Which of the following statements best describes the intersection of the sets of outcomes of events A and B?
A) the intersection of the sets is a list of all possible outcomes for event A. B) the intersection of the sets of all outcomes on events A and B. C) the intersection of the sets is the set of all outcomes in the sample space of event A or event B. D) the intersection of the sets is the set of all outcomes in the sample space of events A and B.
Write a set of three SQL statements coded as a transaction to reflect the following change:?
Below script would help you here.... Just check for Logical Errors, as I have used my own notations and values. BEGIN TRANSACTION /* Primary Table*/ UPDATE VendorsTable SET VendorName='FedUP' WHERE VendorName='United Parcel Service' /* If Vendor_Id's of "United Parcel Service" & "Federal Express Corporation" are 100 & 110 respectively then, we ought to merge all the records of InvoicesTable to a single Vendor_Id and I chose it to be 100 . */ /* Secondary Table*/ UPDATE InvoicesTable SET vendor_id = 100 WHERE vendor_id IN ( 100,110) DELETE VendorsTable WHERE VendorName='Federal Express Corporation' COMMIT TRANSACTION -- In 'thoughts'... Lonely Rogue.
How do you write the following statements as a multiplication statement 2 ways?
a) 5/9 x 45, 45 x 9/5 b) 3/8 x 32, 32 x 3/8 c)1/12 x 36, 36 x 1/12 d)4/5x 25, 25 x 4/5 "of" in math means times (multiplication.. x)
What is the meaning of 3 dots in a sentence?
The ellipsis ("…") was used in the past as a placeholder for text not included or as a pause. The classical use was to clarify the transcription of unstated words in written text for brevity or to imply vocal inflection or tone. For example, "Do as I say or else...," clearly implies that the speaker chooses not to speak aloud the consequence of disobedience. (They didn't have bold or italic attributes in the old days with typewriters, so people would do things like underlining, using capital letters, appending exclamation points as well as employing ellipses.)In speech, this might mean a tonal change on "else", or something more subtle, like a raised eyebrow. Compare the same phrase without an ellipsis. "Do as I say or else." This is an incomplete sentence, and it is unclear how "else" is to be said. Sometimes, people use an exclamation point ("...or else!"), which helps, but is still ungrammatical. (It begs the question, "...or else what?") However, "or else" is so commonly used and understood that regardless of how it is terminated, the idea transmitted is pretty much the same. There is more to this issue, though. In modern internet writing, the ellipsis seems to have no meaning whatsoever. There are people who habitually end sentences, especially the last sentence of an essay or message with an ellipsis. There is nothing more implied or assumed to be understood. It's often used as a form of emphasis, as in the catch phrase, "Just sayin'." The intent appears to be an expression of smugness, or in modern parlance, "I'm so cool..." It often seems like they might be saying, "So, there!"When I see this type of fatuous usage of ellipses (the plural), I wonder if the writer is oblivious to the original meaning and thinks that three periods are another way of being emphatic, as if one period wasn't enough when you really mean what you are saying. This hypothesis is not that far-fetched. Until his death in 1983, Charles McCabe wrote a newspaper column in the San Francisco Chronicle called "The Fearless Spectator". He frequently went on a tirade about what he called "three-dot journalism". McCabe mocked this writing style mercilessly. Occasionally, he would write large sections of his column with multiple phrases and sentences only separated by ellipses. It was very funny stuff, and made the point that extraneous use of ellipses was a pretentious affectation that merited contempt and mockery. Just sayin'...
Let A and B be finite sets and let f: A --> B be a function. Prove that....?
Note, this is more of a quasi-proof, just trying to explicate the main idea behind the problem (in a hopefully clear way). Once you think about it and understand what essence of the problem is, you should try to write things out slightly more rigorously. --------------------------------------... Suppose (a) and (b) are true. First, let's think about what it means for f to be 1-1. For every element b ∈ B there are two possibilities: 1) b = f(a) for some a ∈ A. If this is the case, then a is the ONLY element of A which is sent to b, so when counting the number of elements in B, each one of these elements tells us that we can also count one element in A; 2) b ≠ f(a) for any a ∈ A. When counting the elements of B we know that each element of this type adds one to our count, which will not be added to our count of A. Putting these together tells us that we have |A| ≤ |B|. Similarly, if f is onto then every element in b is of type (1) above, but there might be a ∈ A which are not sent to any b ∈ B, which means that we have |A| ≥ |B|. Putting these two together (and since we have finite sets, so nothing too strange is going on; see the Cantor-Bernstein-Schroeder Theorem) we have that |A| = |B|. --------------------------------------... Suppose that (a) and (c) are true. Since f is 1-1, every element of A is sent to a unique element of B, but B has the same number of elements as A, and so this means that each of these is associated to an element of A. In other words, for each b ∈ B, there is some a ∈ A so that f(a)=b, i.e. f is onto. --------------------------------------... Suppose that (b) and (c) are true. Since f is onto, we can write any b ∈ B as b=f(a) for some a ∈ A. If there was x,y ∈ A such that x ≠ y and f(x)=f(y)=b ∈ B, then there would be 2 elements of A associated with a single element of B. Even if these were the only two elements for which this was true, we would still have that |A| = |B|+1, contradicting the assumption that |A| = |B| (and, of course, if it happens more often then things just get worse). Hence that cannot happen, so f must be 1-1.