Assume that the assumptions and conditions for inference with a two-sample t-test are met. test the indicated claim about the means of the two populations. state your conclusion. a new type of flare accelerant is tested. a control group of flares (x) that are currently used and a group of flares (y) with the new accelerant are tested for their burning times (in minutes) and sample results are given below.(mathematical expressions that are unable to be copied)question 10 options: since the p-value is approximately 0, we accept h0 and conclude that the mean burning times for the two types of flares differ. since the p-value is approximately 0, we reject h0 and conclude that the mean burning times for the two types of flares differ. since the p-value is approximately 0, we reject h0 and conclude that the mean burning time for the control group of flares is less than for the group of flares with the new accelerant. since the p-value is approximately 0, we reject h0 and conclude that the mean burning time for the control group of flares is greater than for the group of flares with the new accelerant. since the p-value is approximately 0, we fail to reject h0; there is not enough information to conclude that the mean burning times for the two types of flares differ.

r(0,90)(x,y) . t(-5,0)

last option

step-by-step explanation:

∆def to ∆d"e"f"

- rotate 90 counterclockwise degrees

- then translated 5 to the left (x --> x - 5)

answer is the last option

linear pair postulates

an

y = 6x -3y -12

y +3y +12 = 6x

=> . x = { 2y / 3 +2 } this is equation of line in terms of x

=> . if line meets the x-axis the co-ordinates of meeting point would be ( x , 0 )

=> . x = 2 ( 0 ) / 3 + 2

=> . x = 2

so, the point is ( 2 , 0 )

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.