6 people live on 6 different streets: Keel Street, Keer Street, Sire Street, Sile Street, Doley Street, and Dorey Street.

Use the clues below to solve the puzzle.

- Laura Lole does not live on Keel Street or Dorey Street.

- Brian Barr and Sherry Lock do not live on Sile Street.

- Brian Ball does not live on Keer or Sile Street.

- Laura Lore does not live on Dorey or Sire Street.

- Sherry Lock does not live on Keel Street or Dorey Street.

- Laura Lore and Brian Ball do not live on Keel Street.

This what I have so far:

Laura Lole | Laura Lore | Shelly Lock | Sherry Lock | Brian Ball | Brian Barr | |

Keel Street | X | X | X | X | ||

Keer Street | X | |||||

Sire Street | X | |||||

Sile Street | X | X | X | X | ||

Doley Street | ||||||

Dorey Street | X | X | X |

2) Same questions for !(A1*B5), !(A2*B5), !(A3*B5), !(A4*B5), !(A5*B4), !(A5*3), !(A5*B2), !(A5*B1) and !(A5*B0)

3) Besides, why there are two extra '1' ?

VcgbY4g.jpg

OK.

Write for me true or false. And tell me why (if you want to)

(1) Number theory deal with concepts of Natural Number.

(2) Natural Number is positive number (x > 0).

(3) You can also define positive number as

(4) In some "books" (1) and (2) statement can be use to answer by context but each book choose for you what you have to use.

(5) Equations that the results is Natural called Diophantine equation.

(a) Is there a special field in math that deal only in the topic:

If (a) is true so Why?

My "feeling is" because:

(1) historical reasons.

(2) you can't elaborate the terms of Natural number to Real Number? Because it a doing a "paradox"?

Thanks

I tried to find an online combination calculator, but didn't find one for this.

2, 3, 6, 16, 20, 22, 28, 31, 35, 37, 42

Total Combinations of sets of 6 =

List the combinations (if possible, but not necessary):

(is there is an online tool/calculator that could do this?)

Thank you!;) ]]>

This is my first post to this forum so please bear with me...

I have an excel table I am trying to set up but need some advice as to the actual maths I am trying to solve.

information provided

Area yielding 1kg protein in m

calculated values for actual protein content

if it takes 94m

I have tried multiplying the known protein content by the area yielding 1kg protein in m

ACTUAL PROTEIN CONTENT / KG | AREA YIELDING 1Kg PROTEIN / m^{2} |
AREA NECESSARY TO PRODUCE PROTEIN CONSUMED / m^{2} |

0.0869 | 24 | 2.09 |

0.0065 | 26 | 0.17 |

0.0018 | 30 | 0.05 |

0.0013 | 46 | 0.06 |

0.0007 | 22 | 0.02 |

0.0078 | 35 | 0.27 |

0.0113 | 24 | 0.27 |

0.0045 | 25 | 0.11 |

0.0242 | 21 | 0.51 |

0.0998 | 40 | 3.99 |

0.0182 | 55 | 1.00 |

0.0209 | 47 | 0.98 |

0.0123 | 42 | 0.52 |

As you can see the values look to be far too low..

Can anyone advise? ]]>

Is the word solve is also a synonym to this word? ]]>

Paul earns $5 per hour as John earns $6 per hour. If John earns $5 more than Paul, then how much does each earn per hour?

The teachers work: P:J = 5:6 = 25:30. So John earns $25 per hour and Paul earns $30 per hour

How can someone say this when it clearly says that John earns $5 per hour and Paul earns $6 per hour?

What the author meant to say but did not come close to saying in my opinion is : Paul earns $5 as John earns $6. If John earns $5 per hour more than Paul, then how much does each earn per hour?

I have no idea what to say to this teacher let alone the author!! ]]>

I was given a spreadsheet wherein someone had written the following percentage formula, (X+Y)/x*100=%

The idea is to find the percentage of good using the total "X" and bad "y".

It doesn't make any sense to me. What am I missing? ]]>

im working on a question involving a primitive 5th root of unity which I will denote as z. I have been asked to show the the field extension of K=Q(z+z^4) is quadratic and to find a square free integer d such that K=Q(squareroot(d)).

I have done done the first part but can’t find the integer d?

Thanks in advance for any help given. ]]>

the computer system I work on (as a programmer) deals, among other things, with material quantity conversions.

So, in a stock control context, a certain mass of a material may be stored as a value in kilograms. However, an operator may request the same value expressed in pounds, which is not stored directly.

To automatically make the conversion, the system stores a numerator and a denominator for each unit, and these are used where required to give the output in alternative units.

Easier if I give an example:

Material 'red paint' has a current stock of 5.00kg. The conversion factors are stored as follows:

Unit Numerator Denominator

KG 1 1

LB 71701 32523

If I request the stock to display in kilograms, the system will calculate the result as (5.00 * 1 / 1) = 5.00 kg

If I request it in pounds, the system will calculate the result as (5.00 * 71701 / 32523) = 11.023 lb.

Those of you familiar with Imperial/SI units will probably have spotted that 71701/32523 is 2.20462, the 'standard' conversion factor from kilos to pounds.

So what's the problem? It's this:

The computer system can only store the numerator/denominator values as integers, each with a maximum of 5 digits. Don't ask, I didn't design it, and it isn't something that can be changed.

Therefore, all the stored conversion factors have to be the quotient of a divisor and dividend that are both held as integers.

For new data, this is harder than it sounds. If someone gave you the value 2.20462 and asked you to express it as the quotient of two unknown integers (max 5 digits each), you might have to scratch your head. Especially if the target value could be the result of more than one division calculation.

I could write a program to figure this out for any quotient (and I'm sure you could too), but it would be inefficient and rely on number crunching. What I'm after is a more elegant and efficient way of arriving at the desired result.

Example 2: I need a conversion factor from kg/m2 (kilograms per square metre) to ft2/lb (square feet per pound). The required conversion factor, expressed as a decimal, is 0.2048146. BTW, these units are real, and are applied in the context of mass coverage (think of paint).

Because of the 5 digit restriction, the value resulting from the calculation may not be exact; but we do need it to be as accurate as possible. If I programmed it, in my inefficient, number-crunching way, the logic would have to be recursive, so as to get nearer to my 'perfect result' until the possibilities were exhausted.

But there may be a better way, which is why I've posted this.

To sum up (per example 2 above), a/b = 0.2048146, where a and b are positive integers, max 5 digits each. How close is it possible to get with a single division calculation? Can we get closer using 2 calculations with 4 unknowns e.g.: a/b * c/d = 0.2048146 ?

Thank you for reading and (I hope) understanding.

Best regards,

A non-mathematician. ]]>

Is this:

a) 1 because 6/2*3 (2*3 resolved first because brackets)

or

b) 9 because 6/2*3 (right to left)

or

c) 3.5 because 6/4+2 (expand brackets)

or

d) all of the above because it's just a horribly written expression

I'm aware that it's badly written, because the author chose to use a division symbol instead of using a numerator and denominator in order to create this ambiguity.

Are they all right? Is one

Or am I just an idiot? (other than being an idiot for engaging with this nonsense in the first place, of course)

Thanks for indulging this pointlessness!

Jim ]]>

Here is another example of misunderstanding:

In Page 8 under the title

(2) Can the reader give Some examples to it?

(3) One or two examples to questions with it?

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ics_220714.pdf ]]>

represent and use

(1) What is the underlined phrase meaning?

(2) If I want to explain it in other words which words I will use?

here:

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ics_220714.pdf

Page 7 ]]>