Let X be a real number. Is the modulus of X necessarily less than 3?A. X(X+3)0 ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Let X be a real number. Is the modulus of X necessarily less than 3?A. X(X+3)0

Write Comment

Comments

By: anil on 05 May 2019 02.30 am

Considering statement A, X(X+3)0 . Here values of x which satisfy are X = ..,-2,-1,4,5,6,... So using only statement 1 we know that uniquely modulus of x has to be less than 3. Hence, the question can be answered by one of the statements alone, but cannot be answered by using the other statement alone.

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->A is taller than B; B is taller than C; D is taller than E and E is taller than B. Who is the shortest?....

QA->The Bulk modulus of elasticity in the case of an adiabatic expansion is :....

QA->What is the SI unit of Young’s modulus of elasticity?....

QA->The three-fifth of a number is 40 more than the 40 percent of the same number. The number is :....

QA->Real Madrid midfielder who has been named 2014 Sportsman of the Year by the AIPS (International Association of Latin American Sports Journalists) for his performances with Colombia in the 2014 World Cup and with Real Madrid?....

MCQ-> Analyse the following transcript (from the movie Matrix) and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow: Neo: Morpheus, what's happened to me? What is this place? Morpheus: More important than what is when. Neo: When? Morpheus: You believe it's the year 1999 when in fact it's closer to 2199. I can't tell you exactly what year it is because we honestly don't know.There's nothing I can say that will explain it for you, Neo. Come with me. See for yourself. This is my ship, the Nebuchadnezzar. It's a hovercraft. This is the main deck. This is the core where we broadcast our pirate signal and hack into the Matrix. Most of my crew you already know. (Next Scene: Construct) Morpheus: This is the construct. It's our loading programme. We can load anything from clothing, to equipment, weapons, training simulations, anything we need. Neo: Right now we're inside a computer programme? Morpheus: Is it really so hard to believe? Your clothes are different. The plugs in your arms and head are gone. Your hair is changed. Your appearance now is what we call residual self image. It is the mental projection of your digital self. Neo: This...this isn't real? Morpheus: What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. ...This is the world that you know. The world as it was at the end of the twentieth century. It exists now only as part of a neural-interactive simulation that we call the Matrix. You've been living in a dream world, Neo. .. .This is the world as it exists today. Welcome to the Desert of the Real. We have only bits and pieces of information but what we know for certain is that at some point in the early twenty-first century all of mankind was united in celebration. We marvelled at our own magnificence as we gave birth to AI. Neo: AI? You mean artificial intelligence? Morpheus: A singular consciousness that spawned an entire race of machines. We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time they were dependent on solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun. Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate it seems is not without a sense of irony. The human body generates more bio-electricity than a 120-volt battery and over 25,000 BTU's of body heat. Combined with a form of fusion the machines have found all the energy they would ever need. There are fields, endless fields, where human beings are no longer born, we are grown. For the longest time I wouldn't believe it, and then I saw the fields with my own eyes. Watch them liquefy the dead so they could be fed intravenously to the living. And standing there, facing the pure horrifying precision, I came to realize the obviousness of the truth. What is the Matrix? Control. The Matrix is a computer generated dream world built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into this. Neo: No. I don't believe it. It's not possible. Morpheus: I didn't say it would be easy, Neo. I just said it would be the truth. Neo: Stop. Let me out. Let me out. I want out.The innate factor responsible for the status of human beings in later part of 22nd century is
....

MCQ-> Study the following information and answer the given questions. Seven people, namely, J, K, L, M, N, O and P like seven different movies namely, Twilight, Gladiator, Wanted, Dread, Hero, Jumanji and Signs but not necessarily in the same order. Each person also works in the same office but in a different department (on the basis of experience) namely Administration, Production, Marketing, HR, Finance, R&D; and Client relations (CR), not necessarily in the same order. (Please Note: Each person has been allocated to a department as per increasing order of experience with the one in Administration being the least experienced whilst the one in Client Relations (CR) being the most experienced). Only two persons have less experience than K. P works in R&D.; The one who likes Wanted has more experience than K but less than one who likes Jumanji. P neither likes Wanted nor Jumanji. The one who likes Wanted does not work in Finance. J, who is more experienced than K, likes twilight. The person who works in Production is less experienced than the person who likes Hero. K does not like Hero. The person who works in HR is more experienced than both L and N. N is not the least experienced person. The one who likes Signs has more experience than N. M is more experienced than J. L does not like Dread.Four of the following five are alike in a certain way based on the given arrangement and so form a group. which is the one that does not belong to that group ?
....

MCQ-> Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end of each passage:Turning the business involved more than segmenting and pulling out of retail. It also meant maximizing every strength we had in order to boost our profit margins. In re-examining the direct model, we realized that inventory management was not just core strength; it could be an incredible opportunity for us, and one that had not yet been discovered by any of our competitors. In Version 1.0 the direct model, we eliminated the reseller, thereby eliminating the mark-up and the cost of maintaining a store. In Version 1.1, we went one step further to reduce inventory inefficiencies. Traditionally, a long chain of partners was involved in getting a product to the customer. Let’s say you have a factory building a PC we’ll call model #4000. The system is then sent to the distributor, which sends it to the warehouse, which sends it to the dealer, who eventually pushes it on to the consumer by advertising, “I’ve got model #4000. Come and buy it.” If the consumer says, “But I want model #8000,” the dealer replies, “Sorry, I only have model #4000.” Meanwhile, the factory keeps building model #4000s and pushing the inventory into the channel. The result is a glut of model #4000s that nobody wants. Inevitably, someone ends up with too much inventory, and you see big price corrections. The retailer can’t sell it at the suggested retail price, so the manufacturer loses money on price protection (a practice common in our industry of compensating dealers for reductions in suggested selling price). Companies with long, multi-step distribution systems will often fill their distribution channels with products in an attempt to clear out older targets. This dangerous and inefficient practice is called “channel stuffing”. Worst of all, the customer ends up paying for it by purchasing systems that are already out of date Because we were building directly to fill our customers’ orders, we didn’t have finished goods inventory devaluing on a daily basis. Because we aligned our suppliers to deliver components as we used them, we were able to minimize raw material inventory. Reductions in component costs could be passed on to our customers quickly, which made them happier and improved our competitive advantage. It also allowed us to deliver the latest technology to our customers faster than our competitors. The direct model turns conventional manufacturing inside out. Conventional manufacturing, because your plant can’t keep going. But if you don’t know what you need to build because of dramatic changes in demand, you run the risk of ending up with terrific amounts of excess and obsolete inventory. That is not the goal. The concept behind the direct model has nothing to do with stockpiling and everything to do with information. The quality of your information is inversely proportional to the amount of assets required, in this case excess inventory. With less information about customer needs, you need massive amounts of inventory. So, if you have great information – that is, you know exactly what people want and how much - you need that much less inventory. Less inventory, of course, corresponds to less inventory depreciation. In the computer industry, component prices are always falling as suppliers introduce faster chips, bigger disk drives and modems with ever-greater bandwidth. Let’s say that Dell has six days of inventory. Compare that to an indirect competitor who has twenty-five days of inventory with another thirty in their distribution channel. That’s a difference of forty-nine days, and in forty-nine days, the cost of materials will decline about 6 percent. Then there’s the threat of getting stuck with obsolete inventory if you’re caught in a transition to a next- generation product, as we were with those memory chip in 1989. As the product approaches the end of its life, the manufacturer has to worry about whether it has too much in the channel and whether a competitor will dump products, destroying profit margins for everyone. This is a perpetual problem in the computer industry, but with the direct model, we have virtually eliminated it. We know when our customers are ready to move on technologically, and we can get out of the market before its most precarious time. We don’t have to subsidize our losses by charging higher prices for other products. And ultimately, our customer wins. Optimal inventory management really starts with the design process. You want to design the product so that the entire product supply chain, as well as the manufacturing process, is oriented not just for speed but for what we call velocity. Speed means being fast in the first place. Velocity means squeezing time out of every step in the process. Inventory velocity has become a passion for us. To achieve maximum velocity, you have to design your products in a way that covers the largest part of the market with the fewest number of parts. For example, you don’t need nine different disk drives when you can serve 98 percent of the market with only four. We also learned to take into account the variability of the lost cost and high cost components. Systems were reconfigured to allow for a greater variety of low-cost parts and a limited variety of expensive parts. The goal was to decrease the number of components to manage, which increased the velocity, which decreased the risk of inventory depreciation, which increased the overall health of our business system. We were also able to reduce inventory well below the levels anyone thought possible by constantly challenging and surprising ourselves with the result. We had our internal skeptics when we first started pushing for ever-lower levels of inventory. I remember the head of our procurement group telling me that this was like “flying low to the ground 300 knots.” He was worried that we wouldn’t see the trees.In 1993, we had $2.9 billion in sales and $220 million in inventory. Four years later, we posted $12.3 billion in sales and had inventory of $33 million. We’re now down to six days of inventory and we’re starting to measure it in hours instead of days. Once you reduce your inventory while maintaining your growth rate, a significant amount of risk comes from the transition from one generation of product to the next. Without traditional stockpiles of inventory, it is critical to precisely time the discontinuance of the older product line with the ramp-up in customer demand for the newer one. Since we were introducing new products all the time, it became imperative to avoid the huge drag effect from mistakes made during transitions. E&O; – short for “excess and obsolete” - became taboo at Dell. We would debate about whether our E&O; was 30 or 50 cent per PC. Since anything less than $20 per PC is not bad, when you’re down in the cents range, you’re approaching stellar performance.Find out the TRUE statement:
....

MCQ-> Study,the following information carefully and answer the questions given below : Each of the six buildings — E, F, G, H, I and J — has different number of floors. Only three buildings have more number of floors than J. G has more number of floors than I but less than E. I has more number of floors than J. F does not have the least number of floors. The building having least number of floors has 5 floors. The building having third highest number of floors has 26 floors. F has 14 floors less than the number of floors in I.If the number of floors in building G is less than 38 and is an odd number which is Divisible by 3 but not 7, how many floors does G have ?
....

MCQ-> Mathematicians are assigned a number called Erdos number (named after the famous mathematician, Paul Erdos). Only Paul Erdos himself has an Erdos number of zero. Any mathematician who has written a research paper with Erdos has an Erdos number of 1.For other mathematicians, the calculation of his/her Erdos number is illustrated below:Suppose that a mathematician X has co-authored papers with several other mathematicians. 'From among them, mathematician Y has the smallest Erdos number. Let the Erdos number of Y be y. Then X has an Erdos number of y+1. Hence any mathematician with no co-authorship chain connected to Erdos has an Erdos number of infinity. :In a seven day long mini-conference organized in memory of Paul Erdos, a close group of eight mathematicians, call them A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H, discussed some research problems. At the beginning of the conference, A was the only participant who had an infinite Erdos number. Nobody had an Erdos number less than that of F.On the third day of the conference F co-authored a paper jointly with A and C. This reduced the average Erdos number of the group of eight mathematicians to 3. The Erdos numbers of B, D, E, G and H remained unchanged with the writing of this paper. Further, no other co-authorship among any three members would have reduced the average Erdos number of the group of eight to as low as 3.• At the end of the third day, five members of this group had identical Erdos numbers while the other three had Erdos numbers distinct from each other.• On the fifth day, E co-authored a paper with F which reduced the group's average Erdos number by 0.5. The Erdos numbers of the remaining six were unchanged with the writing of this paper.• No other paper was written during the conference.The person having the largest Erdos number at the end of the conference must have had Erdos number (at that time):
....