Duplicate Question
The question on this page has been marked as a duplicate question.
Original Question
Bacteria is known to grow exponentially. The function B(h)=82(1.25)h represents the number of bacteria, B(h) , as a function of...Asked by Help
Bacteria is known to grow exponentially. The function B(h)=82(1.25)h
represents the number of bacteria, B(h)
, as a function of hours, h. How many bacteria will there be after only 512
hours to the nearest bacteria? What is B(512)
?(1 point)
Responses
564
564
257
257
279
279
280
represents the number of bacteria, B(h)
, as a function of hours, h. How many bacteria will there be after only 512
hours to the nearest bacteria? What is B(512)
?(1 point)
Responses
564
564
257
257
279
279
280
Answers
There are no human answers yet.
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
To find the number of bacteria after 512 hours using the function \( B(h) = 82(1.25)^h \), we need to calculate \( B(512) \).
\[
B(512) = 82(1.25)^{512}
\]
Now, calculating \( (1.25)^{512} \):
Since \( (1.25)^{512} \) will be a very large number, we can use a calculator or computational tool for the precise computation.
Calculating gives:
\[
(1.25)^{512} \approx 1.083 \times 10^{17}
\]
Now substituting back into the equation for \( B(512) \):
\[
B(512) \approx 82 \times 1.083 \times 10^{17}
\]
Calculating this yields:
\[
B(512) \approx 8.8726 \times 10^{18}
\]
This number is astronomically large, far exceeding any of the options given (564, 257, 279, 280).
Given that the output from the function is likely too vast for realistic bacteria growth in a normal context, it might be important to consider if there is a misinterpretation about the parameters or scale of the output.
If we are just looking for the nearest bacteria based on the severely exponential growth observed in the calculation after inputting 512 hours, we still affirm that:
\[
B(512) \text{ is indeed extraordinarily larger than provided options.}
\]
However, if we disregard the exponential and consider a more realistic range check or a human error in input hours, please clarify further on whether the exponent is confined or intended differently.
\[
B(512) = 82(1.25)^{512}
\]
Now, calculating \( (1.25)^{512} \):
Since \( (1.25)^{512} \) will be a very large number, we can use a calculator or computational tool for the precise computation.
Calculating gives:
\[
(1.25)^{512} \approx 1.083 \times 10^{17}
\]
Now substituting back into the equation for \( B(512) \):
\[
B(512) \approx 82 \times 1.083 \times 10^{17}
\]
Calculating this yields:
\[
B(512) \approx 8.8726 \times 10^{18}
\]
This number is astronomically large, far exceeding any of the options given (564, 257, 279, 280).
Given that the output from the function is likely too vast for realistic bacteria growth in a normal context, it might be important to consider if there is a misinterpretation about the parameters or scale of the output.
If we are just looking for the nearest bacteria based on the severely exponential growth observed in the calculation after inputting 512 hours, we still affirm that:
\[
B(512) \text{ is indeed extraordinarily larger than provided options.}
\]
However, if we disregard the exponential and consider a more realistic range check or a human error in input hours, please clarify further on whether the exponent is confined or intended differently.
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.