The temperature in Hillsville was 20° Celsius. What is the equivalent of this temperature in degrees Fahrenheit?

ghulamu51 2022-09-14 Answered
The temperature in Hillsville was 20 Celsius. What is the equivalent of this temperature in degrees Fahrenheit?
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (1)

Wischarm1q
Answered 2022-09-15 Author has 7 answers
Formula to convert celsius to Fahrenheit is
F = 9 5 × C + 32
Formula to convert celsius to Fahreheit is
F = 9 5 × C + 32
Temperature in Hillsville = 20
In terms of Fahrenheit F = 9 5 × 20 + 32 = 36 + 32 = 68 F

We have step-by-step solutions for your answer!

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-07-15
Properly showing that uncountable sum of measures finite nonzero sets is infinite, given they are subsets of X of finite measure.
In a question where ( X , , μ ) is a finite measure space, I am asked to show that the set { x | μ ( { x } > 0 ) } is countable at most.
While intuitively this has to be true, because as long as it is countable any series of nonzero measures of sets must converge and this can happen for geometric sequences of measures, but for an uncountable sum, this "can't" be the case, but how to show that- I can't seem to understand.
Firstly, is this the way to solve it? Trying to reach a contradiction, or maybe uncountable sum of elements is generally meaningless as an expression? I'm not sure, what
asked 2022-05-21
We know when ( X , S , μ ) is a measure space, M R ( S ) consists signed (or real) measures on ( X , S ) is Banach space. The set V consists of the measures satisfying d v = h d μ for h L 1 ( μ ) is closed but how we can show that when μ is Lebesgue measure and S would be the cllections of Borel sets, the set V is not separable.
asked 2022-06-22
Let f : R R be defined by
f ( x ) = { x [ 1 + sin ( ln x ) ] if  x > 0 0 if  x = 0 x + x sin 2 ( ln | x | ) if  x < 0.
Find the values of the four Dini derivatives of f at x = 0.
I could easily find out the values of the upper right D + f and lower right D + f Dini derivatives at x = 0 , values being 2 and 0 respectively. But, in case of upper left Dini derivative of f at x = 0 , we have:
D f ( 0 ) = lim sup h 0 f ( h ) f ( 0 ) h = 1 + lim sup h 0 h sin 2 ( ln | h | ) h .
Next putting: h = p so that p 0 + ,, I obtained:
D f ( 0 ) = 1 lim inf p 0 + | sin ( ln | p | ) | p .
Since it is limit inferior and there is a modulus of sine function present inside, so can we take the sine part as 0 ? This way the answer would match but I feel like I'm avoiding the effect of the term p present in the denominator. I am confused. Please give some insights. Thanks in advance.
asked 2022-04-02
Tell what kind of measurement scale is appropriate for the following information.
1. Eye color
2 Gender
3. Race
4. Speed of sound
5. Grades
6. Sizes of T-shirts
Explain: Mean and Variance Discrete Variable.
asked 2022-05-26
For a > 0 and a r.v. X, is it true that 0 a p 1 P [ X a ] d a = E [ 0 X a p 1 d a ]? If so, why?
asked 2022-05-20
Let f be a nonegative measurable function on R . Show that
lim n n n f = R f
Of course
n , n n f R f
To show the reverse, I feel that I need to use Fatou's lemma; but can't seem to get the right argument.
asked 2022-05-11
I was trying to solve the next question:
let X be a finite measure space ( μ ( X ) < ) and let f L 1 ( X , μ ), f ( x ) 0 almost everywhere.
Show that for each measurable subset E X:
lim n E | f | 1 n d μ = μ ( E )
My idea for a solution is to use Fatou's lemma:
In one direction:
E lim inf n | f | 1 n d μ lim inf n E | f | 1 n d μ
and
E lim inf n | f | 1 n = E 1 d μ = μ ( E )
So we get:
μ ( E ) lim inf n E | f | 1 n d μ
In the other direction, I thought of maybe saying that we know there is an ε > 0
And an N N so for all n > N we get that 1 + ε > | f | 1 n which means 1 + ε | f | 1 n > 0
and use Fatou's lemma again on the expression above to get the lim sup smaller or equal to μ ( E )

Is it valid? Am I missing something?
If I do, what can I do to prove the other direction?
Thank you!