The rate of change in revenue for Under Armour from 2004 through 2009 can be modeled by dR /dt = 13.897t + 284.653 t where R is the revenue (in millions of dollars) and t is the time (in years), with t = 4 corresponding to 2004. In 2008, the revenue for Under Armour was $725.2 million. †
(a) Find a model for the revenue of Under Armour. (Round your constant term to two decimal places.) R(t) = 6.9485t2+284.653 ln(t)-311.42 Correct: Your answer is correct.
(b) Find Under Armour's revenue in 2009. (Round your answer to two decimal places.) $ million

The  revenue is

Step-by-step explanation:

From the question we are told that

  The  rate of change  in revenue for Under Armour from 2004 through 2009 is  

Now  

Integrating both sides to obtain R(t)

=>  

From the question we have that at  t  = 8  

=>  

So  

At  t = 9  

333333333333333333333333333333

step-by-step explanation:

i think it's eleven too, don't woosh me here, but according to the "experts" it's 2.

the proof starts from the peano postulates, which define the natural

numbers n. n is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

  p1.   1 is in n.

  p2.   if x is in n, then its "successor" x' is in n.

  p3.   there is no x such that x' = 1.

  p4.   if x isn't 1, then there is a y in n such that y' = x.

  p5.   if s is a subset of n, 1 is in s, and the implication

      (x in s => x' in s) holds, then s = n.

then you have to define addition recursively:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 1, then define a + b = a'

      (using p1 and p2). if b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in n

      (using p4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

then you have to define 2:

  def:   2 = 1'

2 is in n by p1, p2, and the definition of 2.

theorem:   1 + 1 = 2

proof: use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

      then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2   q.e.d.

note: there is an alternate formulation of the peano postulates which

replaces 1 with 0 in p1, p3, p4, and p5. then you have to change the

definition of addition to this:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 0, then define a + b = a.

      if b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in n, and define

      a + b = (a + c)'.

you also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. then the proof of the

theorem above is a little different:

proof: use the second part of the definition of + first:

      1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'

      now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in

      parentheses:   1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2   q.e.d.