How many songs are on your MP3 player?

geduiwelh
2021-02-11
Answered

Tell whether the question is a statistical question. Explain.

How many songs are on your MP3 player?

How many songs are on your MP3 player?

You can still ask an expert for help

BleabyinfibiaG

Answered 2021-02-12
Author has **118** answers

A statistical question is one where you can expect to get a variety of answers, not one single answer. The purpose of asking statistical questions is to study the distribution (such as the range) and tendency (such as the median and mean) of the answers.

While the number of songs on your MP3 player is one specific value, if multiple people are asked this question you would get a variety of answers, such as 140, 90, 260, etc. The question is then a statistical question.

An example of a question that would not be statistical could be: "How many inches are in 1 foot?". This question has 1 correct answer of 12 inches so no matter how many people you ask, you would expect to get the same answer of 12 inches.

While the number of songs on your MP3 player is one specific value, if multiple people are asked this question you would get a variety of answers, such as 140, 90, 260, etc. The question is then a statistical question.

An example of a question that would not be statistical could be: "How many inches are in 1 foot?". This question has 1 correct answer of 12 inches so no matter how many people you ask, you would expect to get the same answer of 12 inches.

asked 2021-08-11

A ball is tossed upward from the ground. Its height in feet above ground after t seconds is given by the function $h\left(t\right)=-16{t}^{2}+24t$ . Find the maximum height of the ball and the number of seconds it took for the ball to reach the maximum height.

asked 2021-01-04

Write in words how to read each of the following out loud.

a. $\{x\in {R}^{\prime}\mid 0<x<1\}$

b. $\{x\in R\mid x\le 0{\textstyle \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}}\text{or}{\textstyle \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}}x\Rightarrow 1\}$

c. $\{n\in Z\mid n\text{}is\text{}a\text{}factor\text{}of\text{}6\}$

d. $\{n\in Z\cdot \mid n\text{}is\text{}a\text{}factor\text{}of\text{}6\}$

asked 2022-06-15

Let $A\subset \mathbb{R}$ be Lebesgue measurable such that $0<\lambda (A)<\mathrm{\infty}$ and consider the function $f:\mathbb{R}\to [0,\mathrm{\infty})$, $f(x)=\lambda (A\cap (-\mathrm{\infty},x))$. I would like to compute $\underset{x\to \mathrm{\infty}}{lim}f(x)$.

I have already proved that f is continuous (I have in fact showed that it is Lipschitz continuous), but I am not really sure if this allows me to say that $\underset{x\to \mathrm{\infty}}{lim}f(x)=\lambda (A\cap (-\mathrm{\infty},\mathrm{\infty}))=\lambda (A)$. Intuitively, I am sure that this is right, but I am not sure whether the fact that $f$ is continuous is enough to write this. I feel that I am somehow assuming that the Lebesgue measure $\lambda $ is continuous in some sense. Could you please tell me if my conclusion is right and if the mere continuity of $f$ is enough for it?

I have already proved that f is continuous (I have in fact showed that it is Lipschitz continuous), but I am not really sure if this allows me to say that $\underset{x\to \mathrm{\infty}}{lim}f(x)=\lambda (A\cap (-\mathrm{\infty},\mathrm{\infty}))=\lambda (A)$. Intuitively, I am sure that this is right, but I am not sure whether the fact that $f$ is continuous is enough to write this. I feel that I am somehow assuming that the Lebesgue measure $\lambda $ is continuous in some sense. Could you please tell me if my conclusion is right and if the mere continuity of $f$ is enough for it?

asked 2021-12-13

Turn 0.75 into a fraction.

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 2022-06-16

Rationalise the denominator and simplify $\frac{3\sqrt{2}-4}{3\sqrt{2}+4}$

Does someone have an idea how to work $\frac{3\sqrt{2}-4}{3\sqrt{2}+4}$ by rationalising the denominator method and simplifying?

Does someone have an idea how to work $\frac{3\sqrt{2}-4}{3\sqrt{2}+4}$ by rationalising the denominator method and simplifying?

asked 2022-07-05

When is a Morphism between Curves a Galois Extension of Function Fields

It is known that the category of normal projective curves and dominant morphisms between them is equivalent to the opposite category of fields of transcendence degree 1 over C and algebraic extensions, so that birational invariants of curves are actually invariants of the function fields, etc.

In algebraic geometry, we have nice interpretations of what it means for an extension of function fields to be separable or purely inseparable (even if these ideas are difficult to visualize since they only occur in prime characteristic). Is there a similar geometric way to view Galois extensions? (Or, I suppose, normal extensions?). Does the fact that a Galois extension of degree n is a splitting field of a degree n polynomial have any geometric meaning?

It is known that the category of normal projective curves and dominant morphisms between them is equivalent to the opposite category of fields of transcendence degree 1 over C and algebraic extensions, so that birational invariants of curves are actually invariants of the function fields, etc.

In algebraic geometry, we have nice interpretations of what it means for an extension of function fields to be separable or purely inseparable (even if these ideas are difficult to visualize since they only occur in prime characteristic). Is there a similar geometric way to view Galois extensions? (Or, I suppose, normal extensions?). Does the fact that a Galois extension of degree n is a splitting field of a degree n polynomial have any geometric meaning?