The statement is false, because -2 is larger than -3.
<h3>Is the statement true?</h3>
We know that -3 is a lower bound for the real zeros of f(x).
So, if we define k as the smallest real zero of f(x), we have:
-3 < k.
Then we can take, for example, k = -2.5
That is an allowed value for the real zero.
In that case, -2 is not a lower bound, because is false that:
-2 < k = -2.5
Then if -3 is a lower bound for the real zeros of f(x), we can't assume that -2 is also a lower bound (because -2 is larger than -3).
If you want to learn more about lower bounds:
brainly.com/question/15991714
#SPJ1
Answer:
144 inches squared
Step-by-step explanation:
multiply 12 by 12
Answer:
- 4:5
- 16:20
- 32:40
Step-by-step explanation:
- 8 ÷ 2 = 4, 10 ÷ 2 = 5; put them together: 4:5
- 8 × 2 = 16, 10 × 2 = 20; put them together: 16:20
- 8 × 4 = 32, 10 × 4 = 40; put them together: 32:40
I hope this helps!
