All Answers 358098 Answers

The graph below shows the cumulative probability (in %) against score for a normal distribution with mean score 100 and standard deviation 15.

The dotted lines mark out scores of 70, 85, 115 and 130.

1. Looks like about 2% of scores are less than 70 (follow the black dotted line from the score of 70 up to the red line and then across to the probability axis), and about 98% in total are below 130. This means that about 98% - 2%, or 96% are between 70 and 130.

Now have a go at the other parts of the question yourself.

pi is bigger than 3 but less than 4, so I would say that it is finite!  However, it does have an infinite decimal expansion.

Did you know that two philosophers named Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead published the principia mathematica which was meant to be the foundation of mathematics. They described a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which any mathematical truth should've been provable. On page 378(!) they finally were able to speak about a proof defining 1+1 = 2, but couldn't prove it yet, because they hadn't defined addition yet. 

Imagine spending years trying to write that!

And here's the worst part...

In 1910 they published their first print which was altered a couple of times during the years to come. In 1931 however a philospher named Gödel gave an indisputable proof that their work, or any other work for that matter, would not be able to describe the foundation of mathematics.

Imagine writing over 600 pages of highly complicated math only to learn you will never reach your goal.

Think 1+1 is easy? 

Think again!

Not so far,

it was actually proven that the number of decimals to descibe pi is an infinite number and the decimals don't have a repetitive pattern.

So far, yes.

no one knows

6,055 rounded to the nearest hundred would be 6,100

wow what a tough one mn this may take all day to solve so i'm guessing the equation is 2-1 and there may be a chance that the answer is 1

one...one apple -_- smh

I changed my answer because I made a mistake swapping perpendicular and parallel.

Thank you Alan for making me aware of that .

$${\sqrt{{\mathtt{3}}}}{\mathtt{\,-\,}}{\frac{{\mathtt{4}}}{\left({\mathtt{1}}{\mathtt{\,\small\textbf+\,}}{\sqrt{{\mathtt{3}}}}\right)}} = {\mathtt{0.267\: \!949\: \!192\: \!431\: \!122\: \!7}}$$

or

$${\frac{\left({\sqrt{{\mathtt{3}}}}{\mathtt{\,-\,}}{\mathtt{4}}\right)}{\left({\mathtt{1}}{\mathtt{\,\small\textbf+\,}}{\sqrt{{\mathtt{3}}}}\right)}} = -{\mathtt{0.830\: \!127\: \!018\: \!922\: \!193\: \!2}}$$

or the formula from the topic

$${\mathtt{\,-\,}}{\frac{{\mathtt{4}}}{\left({\mathtt{1}}{\mathtt{\,\small\textbf+\,}}{\sqrt{{\mathtt{3}}}}\right)}} = -{\mathtt{1.464\: \!101\: \!615\: \!137\: \!754\: \!6}}$$

which one is you asking for?

yeah thats also right ! the debate is going on 50 50 ! lol !

@reinout  Not all messages are phantom - have a look!

1/2=-1/3u-2/7

1/2+2/7=-1/3u

7/14+4/14=-1/3u

11/14=-1/3u

11/14*-3=u

u=-33/14

Huh?? On No. 10, all I see is a problem about congruent triangles....I don't see any "A B C" numbers ..... am I missing something??