Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome!!! This blog is being created by Grade 12 students at the SVRSS. Similar to all collaborations on the web, this blog will be as useful and as worthwhile as YOU make it...Post often, and enjoy learning with each other...
Save This Blog!
Technorati
Language Translator
Labels
- *Due Dates* (1)
- ABCD Values (1)
- accelerated math (1)
- Applications of Periodic Functions (1)
- Awesome (1)
- blogging (1)
- Cheez Whiz (1)
- class blog (1)
- collaboration (1)
- combinations (5)
- corrections (3)
- Dependent (1)
- Diabetes (1)
- discussion (1)
- euklid (1)
- examples of permutations (3)
- Factorials (1)
- Focusing Tips (1)
- fractals (1)
- fun (1)
- Haggis (2)
- Half-Life (1)
- Homework (6)
- Homework Check (1)
- Hopewell Rocks (1)
- I'm teaching you (1)
- Independent (1)
- Koch's Snowflake (1)
- learning (2)
- March 7th Vector Corrections (1)
- marks (1)
- Massive Pig (1)
- math (1)
- Math Exam (2)
- Matrix Addition (1)
- Matrix Operations (1)
- Matrix Subtraction (1)
- Mental Math (2)
- New work (1)
- normal distribution (2)
- Pascal's Triangle (1)
- Permutations (8)
- Personal Finance (1)
- poly (1)
- Presentation (1)
- Probability (4)
- Quiz (1)
- rules (1)
- Scalar Multiplication and Matrix Multiplication (1)
- scribe post (1)
- Sequences and Series (1)
- Sierpinski's Triangle (1)
- Sinusodal Regression (1)
- Stats (1)
- study (1)
- Sub Day's (3)
- sushi (1)
- synergy (1)
- teaching (3)
- Test Day (1)
- test help (1)
- test review (3)
- the game (1)
- Think Before You Post (1)
- Two-Finger Method (1)
- Uganda (1)
- Valentines Day ♥ (1)
- variability (1)
- vectors (1)
- wiki (2)
- Work Assignments (2)
- Work Period (3)
- World Hunger (1)
Check Out This Cool Tool For Creating Your Scribe Posts!!!
Who's Watching From Where???
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(96)
-
▼
May
(20)
- Work Period
- Hopewell Rocks
- ABCD Values
- SVRSS Math 40SA May 25 2007
- Confidence Intervals
- Attempting the Unthinkable
- Stats
- Question #15
- Question #12
- Question #8
- Using Words Rather Than Colors
- Infinity is represented on the TI-83/84+ as Egg
- Normal Distributions
- Work Period...
- So friday we skipped mental math, and went right i...
- May 09/2007 - Quiz Day
- May 7th 2007
- May the Fourth Be With You...
- Yesterday we started a new unit on Sequences and S...
- ..Math & Ice Cream..
-
▼
May
(20)
Contributors
Applied Math 40S Daniel McIntyre Collegiate Winnipeg - Mr. Kuropatwa
Math (or Other) Useful Links
- Download Euklid Here (via bend)
- More Matrix Operations (via *Steph*)
- How To Study Math (via *Steph*)
- How To Study (via Texas A & M and *Steph*)
- Matrix Vocabulary (via *Steph*)
- Scribe Posting Expectations
- Wikipedia
- Wikipedia Matrix Entry (via Wilson)
- Pandora Internet Streaming Radio
- What a Classroom Blog Should Be
- Matrix Addition & Scalar Multiplication (via Marsha)
- Analyze Math Matrix Addition & Subtraction (via Marsha)
- Matrix Multiplication From Purple Math (via Marsha)
- Vicki Davis on How To Comment
- Archived Old Provincial Standards Tests
- Mr. Maksymchuk's Blog
12 comments:
To figure out the answer for this question I used the normalcdf function on my calculator.. it looked like this when i punched it in...
normalcdf(195,E99,176,7)
The answer that I got was .0033 or .33% chance of males that will not get the job because they are too tall.
i did normalcdf(168,195,176,7) and i got 87.01%... i think this is the percentage that DOES qualify though.... i tried to do it a different way and i got like...umm .0033 which doesn't seem right... unless its 33%... anyone know what i did wrong?
for this question I used ron blond's site for part a.) I found that the percent of males too tall for the agency is roughly 87%. I'm not sure how to do part b.) but I'm working on it..
This one confused me. I thought if you use normalcdf and calculate who qualifies for Males you would get .87 and females you would get .73.
If you subtract 100 from these totals, i assumed the the .13 and .27 represent all those who dont qualify, however I didn't take into account that some could be shorter. I havent arrived at an answer yet but thanks Ben, that makes sense.
On this question I only could get the first part and for that I got .0033 because I put Normalcdf(195,E99,176,7)..You put the E99 becuase you want the males who will not qualify. Like I said I didn't know how to do the other parts..it quite confused me
To figure out how to figure how many males will be to tall, I just drew a bell chart and just figured it out in my head. And I got an answer of .7% of males will be to tall. To figure out who has a better chance of getting hired I used the normal cdf method, and i got that males have an 87% chanse of getting hired while the females only have a 73% chance. TO figure out the new minimum height of the females will be 156 cm, I just used tral and error.
I didn't know how to do this question...but Ben's way makes sense and the answer seems reasonable..
I used the cdf method for a.) and got 14%
And for B.) I used the Z= method and got -.33. and i didnt get C.)
I used the website to find this answer, I got 81% for the first part of this question, then I used normalcdf and then got maybe a better percentage of 33%, not sure if I got it right...sorry about the phone
This is Dustin, for 12 a) I got an answer of 15% not being able to qualify because they are too tall and for 12 b) I got that they don't have an equal cahnce of being hired between the males and the females
for part b.) I used normalcdf and came up with 73%, from what Mr. Max just said I think that this is the percent that don't get hired so, 27% of females get hired. likewise, 13% of males have a chance of getting hired(because my calculator said 87%) ...or is it the other way around? I don't know. I'm more than a little lost.
Post a Comment