Answer:
3x+2
Step-by-step explanation:
x+6/x+4+x-3/3
3x+6/4-3/3
3x+6/1/3
3x+6/3
3x+2
Answer:
No
Reasoning:
If something is a perfect cube, it is able to be put under a cube root (![\sqrt[3]{..}](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Csqrt%5B3%5D%7B..%7D)
) and will result in an integer (a non-decimal number > 0, basically).
So let's calculate ![\sqrt[3]{48}](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Csqrt%5B3%5D%7B48%7D)
, and see if the result is an integer.
= 3.634.......
As you can see, the result is not an integer, therefore 48 is not a perfect cube.
Answer:
The second table of values.
Step-by-step explanation:
Let's put the x-values in the second table of values in correct number order:
x: -3, -2, -1, 0, 1
Now, let's write out the y-values in correct number order:
y: 1/4, 1, 4, 16, 64
Finally, let's rewrite the second table of values with the x-values in order and the corresponding y-values underneathe:
x: -3, -2, -1 0 1
y: 64, 16, 4, 1, 1/4
As it can be seen, as the x-values get bigger in value, the y-values get smaller exponentially, which is the definition of exponential decay.
Assuming the order required is as n-> inf.
As n->inf, o(log(n+1)) -> o(log(n)) since the 1 is insignificant compared with n.
We can similarly drop the "1" as n-> inf, the expression becomes log(n^2+1) ->
log(n^2)=2log(n) which is still o(log(n)).
So yes, both are o(log(n)).
Note: you may have more offers of answers if you post similar questions in the computer and technology section.
