During the cold war, someone from the government asked a famous mathematics professor if he could them figure out the probability of a nuclear war between the united states and the soviet union. the professor said, "that's an absurd question." can you explain why he said that? a. the professor is correct because the number of total outcomes cannot be determined for this event. b. the professor is correct because the number of favorable outcomes cannot be determined for this event. c. the professor is incorrect because it is possible to calculate the probability of a nuclear war between the united states and the soviet union. d. the professor is correct because neither the number of favorable outcomes nor total outcomes can be determined for this event

Step-by-step explanation:

Let me point out that he could have thought that no sane leader of a country would unleash weapons that would completely destroy all of us - that such a morality would be impossible to imagine, and in the professor's case, put a number to.

Further, there are not an infinite number of outcomes. There are only 2. Either they will go to war, or they will not. If they do, that is unfavorable. If they do not that is unfavorable. The wording is very poor.

I'll pick D, but I do it with great hesitation. I don't think there is a good answer to this.

for this case we have that by definition, the surface area of a cylinder is given by:

where:

r: it is the radius of the cylinder

h: it is the height of the cylinder

we can also rewrite it as:

where:

la: it's the lateral area

ba: area of the base

option a