Look at this graph:
1 answer:
You might be interested in
Hello,
Rectangle A: 6cm (x+2)cm
Rectangle B: 3cm (2x+1)cm
The formula for the perimeter of a rectangle is: P=2(base+height)
Then:
![P_A=2(b+h) \\ P_A=2*[6+(x+2)] \\ P_A=2*(x+8) \\ P_A=2x+16 \\ \\ \\ P_B=2(b+h) \\ P_B=2*[3+(2x+1)] \\ P_B=2*(2x+4) \\ P_B=4x+8 ](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=P_A%3D2%28b%2Bh%29%20%5C%5C%20P_A%3D2%2A%5B6%2B%28x%2B2%29%5D%20%5C%5C%20P_A%3D2%2A%28x%2B8%29%20%5C%5C%20P_A%3D2x%2B16%20%5C%5C%20%20%5C%5C%20%20%5C%5C%20P_B%3D2%28b%2Bh%29%20%5C%5C%20P_B%3D2%2A%5B3%2B%282x%2B1%29%5D%20%5C%5C%20P_B%3D2%2A%282x%2B4%29%20%5C%5C%20P_B%3D4x%2B8%0A)
But we know that the perimeters are the same, so:
With the answer of A, we realize that this figure is actually a square.
Rectangle A: 6cm (x+2)cm
Rectangle B: 3cm (2x+1)cm
The formula for the perimeter of a rectangle is: P=2(base+height)
Then:
But we know that the perimeters are the same, so:
With the answer of A, we realize that this figure is actually a square.
There are several ways to prove a mathematical statement. These ways include: by contradiction, by induction, contraposition, etc
<h3>How to prove the statement by contradiction</h3>To prove the statement, we make use of proof by contradiction
From the question:
x is a composite number such that: x > 1
This means that 1 < a < x is a factor of x
This can be represented as:
Where:
- a and b are positive integers
- 1 < a, b < x
Assume that b is less than or equal to a.
Also, let
This means that:
The above becomes
Rewrite as:
So, we have:
The above means that:
The above inequality is a contradiction because, a number x cannot be greater than itself
This means that, the supposition is wrong.
Hence, the given statement has been proved by contradiction
Read more about proof by contradiction at: