<h3>
Answer: Geometric</h3>
===============================================
Explanation:
To go from term to term, we are multiplying by 2
-7 * 2 = -14
-14 * 2 = -28
-28 * 2 = -56
This means the common ratio is 2 and this sequence is geometric.
---------
Alternatively, you can divide each term by its prior term
-56/(-28) = 2
-28/(-14) = 2
-14/(-7) = 2
Each time we get the same result showing the common ratio is 2.
Answer:
Infinite solution
Step-by-step explanation:
There is 3 possible solutions to a system of linear equations:
- One solution - two distinct lines that do not share y-intercept or slop intersect at a point
- No solution - two distinct lines that share the same slope but not the same y-intercept never intersect and are parallel
- Infinite solution - one distinct function represented two ways which in simplest form share the same slope and y-intercept
The first equation is in simplest form y=2x+3.
The second equation 2y=4x+6 when simplified becomes y=2x+3.
These are the same lines with the same slope and y-intercept. Therefore, they have infinite solutions.
Answer:
1045384620173418506891046 number of copies
Step-by-step explanation:
10464929103984753671930600 ×55215278300
Answer:


Step-by-step explanation:
Write the system


Solve by Elimination.
multiply the second equation by -3.


Add the Equations.


Plug this back in one of the equations.


Set the whole expression = to 0 and solve for x.
3x^(5/3) - 4x^(7/3) = 0. Factor out x^(5/3): x^(5/3) [3 - 4x^(2/3)] = 0
Then either x^(5/3) = 0, or 3 - 4x^(2/3) = 0.
In the latter case, 4x^(2/3) = 3.
To solve this: mult. both sides by x^(-2/3). Then we have
4x^(2/3)x^(-2/3) = 3x^(-2/3), or 4 = 3x^(-2/3). It'd be easier to work with this if we rewrote it as
4 3
--- = --------------------
1 x^(+2/3)
Then
4
--- = x^(-2/3). Then, x^(2/3) = (3/4), and x = (3/4)^(3/2). According to my 3 calculator, that comes out to x = 0.65 (approx.)
Check this result! subst. 0.65 for x in the given equation. Is the equation then true?
My method here was a bit roundabout, and longer than it should have been. Can you think of a more elegant (and shorter) solution?