All categories

3 years ago

Solve for x,y, and z and please explain answer. 4x-3y+2z=-29 6x+2y-z=-16 -8x-y+3z=23

1 answer:

3 0

8x - 6y + 4z = -58
-8x - y + 3z = 23
-7y + 7z = -35
7 (z-y) = -35
z - y = -5
z = y - 5
4x - 3y + 2y - 10 = -29
6x + 2y - y + 5 = -16

4x - y = -19
6x + y = -21

10x = -40

x = -4
y = 3
z = -2

Thank you very much.
(Took me too long...)

You might be interested in

A plant is 2 inches tall. Suppose that its height doubles each day for 4 days. How tall would the plant be after the fourth day?

sp2606 [1]

Answer:

32 inches

Step-by-step explanation:

Each day its height doubles.

Day 1: 2

Day 2: 4

Day 3: 8

Day 4: 16

Day 5: 32

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

How to factorise 7x+14

gregori [183]

7x+14 = 7(x+2)
_____________

8 0

3 years ago

Use the product of powers property to simplify thr numeric expression: 4⅓×4⅕

bazaltina [42]

Answer:

your answer is 91 over 5

Step-by-step explanation:

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Order the following expressions from least to greatest (Quick Please)

ivann1987 [24]

Square root (3) < square root (pie) < 2

6 0

2 years ago

According to the February 2008 Federal Trade Commission report on consumer fraud and identity theft, 23% of all complaints in 20

Murljashka [212]

Answer:

There is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.

Step-by-step explanation:

We are given the following in the question:

Sample size, n = 1432

p = 23% = 0.23

Alpha, α = 0.05

Number of theft complaints , x = 321

First, we design the null and the alternate hypothesis

$H_{0}: p = 0.23\\H_A: p < 0.23$

This is a one-tailed test.

Formula:

$\hat{p} = \dfrac{x}{n} = \dfrac{321}{1432} =0.2241$

$z = \dfrac{\hat{p}-p}{\sqrt{\dfrac{p(1-p)}{n}}}$

Putting the values, we get,

$z = \displaystyle\frac{0.2241-0.23}{\sqrt{\frac{0.23(1-0.23)}{1432}}} = -0.5305$

Now, we calculate the p-value from the table.

P-value = 0.298

Since the p-value is greater than the significance level, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis.

Conclusion:

Thus, there is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.

5 0

2 years ago