Listed below are the amounts of court income and salaries paid to the town justices. all amounts are in thousands of dollars. construct a scatterplot, find the value of the linear correlation coefficient r, and find the p=value using a=0.05. is there sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a linear correlation between the court incomes and justice salaries? based on the results does it appear that justices might profit by levying larger fines?

court income 64.0 402.0 1568.0 1131.0 273.0 254.0 111.0 155.0 33.0

justice salary 29 42 93 55 46 60 26 27 19

0.6

39mph

step-by-step explanation:

10.416 meters per second

step-by-step explanation:

distance=1 00 meters

time= 9.6 seconds in decimal form or 9 3/5 as a mixed number

average speed= 100/9.6

=10.416 meters per second or 10 52/125 as a mixed number.

y -5 = (-1/4)(x + 8)

step-by-step explanation:

i think it's eleven too, don't woosh me here, but according to the "experts" it's 2.

the proof starts from the peano postulates, which define the natural

numbers n. n is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

  p1.   1 is in n.

  p2.   if x is in n, then its "successor" x' is in n.

  p3.   there is no x such that x' = 1.

  p4.   if x isn't 1, then there is a y in n such that y' = x.

  p5.   if s is a subset of n, 1 is in s, and the implication

      (x in s => x' in s) holds, then s = n.

then you have to define addition recursively:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 1, then define a + b = a'

      (using p1 and p2). if b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in n

      (using p4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

then you have to define 2:

  def:   2 = 1'

2 is in n by p1, p2, and the definition of 2.

theorem:   1 + 1 = 2

proof: use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

      then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2   q.e.d.

note: there is an alternate formulation of the peano postulates which

replaces 1 with 0 in p1, p3, p4, and p5. then you have to change the

definition of addition to this:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 0, then define a + b = a.

      if b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in n, and define

      a + b = (a + c)'.

you also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. then the proof of the

theorem above is a little different:

proof: use the second part of the definition of + first:

      1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'

      now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in

      parentheses:   1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2   q.e.d.