1. Develop a hypothesis regarding which water sources you believe will contain the most and least contaminants, and state why you believe this. Be sure to clearly rank all three sources from most to least contaminants.

Hypothesis = If three types of waters are being tested for chemical compounds tap water, Dasani, and Fiji. The tap water with bare the most chemicals, followed by Fiji, then Dasani containing the least amount of chemicals.

Table 1: Ammonia Test Results

Water Sample Test Results (mg/L)

Tap Water 0mg

Dasani® Bottled Water 0mg

Fiji® Bottled Water 0mg

Table 2: Chloride Test Results

Water Sample Test Results (mg/L)

Tap Water 0mg

Dasani® Bottled Water 0mg

Fiji® Bottled Water 0mg

Table 3: 4 in 1 Test Results

Water Sample Total Alkalinity

(mg/L) Total Chlorine

(mg/L) Total Hardness

(mg/L)

Tap Water 40mg 1.0mg 50mg

Dasani® Bottled Water 0mg 0mg 0mg

Fiji® Bottled Water 0mg 1.0mg 0mg

Table 4: Phosphate Test Results

Water Sample Test Results (ppm)

Tap Water 0ppm

Dasani® Bottled Water 0ppm

Fiji® Bottled Water 0ppm

Table 5: Iron Test Results

Water Sample Test Results (ppm)

Tap Water 0ppm

Dasani® Bottled Water 0ppm

Fiji® Bottled Water 0ppm

Table 6: pH Results

Water Sample Test Results

Tap Water 8

Dasani® Bottled Water 5

Fiji® Bottled Water 10

2. Based on the results of your experiment, would accept or reject the hypothesis you produced in question 1? Explain how you determined this.

Accept/reject = Based solely on the results of my experiment, I would absolutely accept my hope thesis. As I stated initially the Tap water would be the most contaminated, followed by the Fiji, and the Dasani being the cleanest.

3. Based on the results of your experiment, what specific differences do you notice among the Dasani®, Fiji®, and Tap Water?

Answer = The biggest differences between the three waters is that the Dasani water sample had no chemical compounds. I knew it would be the cleanest of the three, but I legitimately expected some sort of contamination.

4. Based upon the fact sheets provided (links at the end of this document), do any of these samples pose a health concern? Use evidence from the lab to support your answer.

Answer = Based on the fact sheets provided some of the chemical compounds found in these samples do pose a health concern. Chlorinated water is an obvious health risk due to the fact that is can cause bladder cancer. As stated “If you drink chlorinated water for 20 years or more it can increase your chances of having bladder cancer” (Mastroianni, 2011, para.15). I think this should be a huge health concern because a lot of people do drink chlorinated water over a long period of time. “Drinking chlorinated water over a long period of time may also cause a person to develop asthmatic conditions”

5. Based on your results, do you believe that bottled water is worth the price? Use evidence from the lab to support your opinion.

Yes, but it all depends on the brand of water, with Fiji water coming back as contaminated and being more expensive than Dasani I would say it’s not worth. Dasani on the other hand is kind of expensive, but it obviously worth it due to the fact that no traces of chemical compounds were located.

Answer =

Joined successions A succession (an) of genuine number is known as a focalized arrangements if a keeps an eye on a limited breaking point as n→∞. On the off chance that we say that (a) has a breaking point a∈ F if given any ε > 0, ε ∈ F, k∈ â„• | a - a | < ε n ≥ k In the event that a has a farthest point an, at that point we can compose it as liman = an or (a) → a. Cauchy Sequence A Cauchy succession is an arrangement in which numbers turn out to be nearer to each different as the grouping advances. On the off chance that we say that (an) is a Cauchy succession if given any ε > 0, ε ∈ F, k∈ â„• | a - am | < ε n,m ≥ k. Gary Sng Chee Hien, (2001). Limited sets, Upper Bounds, Least Upper Bounds A set is called limited if there is a sure feeling of limited size. A set R of genuine numbers is called limited of there is a genuine number Q with the end goal that Q ≥ r for all r in R. the number M is known as the upper bound of R. A set is limited in the event that it has both upper and lower limits. This is extendable to subsets of any incompletely requested set. A subset Q of an incompletely requested set R is called limited previously. On the off chance that there is a component of Q ≥ r for all r in R, the component Q is called an upper bound of R 3 Real number framework Normal Numbers Normal numbers (â„•) can be meant by 1,2,3… we can characterize them by their properties arranged by connection. So on the off chance that we think about a set S, if the connection is not exactly or equivalent to on S For each x, y ∈ S x ≤ y as well as y ≤ x In the event that x ≤ y and y ≤ x then x = y In the event that x ≤ y and y ≤ z then x ≤ z On the off chance that each of the 3 properties are met we can consider S an arranged set. (Giles, p.1, 1972) Genuine numbers Maxims for genuine numbers can be spilt in to 3 gatherings; mathematical, request and fulfillment. Mathematical Axioms For all x, y ∈ â„, x + y ∈ â„ and xy ∈ â„. For all x, y, z ∈ â„, (x + y) + z = x (y + z). For all x, y ∈ â„, x + y = y + x. There is a number 0 ∈ â„ to such an extent that x + 0 = x = 0 + x for all x ∈ â„. For every x ∈ â„, there exists a comparing number (- x) ∈ â„ with the end goal that x + (- x) = 0 = (- x) + x For all x, y, z ∈ â„, (x y) z = x (y z). For all x, y ∈ â„ x y = y x. There is number 1 ∈ â„ with the end goal that x 1 = x = 1 x, for all x ∈ â„ For every x ∈ â„ with the end goal that x ≠ 0, there is a comparing number (x-1) ∈ â„ to such an extent that (x-1) = 1 = (x-1) x A10. For all x, y, z ∈ â„, x (y + z) = x y + x z (Hart, p.11, 2001) Request Axioms Any combine x, y of genuine numbers fulfills decisively one of the accompanying relations: (a) x < y; (b) x = y; (c) y < x. In the event that x < y and y < z then x < z. In the event that x < y then x + z < y +z. On the off chance that x < y and z > 0 then x z < y z (Hart, p.12, 2001) Culmination Axiom On the off chance that a non-void set A has an upper bound, it has a minimum upper bound The thing which recognizes â„ from is the Completeness Axiom. An upper bound of a non-void subset An of R is a component b ∈R with b a for every one of the a ∈A. A component M ∈ R is a minimum upper bound or supremum of An if M is an upper bound of An and if b is an upper bound of A then b M. That is, if M is a minimum upper bound of An at that point (b ∈ R)(x ∈ A)(b x) b M A lower bound of a non-void subset An of R is a component d ∈ R with d a for every one of the a ∈A. A component m ∈ R is a biggest lower bound or infimum of An if m is a lower bound of An and if d is an upper bound of A then m d. In the event that each of the 3 aphorisms are fulfilled it is known as a total arranged field. John o'Connor (2002) adages of genuine numbers Levelheaded numbers Adages for Rational numbers The adage of sound numbers work with +, x and the connection ≤, they can be characterized on relating to what we know on N. For on +(add) has the accompanying properties. For each x,y ∈ , there is an interesting component x + y ∈ For each x,y ∈ , x + y = y + x For each x,y,z ∈ , (x + y) + z = x + (y + z) There exists a remarkable component 0 ∈ with the end goal that x + 0 = x for all x ∈ To each x ∈ there exists a remarkable component (- x) ∈ with the end goal that x + (- x) = 0 For on x(multiplication) has the accompanying properties. To each x,y ∈ , there is an extraordinary component x y ∈ For each x,y ∈ , x y = y x For each x,y,z ∈ , (x y) x z = x (y x z) There exists an extraordinary component 1 ∈ with the end goal that x 1 = x for all x ∈ To each x ∈ , x ≠ 0 there exists an extraordinary component ∈ with the end goal that x = 1 For both include and duplication properties there is a closer, commutative, cooperative, personality and opposite on + and x, the two properties can be connected by. For each x,y,z ∈ , x (y + z) = (x y) + (x z) For with a request connection of ≤, the connection property is <. For each x ∈ , either x < 0, 0 < x or x = 0 For each x,y ∈ , where 0 < x, 0 < y then 0 < x + y and 0 < x y For each x,y ∈ , x < y if 0 < y - x (Giles, pp.3-4, 1972) From both the maxims of normal numbers and genuine numbers, we can see that they are about the same separated from a couple of bits like sane numbers don't contain square base of 2 while genuine numbers do. Both balanced and genuine numbers have the properties of include, duplication and there exists a relationship of 0 and 1. 4 Proofs In this area I will unravel some essential verifications, a large portion of my evidences have been expected in the development procedure and have been diminished. Hypothesis: Between any two genuine numbers is an objective number. Evidence Let a ≠ b be a genuine number with a < b. so in the event that we pick n so it is . At that point we can take a gander at the products of. Since these are not limited at all we may pick the primary different as >a. we can assert that < b. if not then since < an and > b we would have > b - a. John O'Connor (2002) sayings of genuine numbers Hypothesis: The breaking point of an arrangement, in the event that it exists, is one of a kind. Confirmation Give x and x′ a chance to be 2 unique breaking points. We may accept without loss of sweeping statement, that x < x′. Specifically, take ε = (x′ - x)/2 > 0. Since xn→ x, k1 s.t | xn - x | < n ≥ k1 Since xn→ x k2 s.t | xn - x′| < ε n ≥ k2 Take k = max{k1, k2}. At that point n ≥ k, | xn - x | < ε, | xn - x′| < ε | x′ - x | = | x′ - xn + xn - x | ≤ | x′ - xn | + | xn - x | < ε + ε = x′ - x, an inconsistency! Thus, the farthest point must be one of a kind. Likewise all discerning number successions have a point of confinement in genuine numbers. Gary Sng Chee Hien, (2001). Hypothesis: Any focalized grouping is limited. Confirmation Assume the succession (an)®a. take = 1. At that point pick N so whatever n > N we have an inside 1 of a. aside from the limited set {a1, a2, a3… aN} every one of the terms of the arrangement will be limited by a + 1 and a - 1. Demonstrating that an upper headed for the arrangement is max{a1, a2, a3… aN, a +1}. Utilizing a similar strategy you could then again discover the lower bound Hypothesis: Each Cauchy Sequence is limited. Verification Let (xn) be a Cauchy succession. At that point for | xn - xm | < 1 n, m ≥ k. Subsequently, for n ≥ k, we have | xn | = | xn - xk + xk | ≤ | xn - xk | + | xk | < 1 + | xk | Let M = max{ | x1 |, | x2 |, ..., | xk-1|, 1 + | xk | } and plainly | xn | ≤ M n, i.e. (xn) is limited. Gary Sng Chee Hien, (2001).>

GET ANSWER