All Answers 358338 Answers

What is 24 to the cubed root simplified?

I think what you mean is : What is 24 cubed simplified? If yes, then we have:

24=2^3 X 3=(2^3)^3 X 3^3=2^9 X 3^3

Prime factor each number and put like factors [ without regard to powers on each] in the same columns

8  =    2^3

10 =    2      *     5

Take the highest power of each different prime factor in each  column and multiply these together

2^3  * 5   =   8 * 5    = 40   =  LCM  of 8, 10

ok

turn 0.14 into a fraction

140/10 --simplify--> 7/50

square the fraction - 7squared/50squared = 49/2500 (50 squared is just 5times5times100)

simplify - dosen't simplify

ta dah!

Oh,Guest....you were SO CLOSE!!!

(1/3 - 1/8)  = 5/24

And

(5/24) * 113  = 565/24  = about  23.541666......[repeating 6's ]

cube root 24 = cube root 8times3

cube root8 = 2

you cant do anything with the cuberoot3

therefore its; 2cuberoot3

ta dah!

Deleted

Well if you have one apple      O

and you have another apple       O

and you put them next to each other      O      O

you have 2 apples. 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples

                               1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples

                          so 1 + 1 = 2

ok

1/3 + 1/8 = 6/24 - i think

6/24 times by 113 = 678/24 = 28.25

The radius of the larger circle  = 10 cm

Here's a pic....

A radius drawn to a tangent meets that tangent at right angles. Thus, the radius of the smaller circle - OC - meets the tangent chord AB at right angles. And the radius of the larger circle meets the chord AB at right angles. And, by Euclid, a radius  meeting a chord at right angles bisects that chord. So, triangle AOC is a 6 - 8 - 10 "Pythagorean Triple" right triangle with leg OC = 6 and leg AC = 8.   And the hypotenuse - OA - equals  the radius of the larger circle, i.e., 10 cm.

hmmm - i recon i can give you scientific proof

but when it comes to scintific proof you need an expert

ok

imagine that you draw a line from where the chord meets the larger circle to the centre - this is line A

the radius is line B

the chord - from point A to its midpoint is line C

ABC is a triange

BUT it is a right angled triangle

use pythagoras

side A = X

side B = 6

side C = 8

8squared + 6squared = xsquared = 100

x = 10

you will notice that this is also the radius of the larger circle!

ta dah!

hope this helped

If i were you i would try using simeltaneous equations;

lets designate the smaller number as X

and the larger number as Y

using this all the equations you can get are;

X + Y = 75000 (lets call this equation A)

4X + Y = 153000 (lets call this equation B

cool? - anyway now we have to get rid of one of the unknowns

Equation A - Equation B should do it (notice the presence of a singe Y in each one)

(X - 4X) + (Y - Y) = (153000 - 75000)

the Ys cancel so we get

3X = 78000

X = 26000

now we have X, Y is easy - you just put the value of X into any of the equations

soooo;

26000 + Y = 75000

Y = 75000 - 26000

Y = 49000

i didn't use a calculator, so the actual values may be off

nonetheless the meathod is solid

ta!

What is 2 numbers you can put together to get 75,000, and multiply the smaller number by 4 and add the bigger number and get 153,000?

Let the smaller number=x

Let the bigger number=y

x + y=75,000

4x* + y=153,000

Solve the following system:
{x+y = 75000 |     (equation 1)
4 x+y = 153000 |     (equation 2)
Swap equation 1 with equation 2:
{4 x+y = 153000 |     (equation 1)
x+y = 75000 |     (equation 2)
Subtract 1/4 × (equation 1) from equation 2:
{4 x+y = 153000 |     (equation 1)
0 x+(3 y)/4 = 36750 |     (equation 2)
Multiply equation 2 by 4/3:
{4 x+y = 153000 |     (equation 1)
0 x+y = 49000 |     (equation 2)
Subtract equation 2 from equation 1:
{4 x+0 y = 104000 |     (equation 1)
0 x+y = 49000 |     (equation 2)
Divide equation 1 by 4:
{x+0 y = 26000 |     (equation 1)
0 x+y = 49000 |     (equation 2)
Collect results:
Answer: | 
| {x = 26000
y = 49000

are you saying that the volume of a sphere is 1372/81?

if so then what values are you trying to get out?

radius?

circumfrence?

surface area?

if you tell me i can help you XD

The mean in a string of numbers like:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 would be to add up these five numbers=15. Then you divide 15/5(or five numbers)=3. This is the "mean" of the above 5 numbers.

am i being stupid but isn't 10 times 4.2 = 42...

are you trying perhaps to times 10 by 4.2to the power of3?

in that case its 740.88

Just like this :

N^(1/5)     where N is the number of interest

I think you might mean "mathematical induction"

OK.......ask  away......!!!!

We can solve this as follows:

10^(M - 5.8)  = 4   where M is the magnitude we are looking for

Take the log of each side

log10 ^(M - 5.8)  = log 4      and we can write

M - 5.8 log10  = log 4          and log 10 = 1, so we can ignore it

M - 5.8  = log 4       add 5.8 to both sides

M = log4 + 5.8    = about 6.4

On August 23, 2011, an earthquake of magnitude 5.8 on the Richter scale shook the East Coast of the United States. (Round your answers to two decimal places.)

What would be the magnitude of a quake four times as powerful as the Veracruz quake?

Richter scale magnitude are generally logarithmic in scale, to the base 10 in amplitude. But the energy release is to the scale of 10^1.5 per 1 logarithm. Therefore, an earthquake that is 4 times as powerful as 5.8, in amplitude, would read on the Richter scale: 5.8 + Log 4=.60, or 5.8 + .60=6.4. So, an earthquake of magnitude 6.4 on the Richter scale would be 4 times as powerful as 5.8 magnitude quake. The total amount of energy released by a 6.4 magnitude quake would be (10^6.4)^1.5=10^9.6 Joules.

The percent change is given by:

( [ 9372 - 7930] / 7930 x 100) % =  about 18.2 %

Here's the graph.......https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bmkmndlcfs

The object hits the ground at 9.375 sec

-16 t^2+150 t where t = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9.375}   [in seconds]

The seconds  above will be one column of your table

Here are the associated heights at each time- this will be the the second column of your table

{0, 134, 236, 306, 344, 350, 324, 266, 176, 54, 0.}

CPhill, I am doing just fine. I kinda forgot how to do a lot of stuff, the update is frying my brain.. haha

We are fine, Matt....how are you???

We have the points (0, 7930)   and (10, 9372)     whrer 2003 = year "0"  and 2013 = year "10"

The slope of a line through  these points is given by :

[9372 - 7930] / [ 10 - 0]  =  144.2      .....and this is the rate of change per year

The linear equation that models this is:

y = 144.2t + 7930

Where t represents the number of  years after 2003