Answer:
The fourth one.
Step-by-step explanation:
I am pretty sure.
Answer:
First off, we look for which circles are open or closed.
We start with an open interval since the circle on the left is open and end with a closed interval since the circle on the right is closed.
Domain is all x values, Range is all y values
The graph shows the continous function going from -3 to 1 on the x axis.
According to the circles, this means our domain will be (-3,1].
Now, the range doesn't care about if its closed or not. So we can say the graph is on the y axis from -4 and 0. This means the range is -4<y<0
I used different notations for both just incase you need to represent your answer differently :)
-3<x<1 & (-3,1] . Range is [-4,0]. 0>y>-4 looks correct as-well.
The graph does not represent a function
Answer:
The proof contains a simple direct proof, wrapped inside the unnecessary logical packaging of a proof by contradiction framework.
Step-by-step explanation:
The proof is rigourous and well written, so we discard the second answer.
This is not a fake proof by contradiction: it does not have any logical fallacies (circular arguments) or additional assumptions, like, for example, the "proof" of "All the horses are the same color". It is factually correct, but it can be rewritten as a direct proof.
A meaningful proof by contradiction depends strongly on the assumption that the statement to prove is false. In this argument, we only this assumption once, thus it is innecessary. Other proofs by contradiction, like the proof of "The square root of 2 is irrational" or Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, develop a longer argument based on the new assumption, but this proof doesn't.
To rewrite this without the superfluous framework, erase the parts "Suppose that the statement is false" and "The fact that the statement is true contradicts the assumption that the statement is false. Thus, the assumption that the statement was false must have been false. Thus, the statement is true."
