Milk weighs 8.605 pounds to the gallon. How much does 12.2 gallons weigh?

Janessa Benson 2022-10-08 Answered
Milk weighs 8.605 pounds to the gallon. How much does 12.2 gallons weigh?
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)

Mario Monroe
Answered 2022-10-09 Author has 12 answers
12.2 gallons of milk weigh 104.981 pounds.
You get this by simply multiplying the weight of 1 gallon of milk to the 12.2 gallons of milk. The answer is the weight of 12.2 gallons of milk.
Did you like this example?
Subscribe for all access

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 2022-05-24
Suppose Y 1 , Y 2 , is any sequence of iid real valued random variables with E ( Y 1 ) = . Show that, almost surely, lim sup n ( | Y n | / n ) = and lim sup n ( | Y 1 + . . . + Y n | / n ) = .
I have solved the first part by considering non-negative integer iid r.vs X n = floor ( | Y n | ) and using E ( X ) = 0 P ( X n ) then doing some clever tricks so I can apply the (2nd) Borel-Cantelli lemma, but I'm not really sure how I can use the same approach to solve the second part seeing as it is tempting to set S n = floor ( | Y 1 + . . . + Y n | ) but then the S i are not iid. I'm pretty sure its gonna be Borel-Cantelli again (since limsup) so I need to come up with the right events. Please can someone nudge me in the right direction.
Hints only please
EDIT: Suppose lim sup n | a 1 + . . . + a n | / n < . Then set S n = 1 n a k
| a n | n = | S n S n 1 | n | S n | n + | S n 1 | n 1
bounded
asked 2022-07-03
A ring is closed under intersection. And delta-ring is closed under countable intersection. According to my understanding, if a family of sets is closed under intersection, than it should also be closed under countable intersection.
Let's say R is a ring. To R be a delta-ring, A n A n + 1 A n + 2 . . . should also be in R. And, as a ring is closed under intersection, A n A n + 1 is in R, then A n A n + 1 A n + 2 is in R, and so on. So, any ring is a delta-ring.
What am I missing? I guess I don't properly understand what countable intersection is. Thank you for reading!
asked 2022-06-28
Let u L 1 ( μ ), T A measure preserving map s.t.: ( u ) d μ = u T d μ. A n , ϵ = { | u ( T n ( x ) ) | n 2 > ϵ }. T n = T T T n times.
Prove n 1 μ ( A n , ϵ ) is finite.
My attempt:
By Markov inequality we get: μ ( A n , ϵ ) 1 ϵ | u ( T n ( x ) ) | n 2 d μ, since T is measure preserving we get: | u ( T n ( x ) ) | L 1 ( μ ) . Summing over n gives:
n 1 μ ( A n , ϵ ) n 1 ϵ 1 n 2 | u ( T n ( x ) ) | d μ .
This is the part where I am stuck. I know that all the integrals are finite but how do I ensure that summing over all the integrals stays finite? Can I make the integral independent of n? Or can I just state by assumption: | u ( T n ( x ) ) | d μ = | u | d μ?
asked 2022-05-19
Is there a logical way to distinguish what is assigned versus measured?
Or is this a scientific rather than a mathematical issue? If there is a logical distinction, it would be nice if it covered both frequentist and Bayesian concepts of probability.
(Maybe a starting point could be the distinction between the modes X A versus A X where, loosely, A is better characterized than X)
asked 2022-03-27
Define Unit of Measurement.
asked 2022-11-23
To fit between two windows the width of a bookshelf must be no greater than 6 1/2 feet Mrs Aguilar purchases a bookshelf that is 77 inches wide which statement doescribes the relationship between the width of the bookshelf and and the distance between the windows
asked 2022-05-29
Suppose we have a sequence of positive random variables X 1 , X 2 , . . . , X. I am trying to prove a characterization of almost sure convergence.
It states that X n X almost surely iff for every ϵ > 0, lim n P [ sup k n X k X > 1 + ϵ ] = 0 and lim n P [ sup k n X X k > 1 + ϵ ] = 0.
If I assume almost sure convergence, then the implication is easy but I am not being able to prove the other way round.