A psychologist collects data on the time, w, in minutes, people walk each day and their scores, t, on a stress test. The scores are from 0 to 100, with higher scores meaning more stress. She finds that there is a negative linear association between w and t that is best modeled by the equation t=−2.5w+48.1. What is the meaning of 48.1 in this equation?

For each additional minute spent walking, the model predicts that a person's score on the stress test will go down by about 48.1 points.

The people who walked each day had an average score of 48.1 on the stress test.

The people in the study walked an average of 48.1 minutes each day.

The model predicts that a person who does not walk each day will score about 48.1 on the test.

wholesale price is the initial price before markup. retail price comes after the markup.

a price of 8 bucks that's marked up by 100%   is

formula: initial price + (percent markup in fraction/decimal)(initial price)

8+(1)(8)

8+8

16

retail price is $16.

if gloria has "carry over" minutes, (that is, any minutes paid for but not used in a month can be applied to her payment for minutes in the next month,) her total usage for the three months is: total minutes = 320 + 243 + 489 = 1052 minutes number of 200 minute blocks = 1052/200 = 5 r52 (that is 5 with a remainder of 52) rounding up the number of 200 minute blocks gives her usage for the three months as 6 blocks. the cost for six blocks is 6 x $25 = $150 she also has 200 - 52 or 148 carry over minutes if gloria pays each month and unused minutes are lost, applying the rounding up procedure to each month gives: first month usage of 320 minutes rounds up to 2 blocks of 200 minutes for a payment of 2 x $25 = $50 second month usage of 243 minutes rounds up to 2 blocks of 200 minutes for a payment of 2 x $25 = $50 third month usage of 489 minutes rounds up to 3 blocks of 200 minutes for a payment of 3 x $25 = $75 total payments for the three months are $50 + $50 + $75 = $175 get the plan with carry over minutes!

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.