I seriously need help with these 2 math questions

[CYYYFYYY]

<div>Driving down a mounain Jim finds that he has descended 1800FT in elevation by the time he is 3.25 mi horizontally away from the top of the mountain find the slope of his decent to the nearest hundreth.</div><div>In planning a new item, a manufactuer assumes that the number of items produced x and the cost of dollars C of producing these items are related by a linear equation, Projections are that 100 items will cost $22,000 to produce. Find the eqaution that relates C and x</div><div>Showing work would be much appreiciated.&nbsp; You can im me if you want at CYYYFYYY</div>

[SinA]

cheater.

[FezPaul]

&Ntilde;&euro;&Delta;&Lambda;&lambda;&Phi;&beta;

[feralBoy]

<strong>CYYYFYYY</strong> wrote:<br />*&gt;Driving down a mounain Jim finds that he has descended 1800FT in elevation by the time he is 3.25 mi horizontally away from the top of the mountain find the slope of his decent to the nearest hundreth. *&gt;In planning a new item, a manufactuer assumes that the number of items produced x and the cost of dollars C of producing these items are related by a linear equation, Projections are that 100 items will cost $22,000 to produce. Find the eqaution that relates C and x *&gt;Showing work would be much appreiciated.&nbsp; You can im me if you want at CYYYFYYY <p>The first one is pretty easy.&nbsp; Slope is the change in y (up and down) over the change in x (left right).&nbsp; So, you can convert, miles into feet.&nbsp; and slope would be -1800ft/3.25miles x (however many feet in a mile, like 5200 or some shit).</p><p>The second one is easy too.&nbsp; 100x = 22000, so, x = 220, so C = 220x.</p><p>&nbsp;I think those are right.</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by feralBoy on 2-13-07 @ 7:16 PM</span>

[Marc with a c]

<p>i didn't get past the word elevation.</p><p>math is for stupid people.</p>

[JPMNICK]

<p>convert the miles into feet, which is 17160</p><p>slope is rise over run, so just put them into a ratio</p><p>.105</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[JPMNICK]

<p>the slope might be negative depending on how you set up your axis. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>for the second one, you would set up the equation and solve for one variable or another</p><p>the 2 correct answers are</p><p>x = 220c </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>or</p><p>c = x/220</p>

[feralBoy]

<strong>JPMNICK</strong> wrote: <p>for the second one, you would set up the equation and solve for one variable or another</p><p>the 2 correct answers are</p><p>x = 220c </p><p>or</p><p>c = x/220</p><p>Those equations have x and c switched.&nbsp; They don't work if you use the original numbers.&nbsp; 100 != 220 x 22000.&nbsp; but 22000 = 220 x 100.&nbsp; so, c = 220x</p>

[undressa]

<p>ok, sudenly turned on by the brains on this board</p><p>wow</p><p>for real</p><p>and I just did the math and u are all wrong</p><p>V</p>

[Chigworthy]

<strong>JPMNICK</strong> wrote:<br /><p>the slope </p><p>Wrong...and racist.</p>

[JPMNICK]

<strong>feralBoy</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>JPMNICK</strong> wrote: <p>for the second one, you would set up the equation and solve for one variable or another</p><p>the 2 correct answers are</p><p>x = 220c </p><p>or</p><p>c = x/220</p><p>Those equations have x and c switched.&nbsp; They don't work if you use the original numbers.&nbsp; 100 != 220 x 22000.&nbsp; but 22000 = 220 x 100.&nbsp; so, c = 220x</p><p>whoops, good call!</p>

[burrben]

three years ago i could have helped you

[zentraed]

<strong>CYYYFYYY</strong> wrote:<br />*&gt;Driving down a mounain Jim finds that he has descended 1800FT in elevation by the time he is 3.25 mi horizontally away from the top of the mountain find the slope of his decent to the nearest hundreth.*&gt;In planning a new item, a manufactuer assumes that the number of items produced x and the cost of dollars C of producing these items are related by a linear equation, Projections are that 100 items will cost $22,000 to produce. Find the eqaution that relates C and x*&gt;Showing work would be much appreiciated. You can im me if you want at CYYYFYYY<p>&nbsp;Since there seemed to be some disagreement, i'm just gonna work these without considering the other posts.</p><p>1. First, there are 5280 ft/mile.</p><p>x = 3.25 mi * 5280 ft/mile =&nbsp; 17,160 ft.</p><p>So, the slopes is simply rise-over-run, or y / x.</p><p>y/x = 1,800ft / 17,160ft = 0.104895 = 0.10 (after rounding to nearest hundredth)</p><p><br />2. C = (cost/unit) * x + (fixed costs)</p><p>$22,000 = (cost/unit) * 100 units + (fixed costs)</p><p>Since they haven't given you enough information to find the fixed costs, we'll ignore the constant term (the y-intercept). That leaves that the cost/unit is:</p><p>(cost/unit)=$22,000/100 units = $220/unit</p><p>Final equation is:</p><p>C = 220x&nbsp;</p>

[keithy_19]

I'm good at English and History. Math makes my head hurt. Reading this stuff made it explode a little.

[nate1000]

<p>Just like back in High School, I overthought the question. In case anyone is wondering, the driver in the first problem descended at a 5.98815 degree angle. The irony is that I had to calculate the actual answer to come up with the wrong one. Brings back many memories. </p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[sr71blackbird]

That must be a wide mountian!

[feralBoy]

<strong>zentraed</strong> wrote:<br /><p>&nbsp;Since there seemed to be some disagreement, i'm just gonna work these without considering the other posts.</p><p>1. First, there are 5280 ft/mile.</p><p>x = 3.25 mi * 5280 ft/mile =&nbsp; 17,160 ft.</p><p>So, the slopes is simply rise-over-run, or y / x.</p><p>y/x = 1,800ft / 17,160ft = 0.104895 = 0.10 (after rounding to nearest hundredth)</p><p>That's kinda half right.&nbsp; As others pointed&nbsp;out, it depends on which way you are moving on the mountain.&nbsp; If the moutain looks like this / and you are driving from right to left, then you are correct.&nbsp; the slope is .1.&nbsp; However, if the mountain looks like this and you are driving left to right, then the slope is -.1</p>

[ralphbxny]

<p>Math I was expecting 2+2 or 64-34...math with words stinks.</p>

[Jughead]

Ok ya did it!!&nbsp; Know I know Im a dumb Ass..NO MATH THREADS!!..MIKEY!!!!!

[shittyhambrgers]

since when is this a homework help board?&nbsp; fuck math!

[Mike Teacher]

<p>No further proof needed of our utter illiteracy in math and science; those Qs are about 5th-7th grade level for here, 3rd-4th grade for many other countries.</p><p>We're doomed.</p><p>No offense to anyone, it's the whole national mindset; people actually love to flaunt, brag about their math illiteracy. Imagine a check came at a restaurant and someone saying, 'can someonefigure the tip? I hate reading, never liked it, never learned...' this would horrify many, but when it's math, it's OK. Ack.</p><p>OK, off soap-box.</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by Mike Teacher on 2-14-07 @ 4:47 PM</span>

[JPMNICK]

<strong>Mike Teacher</strong> wrote:<br /><p>No further proof needed of our utter illiteracy in math and science; those Qs are about 5th-7th grade level for here, 3rd-4th grade for many other countries.</p><p>We're doomed.</p><p>No offense to anyone, it's the whole national mindset; people actually love to flaunt, brag about their math illiteracy. Imagine a check came at a restaurant and someone saying, 'can someonefigure the tip? I hate reading, never liked it, never learned...' this would horrify many, but when it's math, it's OK. Ack.</p><p>OK, off soap-box.</p><span class="post_edited">This message was edited by Mike Teacher on 2-14-07 @ 4:47 PM</span> <p>Mike I discuss this with teachers and others all the time. it is AMAZING how by the time kids reach high school they are already in the mindset that they suck at math. Some of them do, but most are bad because they stopped trying. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I have also noticed this. People tend to group themselves. If you are good at math, you must be good at science and bad and english and social studies. And the other way around applies. A good english student will always say how bad they are at math. How come no one wants to be good at everything. that was always my goal in school, and it pays off now because I have very strong Math Skills and work as an engineer, but I got my last 2 jobs because of my ability to communicate with clients.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[narc]

<strong>Mike Teacher</strong> wrote:<br /><p>No further proof needed of our utter illiteracy in math and science; those Qs are about 5th-7th grade level for here, 3rd-4th grade for many other countries.</p><p>We're doomed.</p><p>No offense to anyone, it's the whole national mindset; people actually love to flaunt, brag about their math illiteracy. Imagine a check came at a restaurant and someone saying, 'can someonefigure the tip? I hate reading, never liked it, never learned...' this would horrify many, but when it's math, it's OK. Ack.</p><p>OK, off soap-box.</p> <span class="post_edited">This message was edited by Mike Teacher on 2-14-07 @ 4:47 PM</span><p>&nbsp;LOL I will go through life not knowing any more math than what I learned it pre-cal. But it was honors pre-cal. LOL. My senior year in HS I went so far as to tell my math teacher this because I knew I'd never take math again. I'm sure it made her day. <br /> </p><p>In all seriousness, I've compensated for it by becoming really good at everyday math. I can calculate tips faster and more accurately than my more mathy friends. &nbsp;</p>