A car dealership has hired you to determine how many sales they can make based on how many flashcards they can have in a quarter. You are performing least squares regression on the following set of data. Calculate the slope and the y-intercept, and give the least squares regression equation. — Flash Sales: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ,
— Cars sold: 35, 47, 49, 53, 97,

A.) Slope: 18.7, y-intercept: 0; y-hat = 18.7x + 0

B.) Slope: 17.2, y-intercept: 0; y-hat = 17.2x + 13

C.) Slope: 13, y-intercept: 0; y-hat = 13x + 17.2

D.) Slope: 56.2, y-intercept: 0; y-hat = 56.2x + 0

...the best equation that I could formulate— would be multiple choice Charlie, letter (c) (?)​

answer is 67%

step-by-step explanation:

it would open into a square depending on the type of envelope i’m not sure about the second part

i think it's eleven too, don't woosh me here, but according to the "experts" it's 2.

the proof starts from the peano postulates, which define the natural

numbers n. n is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

  p1.   1 is in n.

  p2.   if x is in n, then its "successor" x' is in n.

  p3.   there is no x such that x' = 1.

  p4.   if x isn't 1, then there is a y in n such that y' = x.

  p5.   if s is a subset of n, 1 is in s, and the implication

      (x in s => x' in s) holds, then s = n.

then you have to define addition recursively:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 1, then define a + b = a'

      (using p1 and p2). if b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in n

      (using p4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

then you have to define 2:

  def:   2 = 1'

2 is in n by p1, p2, and the definition of 2.

theorem:   1 + 1 = 2

proof: use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

      then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2   q.e.d.

note: there is an alternate formulation of the peano postulates which

replaces 1 with 0 in p1, p3, p4, and p5. then you have to change the

definition of addition to this:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 0, then define a + b = a.

      if b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in n, and define

      a + b = (a + c)'.

you also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. then the proof of the

theorem above is a little different:

proof: use the second part of the definition of + first:

      1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'

      now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in

      parentheses:   1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2   q.e.d.

no oblique asymptote

step-by-step explanation:

to find the oblique asymptote of f(x)

here numerator has degree 1 and denomintor degree 2

degree of numerator < degree of denominator

hence there is no oblique asymptote

when the degree of the denominator > that of the numerator, we saw that the value in the denominator got so much bigger, so quickly,   giving us a horizontal asymptote of the x-axis. or we can write

f(x) = a polynomial of x + a proper fraction.

in this case only we have oblique asymptotes but not when numerator has less degree.