A pharmaceutical manufacturer is concerned that the impurity concentration in pills does not exceed 4%. It is known that from a particular production run, impurity concentrations follow a normal distribution with standard deviation 0.8%. A random sample of 100 pills from a production line was checked, and the sample mean impurity concentration was 4.12%. (a) Test the null hypothesis that the population mean impurity concentration is 4% against the alternative that it is greater than 4%. The significance level of this test is 5% (b) Find the power of a 5%-level test rejecting the null hypothesis when the true mean impurity concentration is 4.3%.

your answer would be 10x - 1

b

step-by-step explanation:

hello from mrbilldoesmath!

answer:   (7x + 6y) ( 49x^2 - 42xy + 36y^2)

discussion:

in general, the factorization of a^3 + b^3 is

a^3 + b^ 3 = (a + b) ( a^2 - ab + b^2)

in our case note that 343 = 7^3 and 216 = 6^3 so the equation becomes:

343x^3 + 216y^3 = (7x)^3 + (6y)^3

if you think of a (above) as 7x and b as 6y the factorization becomes

343x^3 + 216y^3 =

((7x + 6y) (   (7x)^2 - 7x*6y + (6y)^2)   =

(7x + 6y) ( 49x^2 - 42xy + 36y^2)

you,

mrb

(a + b) (a^2 - a b + b^2)

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.