Answer:
She Jen djzksndhdi
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
Neither parallel nor perpendicular
Step-by-step explanation:
I'm assuming you meant line k is y = 3x -2. If not, this is wrong.
For this, you need to put both lines in point-slope form, or the form that line k is already in. This means you only need to convert line m.
-2r + 6v = 18
6v = 2r + 18
v = 2/6r + 18/6
v = 1/3r + 3
Now you can answer the question.
To be parallel, lines must have the same slope (but a different y-intercept). 3 and 1/3 are not the same, so the lines are not parallel.
To be perpendicular, one line must have the opposite reciprocal (fraction flipped and + goes to - or - to +) of the other. While 3 is the reciprocal of 1/3, they are both positive, so they are not perpendicular.
To be the same line, the equations must be absolutely identical, which they aren't.
This leaves the last option: neither.
Let me know if you need a more in-depth explanation of anything here! I'm happy to help!
Answer:
D=340
Step-by-step explanation:
360-180/9
360-20
340
The answer would be A. When using Cramer's Rule to solve a system of equations, if the determinant of the coefficient matrix equals zero and neither numerator determinant is zero, then the system has infinite solutions. It would be hard finding this answer when we use the Cramer's Rule so instead we use the Gauss Elimination. Considering the equations:
x + y = 3 and <span>2x + 2y = 6
Determinant of the equations are </span>
<span>| 1 1 | </span>
<span>| 2 2 | = 0
</span>
the numerator determinants would be
<span>| 3 1 | . .| 1 3 | </span>
<span>| 6 2 | = | 2 6 | = 0.
Executing Gauss Elimination, any two numbers, whose sum is 3, would satisfy the given system. F</span>or instance (3, 0), <span>(2, 1) and (4, -1). Therefore, it would have infinitely many solutions. </span>
I think it going to be 21/2 or 10 1/2
