A standard quality control check on automobile batteries involves simply measuring their weight. One particular shipment from the manufacturer consisted of batteries produced in two different months, with the same number of batteries from each month. The investigator decides to stratify on months in the sampling inspection in order to observe month-to-month variation. Simple random samples of battery weights for the two months yields the following measurements (in pounds): Month A Month B
61.5 64.5
63.5 63.8
63.5 63.5
64.0 66.5
63.8 63.5
64.5 64.0
Estimate the average weight of the batteries in the population (shipment), and place a bound on the error of estimation. Ignore the fpc. The manufacturing standard for this type of battery is 65 pounds. Do you think this shipment meets the standard on the average?

< xcy ≅ < xby

step-by-step explanation:

in δcax and δbax,

so, δcax ≅ δbax (side-angle-side or sas)

since δcax ≅ δbax, we can conclude < acx ≅ < abx

in δacy and δaby,

so, δacy ≅ δaby (side-angle-side or sas)

since δacy ≅ δaby, we can conclude < acy ≅ < aby

now,

< acy ≅ < aby

=> < acx + < xcy ≅ < abx + < xby

=> < acx + < xcy ≅ < acx + < xby   (since < acx ≅ < abx already proved above)

subtracting < acx from both sides, we get

< acx + < xcy -< acx ≅ < acx + < xby -< acx

cancelling out < acx and -< acx from both sides, we get

< xcy ≅ < xby (proved)

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.

      2

  2 is to go somewhat to the top right of a because it is squared    

v= a h/3