If we want to compute 
, we have to substitute every occurrence of 
with 
in the definition of the function:
Similarly, computing 
means to substitute the input with 2:
So, we have
And finally
Answer: option d. C (0,3), D (0,5).
Justification:
1) The x - coordinates of the vertices A and B are shown in the diagrama, They are both - 4, so the new vertices C and D must be in a line parallel to y = - 4.
2) The y-coordinates of the vertices A and B are also shown in the diagrama. They are equal to 3 and 5 respectively.
3) We can see that the new points C and D must be over a parallel line to y = - 4 and that their distance to the points A and B has to be the same distance of the point R and S to U and T.
That distance is 4, so the line may be y = - 7 or y = 0.
4) If the line is y = 7 the points C and D would have coordinates (-7,3) and (-7,5), but this points are not among the options.
5) If the line is y = 0 the points C and D would have coordinates (0, 3) and (0,5), which is precisely the points of the option d. That is the answer.
Start with 180.
<span>Is 180 divisible by 2? Yes, so write "2" as one of the prime factors, and then work with the quotient, 90. </span>
<span>Is 90 divisible by 2? Yes, so write "2" (again) as another prime factor, then work with the quotient, 45. </span>
<span>Is 45 divisible by 2? No, so try a bigger divisor. </span>
<span>Is 45 divisible by 3? Yes, so write "3" as a prime factor, then work with the quotient, 15 </span>
<span>Is 15 divisible by 3? [Note: no need to revert to "2", because we've already divided out all the 2's] Yes, so write "3" (again) as a prime factor, then work with the quotient, 5. </span>
<span>Is 5 divisible by 3? No, so try a bigger divisor. </span>
Is 5 divisible by 4? No, so try a bigger divisor (actually, we know it can't be divisible by 4 becase it's not divisible by 2)
<span>Is 5 divisible by 5? Yes, so write "5" as a prime factor, then work with the quotient, 1 </span>
<span>Once you end up with a quotient of "1" you're done. </span>
<span>In this case, you should have written down, "2 * 2 * 3 * 3 * 5"</span>
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
3?
Step-by-step explanation:
I think it is 3, because...
33 - 17 = 16
16 - 4 = 12
12/4 = 3
???
