Discover a world of knowledge at Westonci.ca, where experts and enthusiasts come together to answer your questions. Explore thousands of questions and answers from a knowledgeable community of experts on our user-friendly platform. Discover detailed answers to your questions from a wide network of experts on our comprehensive Q&A platform.
Sagot :
To determine which equation correctly represents the cost [tex]\( f(x) \)[/tex] of shipping a package that weighs [tex]\( x \)[/tex] pounds, let's break down the problem and analyze each of the given possible equations.
1. Base Cost and Additional Cost:
- The base cost is [tex]\( \$6 \)[/tex] for packages weighing up to 1 pound.
- For each additional pound or portion of a pound, the cost increases by [tex]\( \$2 \)[/tex].
2. Analyzing the Equations:
We'll evaluate the costs for different values of [tex]\( x \)[/tex], including fractions around 1 pound, to determine which equation fits the given cost structure.
### Equation Analysis
1. Equation 1: [tex]\( f(x) = 6 + 2 \lceil x - 1 \rceil \)[/tex], where [tex]\( x > 0 \)[/tex]
- For [tex]\( x = 0.5 \)[/tex] pounds:
[tex]\[ f(0.5) = 6 + 2 \lceil 0.5 - 1 \rceil = 6 + 2 \lceil -0.5 \rceil = 6 + 2(-1) = 6 - 2 = 4 \][/tex]
- This satisfies the given cost structure since 0.5 would be rounded to 1, resulting in an additional cost.
2. Equation 2: [tex]\( f(x) = 6 + 2 \lfloor x - 1 \rfloor \)[/tex], where [tex]\( x > 0 \)[/tex]
- For [tex]\( x = 0.5 \)[/tex] pounds:
[tex]\[ f(0.5) = 6 + 2 \lfloor 0.5 - 1 \rfloor = 6 + 2 \lfloor -0.5 \rfloor = 6 + 2(-1) = 6 - 2 = 4 \][/tex]
- Like the previous case, this matches the cost structure for a fractional pound less than 1.
3. Equation 3: [tex]\( f(x) = 6 + 2 \lceil x + 1 \rceil \)[/tex], where [tex]\( x > 0 \)[/tex]
- This equation is not consistent with the definition of the cost structure. Adding 1 before taking the ceil would not correctly reflect the additional cost for each pound or portion thereof.
4. Equation 4: [tex]\( f(x) = 6 + 2 \lfloor x + 1 \rfloor \)[/tex], where [tex]\( x > 0 \)[/tex]
- This equation is also inconsistent. Adding 1 before taking the floor does not correspond to the correctly defined additional costs structure.
### Final Verification:
Let's return to the cost structure implication for multiple precise cases:
- For [tex]\( x = 1 \)[/tex] pound, all equations should yield the same correct cost:
[tex]\[ f(1) = 6 + 2 \times 0 = 6 \][/tex]
- For [tex]\( x = 1.5 \)[/tex] pounds, analyzing the impact further validates that it would fit the ceiling or floor logic correctly, but ceilings are typically more intuitive here since portions of a pound round up.
### Correct Equation:
The correct equation that matches the cost structure:
[tex]\[ f(x) = 6 + 2 \lceil x - 1 \rceil, \; \text{where} \; x > 0 \][/tex]
Thus, the correct function representing the cost is:
[tex]\[ f(x) = 6 + 2\lceil x - 1 \rceil \][/tex]
1. Base Cost and Additional Cost:
- The base cost is [tex]\( \$6 \)[/tex] for packages weighing up to 1 pound.
- For each additional pound or portion of a pound, the cost increases by [tex]\( \$2 \)[/tex].
2. Analyzing the Equations:
We'll evaluate the costs for different values of [tex]\( x \)[/tex], including fractions around 1 pound, to determine which equation fits the given cost structure.
### Equation Analysis
1. Equation 1: [tex]\( f(x) = 6 + 2 \lceil x - 1 \rceil \)[/tex], where [tex]\( x > 0 \)[/tex]
- For [tex]\( x = 0.5 \)[/tex] pounds:
[tex]\[ f(0.5) = 6 + 2 \lceil 0.5 - 1 \rceil = 6 + 2 \lceil -0.5 \rceil = 6 + 2(-1) = 6 - 2 = 4 \][/tex]
- This satisfies the given cost structure since 0.5 would be rounded to 1, resulting in an additional cost.
2. Equation 2: [tex]\( f(x) = 6 + 2 \lfloor x - 1 \rfloor \)[/tex], where [tex]\( x > 0 \)[/tex]
- For [tex]\( x = 0.5 \)[/tex] pounds:
[tex]\[ f(0.5) = 6 + 2 \lfloor 0.5 - 1 \rfloor = 6 + 2 \lfloor -0.5 \rfloor = 6 + 2(-1) = 6 - 2 = 4 \][/tex]
- Like the previous case, this matches the cost structure for a fractional pound less than 1.
3. Equation 3: [tex]\( f(x) = 6 + 2 \lceil x + 1 \rceil \)[/tex], where [tex]\( x > 0 \)[/tex]
- This equation is not consistent with the definition of the cost structure. Adding 1 before taking the ceil would not correctly reflect the additional cost for each pound or portion thereof.
4. Equation 4: [tex]\( f(x) = 6 + 2 \lfloor x + 1 \rfloor \)[/tex], where [tex]\( x > 0 \)[/tex]
- This equation is also inconsistent. Adding 1 before taking the floor does not correspond to the correctly defined additional costs structure.
### Final Verification:
Let's return to the cost structure implication for multiple precise cases:
- For [tex]\( x = 1 \)[/tex] pound, all equations should yield the same correct cost:
[tex]\[ f(1) = 6 + 2 \times 0 = 6 \][/tex]
- For [tex]\( x = 1.5 \)[/tex] pounds, analyzing the impact further validates that it would fit the ceiling or floor logic correctly, but ceilings are typically more intuitive here since portions of a pound round up.
### Correct Equation:
The correct equation that matches the cost structure:
[tex]\[ f(x) = 6 + 2 \lceil x - 1 \rceil, \; \text{where} \; x > 0 \][/tex]
Thus, the correct function representing the cost is:
[tex]\[ f(x) = 6 + 2\lceil x - 1 \rceil \][/tex]
Thank you for your visit. We're committed to providing you with the best information available. Return anytime for more. Thank you for your visit. We're committed to providing you with the best information available. Return anytime for more. Get the answers you need at Westonci.ca. Stay informed by returning for our latest expert advice.
