Julia has determined that CE is perpendicular bisector of AB. The next step of a valid proof would be: <em>B. AC = BC based on the </em><em>perpendicular bisector theorem</em>.
<h3>What is the Perpendicular Bisector Theorem?</h3>
The perpendicular bisector theorem states that if a point is located on a segment (perpendicular bisector) that divides another segment into two halves, then it is equidistant from the two endpoints of the segment that is divided.
Thus, since Julia has determined that CE is perpendicular bisector of AB, therefore the next step of a valid proof would be: <em>B. AC = BC based on the </em><em>perpendicular bisector theorem</em>.
Learn more about the perpendicular bisector theorem on:
brainly.com/question/2035717
The simplification of a³ - 1000b³ and 64a³ - 125b³ is (a - 10b) × (a² + 10ab + 100b²) and 4a - 5b) • (16a² + 20ab + 25b²) respectively.
<h3>
Simplification</h3>
Question 1: a³ - 1000b³
a³ - b³
= (a-b) × (a² +ab +b²)
- 1000 is the cube of 10
- a³ is the cube of a¹
- b³ is the cube of b¹
So,
(a - 10b) × (a² + 10ab + 100b²)
Question 2: 64a³ - 125b³
a³ - b³
= (a-b) × (a² +ab +b²)
- 64 is the cube of 4
- 125 is the cube of 5
- a³ is the cube of a¹
- b³ is the cube of b¹
So,
(4a - 5b) • (16a² + 20ab + 25b²)
Learn more about simplification:
brainly.com/question/723406
#SPJ1
*the table being referred to is attached below
Answer:
The table does not show a proportional relationship between variable g and h.
Step-by-step explanation:
For a proportional relationship to exist between two variables, there must be a constant, of which serves like a unit rate, when comparing two variables.
Thus, in the table attached below, there is no obvious constant of proportionality between variable g and variable h.
Thus, 
≠ 
≠ 
