All categories

3 years ago

4/w=3/6 pls help me this is he

2 answers:

6 0

Cross multiply the fractions to get the following equation:

3w = 4*6

3w = 24

Divide both sides by 3 to get w by itself.

w = 8

The answer is w = 8.

natta225 [31]3 years ago

4 0

The first step for solving this problem is to determine the defined range. This means that you need to find all values of w that would make the denominator equal to 0.
w = 0
To find the defined range,, exclude the restricted values.
$\frac{4}{w} = \frac{3}{6}$ , w ≠ 0
Reduce the second fraction with 3.
$\frac{4}{w}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$
Use cross multiplication to simplify the equation.
8 = w
Switch the sides of the equation.
w = 8, w ≠ 0
Check to see if the solution is in the defined range.
w = 8
This means that the correct answer to your question is w = 8.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
:)

You might be interested in

X over 2 - x over 3 = 4

Leviafan [203]

x would equal 24
24/2 - 24/3 = 4

3 0

3 years ago

Prove each of the following statements below using one of the proof techniques and state the proof strategy you use.

pochemuha

Answer:

See below

Step-by-step explanation:

a) Direct proof: Let m be an odd integer and n be an even integer. Then, there exist integers k,j such that m=2k+1 and n=2j. Then mn=(2k+1)(2j)=2r, where r=j(2k+1) is an integer. Thus, mn is even.

b) Proof by counterpositive: Suppose that m is not even and n is not even. Then m is odd and n is odd, that is, m=2k+1 and n=2j+1 for some integers k,j. Thus, mn=4kj+2k+2j+1=2(kj+k+j)+1=2r+1, where r=kj+k+j is an integer. Hence mn is odd, i.e, mn is not even. We have proven the counterpositive.

c) Proof by contradiction: suppose that rp is NOT irrational, then rp=m/n for some integers m,n, n≠. Since r is a non zero rational number, r=a/b for some non-zero integers a,b. Then p=rp/r=rp(b/a)=(m/n)(b/a)=mb/na. Now n,a are non zero integers, thus na is a non zero integer. Additionally, mb is an integer. Therefore p is rational which is contradicts that p is irrational. Hence np is irrational.

d) Proof by cases: We can verify this directly with all the possible orderings for a,b,c. There are six cases:

a≥b≥c, a≥c≥b, b≥a≥c, b≥c≥a, c≥b≥a, c≥a≥b

Writing the details for each one is a bit long. I will give you an example for one case: suppose that c≥b≥a then max(a, max(b,c))=max(a,c)=c. On the other hand, max(max(a, b),c)=max(b,c)=c, hence the statement is true in this case.

e) Direct proof: write a=m/n and b=p/q, with m,q integers and n,q nonnegative integers. Then ab=mp/nq. mp is an integer, and nq is a non negative integer. Hence ab is rational.

f) Direct proof. By part c), √2/n is irrational for all natural numbers n. Furthermore, a is rational, then a+√2/n is irrational. Take n large enough in such a way that b-a>√2/n (b-a>0 so it is possible). Then a+√2/n is between a and b.

g) Direct proof: write m+n=2k and n+p=2j for some integers k,j. Add these equations to get m+2n+p=2k+2j. Then m+p=2k+2j-2n=2(k+j-n)=2s for some integer s=k+j-n. Thus m+p is even.

7 0

3 years ago

Sara's new car depreciates 8% each year. Write an exponential function to model the depreciation each month. Write an exponentia

Alinara [238K]

Answer:

y= $(1-0.08)y

Step-by-step explanation:

3 0

3 years ago

Plz help don’t understand this question and I got it wrong an i have to redo it

Paladinen [302]

Answer:

its B

Step-by-step explanation:

7 0

3 years ago

What’s bigger - 2/3 or -0.8

Salsk061 [2.6K]

Answer:

-2/3 is greater than -0.8

Step-by-step explanation:

-2/3 when made into a decimal is about -0.67

This is greater than -0.8 because -0.67 covers less area when put into a visual.

6 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers