The number of common terms in the two sequences 17, 21, 25,…, 417 and 16, 21, 26,…, 466 is ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The number of common terms in the two sequences 17, 21, 25,…, 417 and 16, 21, 26,…, 466 is

Write Comment

Comments

By: anil on 05 May 2019 02.29 am

The terms of the first sequence are of the form 4p + 13 The terms of the second sequence are of the form 5q + 11 If a term is common to both the sequences, it is of the form 4p+13 and 5q+11 or 4p = 5q -2. LHS = 4p is always even, so, q is also even. or 2p = 5r - 1 where q = 2r. Notice that LHS is again even, hence r should be odd. Let r = 2m+1 for some m. Hence, p = 5m + 2. So, the number = 4p+13 = 20m + 21. Hence, all numbers of the form 20m + 21 will be the common terms. i.e 21,41,61,...,401 = 20.

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->WhichDictionary added 19 Singaporean terms and 13 Hong Kong terms and also includesabout 500 new words and phrases from around the world?....

QA->Which President of-India served for two terms?....

QA->Terms of economics; which recession occurring two times with a small gap in between?....

QA->Terms of economics, which recession occurring two times with a small gap in between?....

QA->In a Program Graph, ‘X’ is an if-then-else node. If the number of paths from start node to X is ‘p’ number of paths from if part to end node is ‘q’ and from else part to end node is ’r’, the total number of possible paths through X is :....

MCQ->The number of common terms in the two sequences 17, 21, 25,…, 417 and 16, 21, 26,…, 466 is....

MCQ-> The current debate on intellectual property rights (IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, the relative roles of public and private sectors, and the role of agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs). This debate has been stimulated by the international agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round negotiations. The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use. With strong support of their national governments, they were influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round. The current debate on TRIPs in India - as indeed elsewhere - echoes wider concerns about ‘privatisation’ of research and allowing a free field for MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture. The agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded faith in the power of science to overcome all likely problems, point to the vast potential that new technology holds for solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation of this potential should be encouraged and this is best done by the private sector for which patents are essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination are exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products only if they decisively outperform the available alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging private sector research are apprehensive that this will work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A different, though related apprehension is that extensive use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger, longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are also another cause for concern. Moreover, corporations, driven by the profit motive, will necessarily tend to underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse consequences, especially those which are unknown and which may manifest themselves only over a relatively long period. On the other hand, high-pressure advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties without being aware of potential adverse effects and the possibility of disastrous consequences for their livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no provision under the laws, as they now exist, for compensating users against such eventualities. Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material has obscured other important issues involved in reviewing the research policy. We need to remind ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not sufficient for sustained growth of yields. in our own experience, some of the early high yielding varieties (HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve these problems. This largely successful research was almost entirely done in public research institutions. Of course, it could in principle have been done by private companies, but whether they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of the loss in market for their original introductions on account of the above factors and whether the companies are financially strong enough to absorb the ‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies and recover the lost market. Public research, which is not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective action. Research for improving common pool resource management, maintaining ecological health and ensuring sustainability is both critical and also demanding in terms of technological challenge and resource requirements. As such research is crucial to the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment in the farmer’s field, private companies should be interested in such research. But their primary interest is in the sale of seed materials, chemicals, equipment and other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and techniques for resource management are not ‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their application to land, water and forests has a long gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving difficult problems such as designing institutions for proper and equitable management of common pool resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do such work. The public sector must therefore continue to play a major role in the national research system. It is both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in terms of public sector versus private sector or of privatisation of research. We need to address problems likely to arise on account of the public-private sector complementarity, and ensure that the public research system performs efficiently. Complementarity between various elements of research raises several issues in implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of their own research. Almost all technological improvement is based on knowledge and experience accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and applied research in public and quasi-public institutions (universities, research organisations). Moreover, as is increasingly recognised, accumulated stock of knowledge does not reside only in the scientific community and its academic publications, but is also widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local communities all over. The deciphering of the structure and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of modern biotechnology. But this fundamental breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the public domain and usable free of any charge. Various techniques developed using that knowledge can however be, and are, patented for private profit. Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and without any charge, on germplasm available in varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as well as new varieties bred by public sector research stations can also be used freely by private enterprises for developing their own varieties and seek patent protection for them. Should private breeders be allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries? Should the repositories of traditional knowledge and germplasm be collected which are maintained and improved by publicly funded organisations? Or should users be made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what should be the basis of compensation? Should the compensation be for individuals or (or communities/institutions to which they belong? Should individual institutions be given the right of patenting their innovations? These are some of the important issues that deserve more attention than they now get and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the tendency to equate the public sector with the government is wrong. The public space is much wider than government departments and includes co- operatives, universities, public trusts and a variety of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Giving greater autonomy to research organisations from government control and giving non- government public institutions the space and resources to play a larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public research system.Which one of the following statements describes an important issue, or important issues, not being raised in the context of the current debate on IPRs?
....

MCQ-> In each of the following questions two rows of number are given. The resultant number in each row is to be worked out separately based on the following rules and the question below the row is to be answered. The operations of number progress from the left to right. Rules: (i) If an even number is followed by another even number they are to be added. (ii) If an even number is followed by a prime number, they are to be multiplied. (iii) If an odd number is followed by an even number, even number is to be subtracted from the odd number. (iv) If an odd number is followed by another odd number the first number is to be added to the square of the second number. (v) If an even number is followed by a composite odd number, the even number is to be divided by odd number.I. 84 21 13 II. 15 11 44 What is half of the sum of the resultants of the two rows ?....

MCQ-> In each of the following questions two rows of numbers are given. The resultant number in each row is to be worked out separately based on the following rules and the questions below the rows of numbers are to be answered. The operations of numbers progress from left to right. Rules: (a) If an odd number is followed by a two digit even number then they are to be added. (b) If an odd number is followed by a two digit odd number then the second number is to be subtracted from the first number. (c) If an even number is followed by a number which is a perfect square of a number then the second number is to be divided by the first number. (d) If an even number is followed by a two digit even number then he first number is to be multiplied by the second number.15 11 20 400 8 12 10 If the resultant of the second set of a numbers is divided by the resultant of the first set of numbers what will be the outcome ?....

MCQ-> A passage is given with five questions following it. Read the passage carefully and select the best answer to each question out of the given four alternatives.Superstitions are a universal phenomena having their own peculiar place in the cultural ethos and milieu of a people. They epitomize man's fear of the unknown, fear of evil, blind faith in omens and portents. Superstitions are inter-woven with myth, legend, unnatural phenomena and disaster, customs and traditions, and are mainly the outcome of ignorance. They are unreasoned and irrational beliefs that gradually become matters of faith. When certain things and happenings are rationally inexplicable people tend to assign mysterious and supernatural reasons for their operation. Thus a natural disaster is explained in terms of God's wrath and the failure of one's project is assigned to the black cat which crossed the path just as one set out on the errand. The primitive human beings were mainly governed by superstitions. Superstitions were widespread before the dawn of civilization when science had not advanced. Thus, ignorance of the primitive people and the resultant growth of superstitions were the direct outcome of the lack of scientific advancement. Unenlightened people always tend to be superstitious. The belief in the sanctity of time and old traditions of the ancestors bind the people into knots of superstitious thought. Besides, the unscrupulous priests and religious officials exercise a dominating, unhealthy effect upon the people believing in religious orthodoxy. They encourage superstitions for their own ulterior motives. Superstitions are not only universally prevalent but even have strikingly common features whether believed in India or in as far off a place as Canada. There are some common superstitions which are shared by people all over the world. Beliefs in spirits, ghosts and witches and reincarnation are quite common among all the peoples of the world. Belief in witches still prevails in India, France, Scotland, England and many other countries. In countries of the East, especially in India, belief in ghosts and spirits still exists. The cries of certain birds like owls and ravens and the howl of cats are regarded with superstition as portents of evil throughout the world. Then there is a very common belief that the sighting of comets portends the death of kings or great men or some unforeseen catastrophe. Shakespeare refers to such a superstition in his Julius Ceaser, Halley's Comet in the twentieth century evoked a similar response in many a mind.What is the main reason behind once superstitions?
....