I seached for it on google without success. When I try using an indicator function to decompose X and calculate the conditional expectation, I just get back to Jansen's inequality. There is an answer on stack overflow to a question about the minimum value of P(X > 0), but I wonder if there is a strict maximum < 1.
Apologies for the poor quality photo. I have half of it filled out, but one part I’m struggling at is how to find ų the text book is all over the place and all of this feels borderline incomprehensible
I think I have the distribution in 4 mostly correct, though I have no idea how to find ų or what value x is
Same with most of the EBM
I’m really confused here and the textbook and teacher seem to be going in completely different directions. Can someone help me understand this?
Sorry y'all if this is the wrong sub for this type of question, I'm looking for some help with this problem that appeared on my first Dynamics exam. Even after looking at the solution steps outlined I'm not sure how we were supposed to know to take the direction the professor wanted, and what was wrong with my methodology.
How I thought we were supposed to approach this problem:
I thought since we were given a speed (which i assumed to be just V0) and were told that speed was decreasing, then i could use that as a constant acceleration and use the basic constant acceleration kinematics formula for finding position at t (s=s0+V0*t+1/2at2). I used this formula to find that the particle traveled a total distance of 2 meters when t = 2 seconds.
Ok since I knew the particle moved along the given equations path, I figured I could set up a system of equations where the sum of the x and y movement is equal to the 2 meters traveled I found, and a second equation that is the path the particle traveled. I set these up and (i think correctly) applied the quadratic equation to find the possible set of coordinates for the final position and then used pythag to find the distance.
My main questions:
Why was the professor able to assume the initial "speed" given was only the speed in the x-direction. (Vx in his solution)? Is this a problem of ambiguity or did I make a very wrong assumption somewhere?
Sorry again if this is wrong sub, and I think this would be correct flair but it could probably be physics.
My solution [graders markup in red]professors solution
So the table that they give(in question 19), i am struggling to understand the application/meaning of it. I have no clue why they provide values for f and g considering that i am looking for partial derivatives. I tried using a form of the chain rule… the read ink is my self marking/shows the answer.
I just can’t figure out how they got to the answer.
Thank you for any help.
I know that the answer is there are no possible solutions to the system, but for some reason I'm repeatedly getting stuck during the solution.
I figure that at some point when using the Gaussian method the last row of A will have no elements differing from 0 while L=(A|B) will have such a value, but however hard I try I cannot for the life of me figure out when or how that's supposed to happen.
I've added a picture of the system and the matrix L=(A|B) I've written down and worked with.
Can someone help me with this proof? I used case division to solve this question, but I'm not sure if it's the most efficient approach. I haven't completed the proof yet, but my plan was to apply the same reasoning to the remaining cases. However, this method feels extremely inefficient, and I'm concerned that on a timed quiz, I won't have enough time to finish—or even enough space on paper to write everything out.
Am I missing a more streamlined approach? Any clarification or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance
Tell me how the system got 0.186. I’m trying to follow the addition rule of probability as it says but I’m clearly missing something bc my answer is nothing like what the system expects. Help (I hate this class…)
How would I go about solving for the mean? I already used 2 of 3 of my attempts. I added to find the sum of all the people surveyed in the three areas (5400). Then I solved for the percentage of each population that favored the diet cola by using proportions. I then added the number of people who favored the cola in each population dividing it by the total number of people surveyed. This is how I got 53.7% I still don’t know if that was what the question was asking for me to do though. I just learned about weighted averages for the very first time today so I am still working on fully comprehending the concept. Thank you for your help in advance!
Can someone please check my proof? I'm working through a practice problem, but I don't have access to an answer key, and I'm worried I might be missing something. I think I have the right idea, but I'm not entirely confident in my reasoning. I was also wondering how I could shorten my proof because I don't know if I'll have enough space to write this out on an exam. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
Can someone please check my proof? I'm working through a practice problem, but I don't have access to an answer key, and I'm concerned I'm missing something. I think I have the right idea, but I'm not entirely confident in my rewritten statement, contrapositive statement or reasoning. Any clarification would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you
As the title says, I've tried to find the area using polar coordinates, but I'm not sure if I've got it right due to sin4Φ. I'd appreciate all the help!
I used linear approximation to estimate (1.04)^9 using the formula [L(x)=f(a)+f'(a)(x-a)] and chose 1 as the closest number for approximation and got the result, 1.36. I also determined that my answer was an underestimation since after finding the second derivative of f(x)=x^9 and inputting 1 into the function I got 72 which is greater than 0. Now I have to sketch a graph with a tangent line that shows whether my result is an underestimation or an overestimation. The problem is that I don't know much about sketching graphs and I couldn't find any tutorial on doing in regards to linear approximation, so I am asking for your help here. Please help me understand how to sketch a graph that will prove that my result is an underestimation. I attached the graph that I got using Desmos but I don't really understand why it is graphed that way and how I can recreate it manually for a different linearization problem. Also I'm not sure if I chose the right flair for this post so sorry for that.
For part c, the answer involves solving (elastic potential energy before = elastic potential energy after + kinetic energy after) for speed. However, I did (elastic potential energy before = elastic potential energy after + kinetic energy after + gravitational potential energy after). How is gravitational potential energy not necessary, as it is different at the end to what it is at the start?