Calculus

526

The simple, or basic, economic order quantity (EOQ) is a special case of the continuous rate EOQ, which can be derived from the equation of total cost as follows.

Here is the equation for total cost (TC) as a function of run size (q):

TC(q) = K*D/q + P*D + q*H(r - D)/(2r), where:

K = Fixed cost per order

D = Annual Demand of product

q = run size

P = Purchasing cost per unit

H = Annual holding cost per unit

r = Production rate

K*D/q = Setup cost

P*D = Purchasing cost

H(r - D)/(2r) = holding cost.

To find the maximum value of q, you take the derivative, d[TC(q)]/dq, set it equal to zero, and solve for q.

First, take the derivative:

d[TC(q)]/dq = -K*D/q2 + H(r - D)/(2r).

Then, to maximize, set this equal to zero, and solve for q:

H(r - D)/(2r) - K*D/q2 = 0,

q2 = (2*r*K*D)/[H(r - D)],

q = √((2*r*K*D)/[H(r - D)]).

That's the formula for the continuous rate EOQ.

Basic EOQ is the special case of r >> D, which means r - D pretty much equals r, which allows you to cancel the r's in the above equation, giving you the formula:

q = √((2*K*D)/H).

This is the formula for basic EOQ.

.39

68 + 28x - 28 = 236

28x + 68 - 68 -28 + 28 = 236 - 68 + 28

28x = 196

x = 7

To find the inflection points on a graph, you need to take the second derivative. Then, set that equal to zero to find the x value(s) of the inflection point(s).

7

80

a square

It is an algebraic expression

If f(x) = 1/(x-1)

then

f-1(x) = (1/x) +1

PS...Type your question more clearly.

y=8

y = 2x

y = 2(4) <-- substitute 4 for x

y = 8 <-- this is your answer

Not sure if I understand your question...but that would be a grade of 'C'

I'm assuming that you're wondering how tall you are likely to be. Since your father is average height for men, and your mother is slightly short for women, the odds are that you will be about the same height as your same-sex parent. If you are female, you might be Slightly taller than your mother. If you are male, you might be Slightly shorter than your father. About 150 years ago, a Monk named Gregor Mendel did some experiments on peas and fruit flies that proved the basic Laws of Genetics. Since that time, other scientists have refined his laws. Genetics is a fascinating subject, and well worth some time spent learning about it. In a nutshell, and pertaining to your question, the Laws of Genetics state that Tall is dominant over Short. Each child gets two batches of genes; one from his/her mother's egg, and one from his/her father's sperm. If the father passes on a gene for Tall, and the mother donates a gene for Short, the baby will grow up to be Tall, since the "Tall" gene from the father dominated the "Short" gene from the mother. So far, so good. However the gene that is Not obvious is still there. It's what is called Recessive. A Tall person could have a "Short" gene lurking in his/her genetic code, gotten from a short parent (or a tall parent with a short ancestor), and available to be passed on to the offspring . Also, "short" and "tall" are relative. A Watusi with a "Short" gene could be taller than an Italian with a "Tall" gene, because Watusis tend to be taller people than Italians to begin with. What this means is that, unless a baby comes from a pair of blonde, blue eyed, short people (all recessive), how he/she will look is an absolutely guaranteed, positively proven Crap Shoot. Only a Geneticist, working in a lab, could predict with any certainty how a child will look. In your case, though, you seem to have gotten a "short" gene from your short mother, and, depending on your ethnic background, possibly a "tall" gene from your father, if he comes from a relatively short ethnic group. Therefore, the odds are that you will be no taller than your father. Of course, other things in your Biology are at work, modifying your genes (otherwise, there would be just two heights of humans; all tall people would be One height, and all short people would be the Other), and these might make a difference. Also, your diet plays a big part in how the genes develop.

so x squared + 12 = 0 so xsquared = -12 which lands you in the realm of imaginary numbers. The square root of -12 is 2i root 3 where i is the imaginary sqrt of -1.

5x+3+x=24

6x+3=24

6x=21

x=3.5

According to my calculations, yes.

2x+8=3x+11 -8

2x=3x+3 -2x

0=x+3 -3

-3=x

When rectangles are inscribed, they lie entirely inside the area you're calculating. They never cross over the curve that bounds the area. Circumscribed rectangles cross over the curve and lie partially outside of the area. Circumscribed rectangles always yield a larger area than inscribed rectangles.

The graph or function relates a value y (in the vertcal direction) to a value x (in the horizontal direction).

For each point x in the domain, there must be one and only one value y. In terms of a graph that means that a vertical line from any value of x in the domain must meet the graph in exactly place - at least once and not more than once. More than one x values can have the same y value associated with them.

Every function is a graph. So the only thing is to distinguish functions from other graphs.

One formal convention actually define function as its graph, and a graph is the set of all ordered pairs (x, y)

A function is a special graph where it's set set of all ordered pairs (x, y) where y = f(x). f(x) is unique (or rather one goes in only one comes out), meaning for each x, there is one and only one y. (Note: For each y, there might be many x)

So to test this, we use a "vertical line test". The idea is for all x in the domain of f, say A, we draw a vertical line (x = a for some a in A), it only intersect the graph of f one and only once. Of course, there are infinity many points, you have to do it infinitly many times. Therefore, you can do it generacally:

Let A:= dom f

For all a in A, f is a function if and only if (x = a implies f(x) = f(a) and nothing else)

yes

2x - 6 = x - 43

2x = x - 37

x = -37

500000 million.

The slope is -5/3.

3x is the same as 3 times x. So, it is triple the size of x.