Consider the serial-implementation code provided in this homework's associated Google Colab. Further, consider this modified version of the code with only a few values: distances = [2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0] for d in distances: in_range = (distance = 2.5) and (distance

Question

Consider the serial-implementation code provided in this homework's associated Google Colab. Further, consider this modified version of the code with only a few values:

distances = [2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0]
for d in distances:
    in_range = (distance >= 2.5) and (distance <= 3.5)
    print(f"Distance {d}: {in_range}")

If d is 2.0, in_range must be what value?

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Let me restate the scenario to make sure the setup is clear. We have a list of distances including 2.0, and for each value of d we compute in_range using the expression (distance >= 2.5) and (distance <= 3.5). Then we print the result for each d. First, focus on the specific case where d = 2.0. If the code used d as the variable in the condition, the expression would be: (2.0 >= 2.5) and (2.0 <= 3.5). The left part, 2.0 >= 2.5, is false because 2.0 is not as large as 2.5. In a logical AND, if the first operand is false, the entire conjunction is false regardless of the second operand. The right part, 2.0 <= 3.5, would be true, but it does not change the overall result because both conditions must be true for the AND to be true. Second, note the subtlety in the provided code snippet: the condition uses distance rather than the loop variable d. If distance is not defined elsewhere in the surrounding code, this would raise a NameError at runtime, and nothing would be printed for that iteration. If, however, distance happens to hold the value 2.0 due to prior context, the evaluation would mirror the analysis above and still yield a false outcome because the first comparison is false. Third, consider the inclusive bounds: the check uses >= 2.5 and <= 3.5, which means exact 2.5 and 3.5 would be included, while anything below 2.5 or above 3.5 would be excluded. In our case, 2.0 lies outside the lower bound, so the conjunction cannot be true. Fourth, for a broader understanding, even though 2.0 fails the lower bound, if you imagine a value like 2.5 or 3.5, both comparisons would hold (2.5 >= 2.5 is true and 2.5 <= 3.5 is true, etc.), leading to a true in_range in those instances. Conversely, values like 1.0 or 4.0 would fail the respective bound checks. In summary, evaluating the intended condition with a distance value of 2.0 results in the first (and decisive) comparison being false, causing the overall in_range expression to evaluate to false. The exact runtime behavior in this snippet hinges on whether distance is defined; if it is, the result follows the logical AND as described, otherwise a NameError would occur before any boolean result is produced.

2254 BIOSC 1544 SEC1000 Homework: Parallel vs. Serial Programming

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Question at position 2 A and B returned True. Which of the following must also be True?ABA or BAll of the aboveNone of the above

Question at position 2 A and B returned True. Which of the following must also be True?ABA or BAll of the aboveNone of the above

Question at position 2 A and B returned True. Which of the following must also be True?ABA or BAll of the aboveNone of the above

位置2的问题 A and B returned True. Which of the following must also be True?ABA or BAll of the aboveNone of the above

Question at position 1 This worked.TrueFalse

Question at position 1 This worked.TrueFalse

What value does this expression reduce to: not 3 > 2 and not 4 > 5

What value does this expression reduce to: not 1 > 2 and not 3 > 4

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler