Answer:
12x +8y +1 = 0
Step-by-step explanation:
You can write the equation by swapping the x- and y-coefficients and negating one of them. Then compute the constant that makes the line go through the given point. You can do that like this:
3(x-(-3/4)) +2(y -1) = 0
3x +9/4 +2y -2 = 0 . . . . eliminate parentheses
3x +2y +1/4 = 0 . . . . . . . simplify
To eliminate the fraction, multiply by 4:
12x +8y +1 = 0
_____
<em>Comment on the equation</em>
The line ax+by=0 passes through the origin. Replacing x and y with x-h and y-k, respectively, makes the line pass through the point (h, k). That's what we did above to make the line pass through the given point.
The business of swapping coefficients and negating one causes the slope of the new line to be the negative reciprocal of the slope of the original line. That is what makes the new line perpendicular to the original.
Answer:
y = 5.543
Step-by-step explanation:
Your y = 7(1 - 0.021)^11 is evaluated as follows:
y = 7(0.979)^11
y = 7(0.7918
y = 5.543
The radius of tire is larger than radius of wheel by 5 inch
Step-by-step explanation:
We know that circumference of the circle is 2πr where “r” is the radius of the circle
Circumference refers to the dimension of the periphery of the circle. Since tires are put on the periphery of the wheel hence, we considered the circumferential aspect of the wheel.
Given-
Circumference of tires= 28π inches
2πr= 28π cancelling the common term “π” both sides
r (radius of the tires) = 14 inches
Circumference of the wheel rims= 18π
2πr= 18π cancelling the common term “π” both sides
r (radius of the tires) = 9 inches
Difference between the radius= 14-9= 5 inches
Hence, the difference between the radius of tires and the radius of the wheels is 5 inches
<span>The third side of triangle ABC is AB. Using the Pythagorean Theorem, its length is 12.
12² + 16² = 20²
∠F is congruent to ∠C and so the sin(∠F) = sin(∠C)
The sin(∠C) = opposite/hypotenuse
= |AB| / |AC|
= 12/20
= 3/5
= 0.6
So the answer is 0.6.</span>
Answer:
3, 6, and 15
Step-by-step explanation:
Notice that if 60 is a multiple, the numbers in question could have the same factors as 60.
So let's look at 60's prime factors:
60 = 2 * 2 * 3 * 5
we also know that 3 is a factor, so the factor 3 must be included in all three options, we also know that 4 is NOT a factor, so both factors 2 cannot be included (but only one of them could).
So, in order to build the lowest possible numbers that verify such conditions, we can use:
3
3 * 2 = 6
since 3 or 2 cannot be repeated, the next smaller would be:
3 * 5 = 15
