Answer:
- diagram is below
- 6, 11, 16, 21
- s[n] = s[n-1] +5
- 26, 31, 36
Step-by-step explanation:
a) See below for the next diagram in sequence.
__
b) The numbers of straws in each diagram are ...
6, 11, 16, 21, ...
__
c) Each term is 5 more than the previous one, so the recursive rule for the number of straws is ...
s[1] = 6
s[n] = s[n-1] +5
__
d) The next three terms of the sequence are ...
..., 26, 31, 36, ...
25 to the 2 or 25^2
Explanation:
There are 2 25’s 25x25, so the amount of exponents is the same as the number of repeated numbers
One of the unknown angles (let's called it n) has a complement (meaning their sum adds up to 90 degrees) and the other angle is 8 times the unknown angle (8n)
With all this information, you should have the equation:
n + 8n = 90
To solve, combine like terms to get:
9n = 90
Divide by 9 on both sides to isolate the variable n.
n = 10
Now we plug back in to find our angle measurements. The first angle, n, is 10 degrees. The second angle, 8n, is 8 * 10 which is 80; the second angle is 80 degrees.
Answer: first part is 2 then 0, after, its “are two real solutions” on edg, yw
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
The proof contains a simple direct proof, wrapped inside the unnecessary logical packaging of a proof by contradiction framework.
Step-by-step explanation:
The proof is rigourous and well written, so we discard the second answer.
This is not a fake proof by contradiction: it does not have any logical fallacies (circular arguments) or additional assumptions, like, for example, the "proof" of "All the horses are the same color". It is factually correct, but it can be rewritten as a direct proof.
A meaningful proof by contradiction depends strongly on the assumption that the statement to prove is false. In this argument, we only this assumption once, thus it is innecessary. Other proofs by contradiction, like the proof of "The square root of 2 is irrational" or Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, develop a longer argument based on the new assumption, but this proof doesn't.
To rewrite this without the superfluous framework, erase the parts "Suppose that the statement is false" and "The fact that the statement is true contradicts the assumption that the statement is false. Thus, the assumption that the statement was false must have been false. Thus, the statement is true."
