-07-06

This seems to be a pretty basic question for this forum, please bear with me.

Consider that I have 10,000 measurements, say of the height of 10,000 people. These height measurements vary from 140 to 190 cm. I now define three height-groups: short (<150 cm), medium (150 to 170 cm) and tall (>170 cm). I can now calculate proportions of those groups in my set of 10,000 people (eg: “40% of the people are short, 30% are medium, 30% are tall”).

Now, consider that there is a random error associated with each of the height measurements. By a separate experiment, I concluded that this error distribution is well-approximated by a normal distribution, with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 10 cm. That is, the measurers are unbiased, but do make some random errors.

Now, I would like to propagate this estimated error in height measurement to the proportions. That is, I would like to say something like “the percent of short men in $40\pm 3\mathrm{\%}$” ($\pm $ could be standard error). Is there a theoretical way to go about this problem, rather than resorting to a Monte Carlo simulation?

The original data of 10,000 measurements could be described in two ways:

1. It is approximated by another normal distribution, of mean 165 cm and a standard deviation of 7.0 cm

2. It is described in a programming language data structure context; it is in a R vector, say "origData". Here, I am expecting R code that will take this vector and other inputs (from the question) and give me the standard errors.

Consider that I have 10,000 measurements, say of the height of 10,000 people. These height measurements vary from 140 to 190 cm. I now define three height-groups: short (<150 cm), medium (150 to 170 cm) and tall (>170 cm). I can now calculate proportions of those groups in my set of 10,000 people (eg: “40% of the people are short, 30% are medium, 30% are tall”).

Now, consider that there is a random error associated with each of the height measurements. By a separate experiment, I concluded that this error distribution is well-approximated by a normal distribution, with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 10 cm. That is, the measurers are unbiased, but do make some random errors.

Now, I would like to propagate this estimated error in height measurement to the proportions. That is, I would like to say something like “the percent of short men in $40\pm 3\mathrm{\%}$” ($\pm $ could be standard error). Is there a theoretical way to go about this problem, rather than resorting to a Monte Carlo simulation?

The original data of 10,000 measurements could be described in two ways:

1. It is approximated by another normal distribution, of mean 165 cm and a standard deviation of 7.0 cm

2. It is described in a programming language data structure context; it is in a R vector, say "origData". Here, I am expecting R code that will take this vector and other inputs (from the question) and give me the standard errors.

asked 2021-08-13

To compare and contrast ratios and rates.

asked 2022-06-26

Seven less than the product of twice a number is greater than 5 more an the same number. Which integer satisfies this inequality?