MATHEMATICS IN THE MODERN WORLD

FINAL EXAMINATION

COLINA, ANGELICA D. BS ECE 1-2

ANSWERS:
TEST I

PROBLEM NO.1

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the mathematical ability of the students.

Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant difference in the mathematical ability of the students.

Decision Rule: Reject the null hypothesis when the p-value is less than 0.05; in other words
there is a significant difference exist if the p-value is less than 0.05, thus accept the alternative
hypothesis.

Collection of data: The data came from an experimental design.

Test Statistics: ANOVA single factor was used to calculate the data.

Decision: The results show that the p-value is 0.694195 which exceeds the significance level at
0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Thus, there is no sufficient proof to claim
that there are any difference in the mathematical ability of the students is significantly different.

PROBLEM NO.2

Question A:

Null Hypothesis: There is no evidence of difference in the average assembly time among team-
based methods.

Alternative hypothesis: There is an evidence of difference in the average assembly time among
team-based methods.

Decision Rule: Reject the null hypothesis when the p-value is less than 0.05; in other words
there is a significant difference exist if the p-value is less than 0.05, thus accept the alternative
hypothesis.

Collection of data: The data came from the observation design.

Test Statistics: ANOVA was run to calculate the data.

Decision: The results show that the p-value is 0.00226 which is less than the significance level at
0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, there is a sufficient evidence to claim that
there are any difference in the average assembly time among team-based methods is significantly
different. Therefore accept the alternative hypothesis.

Question B:
The training director should conclude that there is evidence showing that the three team-based
training methods are different from each other. Therefore, the director should determine the best
among the three team-based training methods to be used in training the employees.

PROBLEM NO.3

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the tensile strength and the different
cotton percentage used in the new synthetic fiber.
Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant difference in the tensile strength and the different
cotton percentage used in the new synthetic fiber.

Decision Rule: Reject the null hypothesis when the p-value is less than 0.05; in other words
there is a significant difference exist if the p-value is less than 0.05, thus accept the alternative
hypothesis.

Collection of data: The data came from the experimental design.

Test Statistics: ANOVA was run to calculate the data.

Decision: The results show that the p-value is 0.009354 which is less than the significance level at
0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, there is a sufficient proof to claim that there is
any of the tensile strength and the different cotton percentage used in the new synthetic fiber is
significantly different. Therefore accept the alternative hypothesis.

PROBLEM NO.4

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the reflective properties of different kinds of
paint.

Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant difference in the reflective properties of different kinds
of paint.

Decision Rule: Reject the null hypothesis when the p-value is less than 0.05; in other words
there is a significant difference exist if the p-value is less than 0.05, thus accept the alternative
hypothesis.

Collection of data: The data came from the observation design.

Test Statistics: ANOVA was run to calculate the data.

Decision: The results show that the p-value is 0.017832 which is less than the significance level at
0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, there is a sufficient proof to claim that there
are any of the reflective properties of different kinds of paint is significantly different. Therefore
accept the alternative hypothesis.

Thus, there is a significant difference exist among the reflective properties of different kinds of
paint, paint will be compared pairwise.

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the reflective properties of different kinds of
pain of each if it is compared pairwise.

Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant difference in the reflective properties of different kinds
of paint of each if it is compared pairwise.

Decision Rule: Reject the null hypothesis of paints paired pairwise when the p-value is less than
0.05; in other words there is a significant difference exists if the p-value is less than 0.05 thus
accept the alternative hypothesis.

Collection of data: The data came from the observation design.

Test Statistics: T-test of difference was run to calculate the data.

Decision 1: The results shows that the pairs 1 and 2 with a p-value of 0.166858, 1 and 3 with a p-
value of 0.330266, 2 and 3 with a p-value of 0.069056, 2 and 4 with a p-value of 0.376535 which is
greater than the significance level at 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Thus,
there is no sufficient proof to claim that there are any of the reflective properties of different kinds
of paint compared pairwise above is significantly different.

Decision 2: The results shows that the pairs 1and 4 with a p-value of 0.00413, 3 and 4 with a p-
value of 0.021111which is less the significance level at 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is
rejected. Thus, there is a sufficient proof to claim that there are any of the reflective properties of
different kinds of paint compared pairwise above is significantly different. Therefore accept the
alternative hypothesis.

PROBLEM NO.5

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the laboratories with respect to their
measurement of the amount of burned fabric.

Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant difference in the laboratories with respect to

their measurement of the amount of burned fabric.

Decision Rule: Reject the null hypothesis when the p-value is less than 0.05; in other words
there is a significant difference exist if the p-value is less than 0.05, thus accept the alternative
hypothesis.

Collection of data: The data came from the experimental design.

Test Statistics: ANOVA was run to calculate the data.

Decision: The results show that the p-value is 0.003145 which is less than the significance level at
0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, there is a sufficient proof that there is a
significant difference in the laboratories with respect to their measurement of the amount of burned
fabric. Therefore accept the alternative hypothesis.

Thus, there is a significant difference exist among the laboratories with respect to their
measurement of the amount of burned fabric. Laboratories will be compared.

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in laboratories with respect to their measurement
of the amount of burned fabric when compared by twos with each other.

Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant difference in the laboratories with respect to

their measurement of the amount of burned fabric when compared by twos with each other.

Decision Rule: Reject the null hypothesis when the p-value is less than 0.05 in each laboratory
compared in twos; in other words there is a significant difference exists if the p-value is less than
0.05 thus accept the alternative hypothesis.

Collection of data: The data came from the observation design.

Test Statistics: t-test of difference was run to calculate the data.

Decision 1: The results shows that the pairs 1 and 2 with a p-value of 0.190593, 1 and 3 with a p-
value of 0.838932, 1 and 4 with a p-value of 0.052555, 1 and 5 with a p-value of 0.110311, 2 and 3
with a p-value of 0.108964, 2 and 5 with a p-value of 0.782459, 3 and 5 with a p-value of 0.055328
which is greater than the significance level at 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be
rejected. Thus, there is no sufficient proof to claim that in laboratories with respect to their
measurement of the amount of burned fabric when compared by twos with each other is
significantly different.

Decision 2: The results shows that the pairs 2 and 4 with a p-value of 0.001897, 3 and 4 with a p-
value of 0.047271, 4 and 5 with a p-value of 0.000683 which is less the significance level at 0.05.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, there is a sufficient proof to claim that in
laboratories with respect to their measurement of the amount of burned fabric when compared by
twos with each other is significantly different. Therefore accept the alternative hypothesis.

PROBLEM NO.6

Question A:

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between the total precipitation and
atmospheric temperature.

Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between the total precipitation

and atmospheric temperature.

Decision Rule: Reject the null hypothesis when the p-value is less than 0.05; in other words there
is a significant relationship exist if the p-value is less than 0.05, thus accept the alternative
hypothesis.

Collection of data: The data came from the observation design.

Test Statistics: Chi-square was run to calculate the data.

Decision: There was no statistic run because precipitation is zero; it only means that there
is no relationship between the total precipitation and atmospheric temperature.

Question B:

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between the wind velocity and humidity.

Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between the wind velocity and humidity.

Decision Rule: Reject the null hypothesis when the p-value is less than 0.05; in other words there
is a significant relationship exist if the p-value is less than 0.05, thus accept the alternative
hypothesis.

Collection of data: The data came from the observation design.

Test Statistics: Chi-square was run to calculate the data.

Decision: The results show that there is a high positive relationship between the wind velocity
and humidity with a significance value of 0.546.
PROBLEM 1:

D–A–E–B–C–D (12+8+6+9+14 =49)

PROBLEM 2:
PICKUP
A B C D E
POINT
A - 8 12 9 -

B 8 - 8 16 18

C 12 8 - 16 8

D 9 16 16 - 15

E - 18 8 15 -

D–A–B–C–E–D (9+8+8+8+15 = 48)

The route is D – A – B – C – E – D and the total mileage is 48.

TEST II PROBLEM SOLVING (10 POINTS EACH)

PROBLEM 1:
EXAMS Amy Ben Charles Debra Ed Frank Georgia
Math X X X X
Art X X X
Science X X X
History X X
French X X
Reading X X X X X
a) The graph is connected.

b) The graph is complete.

c) A circuit with four vertices is Amy – Math – Georgia – Science – Amy.

d) The graph is not Eulerian because vertices Art, Science, Reading, Amy, Ben, Ed, Frank, and
Georgia are of odd degree.

e) The graph is not Hamiltonian because it does not satisfy the condition of beginning and ending
at the same vertex and passing through each vertex of a graph exactly once.

PROBLEM 2:

F – C – A – E – B – D – F is a Hamiltonian circuit on the graph.