Answer:
2x-64<108
One solution was found :
x < 86
Rearrange:
Rearrange the equation by subtracting what is to the right of the greater than sign from both sides of the inequality :
2*x-64-(108)<0
Step by step solution :
Step 1 :
Pulling out like terms :
1.1 Pull out like factors :
2x - 172 = 2 • (x - 86)
Equation at the end of step 1 :
Step 2 :
2.1 Divide both sides by 2
Solve Basic Inequality :
2.2 Add 86 to both sides
x < 86
2x^2+3. the 2x cancel out and the rest is combining like terms
There are 6 numbers on each die.
The total number of out comes is 6 x 6 = 36.
To get a sum of 4, the combinations are: 1 & 3, 2 & 2 or 3 & 1.
To get a sum of 8, the combinations are: 1 & 7, 2 & 6, 3 & 5, 4 & 4, 7 & 1, 6 & 2, 5 & 3
The total of those combinations are: 3 + 7 = 10 total combinations of a sum of either 4 or 8.
The probability of either is 10/36, which can be reduced to 5/18.
This question is in reverse (in two ways):
<span>1. The definition of an additive inverse of a number is precisely that which, when added to the number, will give a sum of zero. </span>
<span>The real problem, in certain fields, is usually to show that for all numbers in that field, there exists an additive inverse. </span>
<span>Therefore, if you tell me that you have a number, and its additive inverse, and you plan to add them together, then I can tell you in advance that the sum MUST be zero. </span>
<span>2. In your question, you use the word "difference", which does not work (unless the number is zero - 0 is an integer AND a rational number, and its additive inverse is -0 which is the same as 0 - the difference would be 0 - -0 = 0). </span>
<span>For example, given the number 3, and its additive inverse -3, if you add them, you get zero: </span>
<span>3 + (-3) = 0 </span>
<span>However, their "difference" will be 6 (or -6, depending which way you do the difference): </span>
<span>3 - (-3) = 6 </span>
<span>-3 - 3 = -6 </span>
<span>(because -3 is a number in the integers, then it has an additive inverse, also in the integers, of +3). </span>
<span>--- </span>
<span>A rational number is simply a number that can be expressed as the "ratio" of two integers. For example, the number 4/7 is the ratio of "four to seven". </span>
<span>It can be written as an endless decimal expansion </span>
<span>0.571428571428571428....(forever), but that does not change its nature, because it CAN be written as a ratio, it is "rational". </span>
<span>Integers are rational numbers as well (because you can always write 3/1, the ratio of 3 to 1, to express the integer we call "3") </span>
<span>The additive inverse of a rational number, written as a ratio, is found by simply flipping the sign of the numerator (top) </span>
<span>The additive inverse of 4/7 is -4/7 </span>
<span>and if you ADD those two numbers together, you get zero (as per the definition of "additive inverse") </span>
<span>(4/7) + (-4/7) = 0/7 = 0 </span>
<span>If you need to "prove" it, you begin by the existence of additive inverses in the integers. </span>
<span>ALL integers each have an additive inverse. </span>
<span>For example, the additive inverse of 4 is -4 </span>
<span>Next, show that this (in the integers) can be applied to the rationals in this manner: </span>
<span>(4/7) + (-4/7) = ? </span>
<span>common denominator, therefore you can factor out the denominator: </span>
<span>(4 + -4)/7 = ? </span>
<span>Inside the bracket is the sum of an integer with its additive inverse, therefore the sum is zero </span>
<span>(0)/7 = 0/7 = 0 </span>
<span>Since this is true for ALL integers, then it must also be true for ALL rational numbers.</span>
Answer:
m<ACD = 
Step-by-step explanation:
From the question given, ΔACD is a right angled triangle. Then we can apply one of the properties of a triangle to it.
In the triangle ACD:
<ACD + <DAC + <ADC = 180 (sum of angles in a triangle)
<ACD + 40 + 90 = 180
<ACD + 130 = 180
<ACD = 180 - 130
<ACD =
With the application of the property of the sum of interior angles of a triangle, the measure of <ACD is .
