Let me work this out really quick and I'll get back to you
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
If BOTH equations are in slope-intercept form then the-graphing-? method would be best, but the-substitution-? method would also be effective since both y's are already by itself.
If ONE of the equations is solved for x or y and the other equation is not, then the-substitution-? method is best.
If BOTH equations are lined up in standard form & the coefficients of x or y are opposites then the BEST method is definitely the-elimination--? method.
If BOTH equations are lined up in standard form the elimination method would be best. But if the coefficient of x or y is 1, then the-substitution--? method is also effective.
It is given that the bacteria in a colony doubles every 8 hours.
To find the population of bacteria 24 hours from now, we need to find the population of bacteria after every 8 hours.
The present population of the bacteria is 9315.
After 8 hours, the bacteria becomes double. So, the number of bacteria becomes 9315 x 2 = 18630.
Again after 8 hours, the bacteria becomes 18630 x 2 = 37260.
Again after 8 hours, the bacteria becomes 37260 x 2 = 74520.
Thus, after 24 hours from now, the population of the bacteria is 74520.
Looks like the given limit is

With some simple algebra, we can rewrite

then distribute the limit over the product,

The first limit is 0, since 1/3ⁿ is a positive, decreasing sequence. But before claiming the overall limit is also 0, we need to show that the second limit is also finite.
For the second limit, recall the definition of the constant, <em>e</em> :

To make our limit resemble this one more closely, make a substitution; replace 9/(<em>n</em> - 9) with 1/<em>m</em>, so that

From the relation 9<em>m</em> = <em>n</em> - 9, we see that <em>m</em> also approaches infinity as <em>n</em> approaches infinity. So, the second limit is rewritten as

Now we apply some more properties of multiplication and limits:

So, the overall limit is indeed 0:

Let <em>f(x)</em> be the sum of the geometric series,

for |<em>x</em>| < 1. Then taking the derivative gives the desired sum,
