1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
kirill115 [55]
2 years ago
8

Which group of numbers is ordered from least to greatest?

Mathematics
2 answers:
ki77a [65]2 years ago
6 0

Answer: B.

Step-by-step explanation: Negatives are smaller than positive numbers

nikitadnepr [17]2 years ago
4 0

Answer:

That would be B

Step-by-step explanation:

because -3 is way behind 0 following by 0.9 being greater than -3 while 45 is greater and way ahead of the others

You might be interested in
Is 0.158 greater than 0.58
Juli2301 [7.4K]
No. 0.158 is less than 0.58
4 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What is -3y(y-8)(2y+1)=0
Marta_Voda [28]

Step-by-step explanation:

(-3y^2+24y)(-6y^2-3y)

open the bracket and collect the like terms

-3y^2-6y^2+24y-3y

-9y^2+21y

7 0
2 years ago
How do you find the area of a triangle???? PLEASE HELP
irinina [24]

Answer:

find the base 1st then Height.You should be able to get your Area after doing those steps correctly

3 0
3 years ago
Explain how the difference of a fraction or a rational number and its additive inverse is equal to zero.
Jobisdone [24]
This question is in reverse (in two ways): 

<span>1. The definition of an additive inverse of a number is precisely that which, when added to the number, will give a sum of zero. </span>

<span>The real problem, in certain fields, is usually to show that for all numbers in that field, there exists an additive inverse. </span>

<span>Therefore, if you tell me that you have a number, and its additive inverse, and you plan to add them together, then I can tell you in advance that the sum MUST be zero. </span>

<span>2. In your question, you use the word "difference", which does not work (unless the number is zero - 0 is an integer AND a rational number, and its additive inverse is -0 which is the same as 0 - the difference would be 0 - -0 = 0). </span>

<span>For example, given the number 3, and its additive inverse -3, if you add them, you get zero: </span>
<span>3 + (-3) = 0 </span>

<span>However, their "difference" will be 6 (or -6, depending which way you do the difference): </span>

<span>3 - (-3) = 6 </span>
<span>-3 - 3 = -6 </span>

<span>(because -3 is a number in the integers, then it has an additive inverse, also in the integers, of +3). </span>

<span>--- </span>

<span>A rational number is simply a number that can be expressed as the "ratio" of two integers. For example, the number 4/7 is the ratio of "four to seven". </span>

<span>It can be written as an endless decimal expansion </span>
<span>0.571428571428571428....(forever), but that does not change its nature, because it CAN be written as a ratio, it is "rational". </span>

<span>Integers are rational numbers as well (because you can always write 3/1, the ratio of 3 to 1, to express the integer we call "3") </span>

<span>The additive inverse of a rational number, written as a ratio, is found by simply flipping the sign of the numerator (top) </span>

<span>The additive inverse of 4/7 is -4/7 </span>

<span>and if you ADD those two numbers together, you get zero (as per the definition of "additive inverse") </span>

<span>(4/7) + (-4/7) = 0/7 = 0 </span>

<span>If you need to "prove" it, you begin by the existence of additive inverses in the integers. </span>
<span>ALL integers each have an additive inverse. </span>
<span>For example, the additive inverse of 4 is -4 </span>

<span>Next, show that this (in the integers) can be applied to the rationals in this manner: </span>

<span>(4/7) + (-4/7) = ? </span>
<span>common denominator, therefore you can factor out the denominator: </span>

<span>(4 + -4)/7 = ? </span>
<span>Inside the bracket is the sum of an integer with its additive inverse, therefore the sum is zero </span>
<span>(0)/7 = 0/7 = 0 </span>

<span>Since this is true for ALL integers, then it must also be true for ALL rational numbers.</span>
5 0
3 years ago
WILL MARK BRAINLIEST TO FIRST CORRECT ANSWER
evablogger [386]

Answer:

{(-1, 8), (0, 5), (2, -1), (3, -4)}

Step-by-step explanation:

I used a calculator, pls let me know if im incorrect

3 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Molly made 3600 \text{ mL}3600 mL3600, space, m, L of tea for a party, and she served the tea divided equally in 121212 cups.
    11·1 answer
  • Nikki is playing a trivia game. At the end of the first round she has 8 points. During the second round she loses 16 points . Wh
    10·2 answers
  • A certain paint is sold in both 1-gal cans and 1-qt cans. The gallon can cost $13 and the quart can cost $5. How much more do yo
    11·1 answer
  • Pleassseee help me solve 4b+11=39
    12·2 answers
  • 55 million ÷ one thousand
    13·2 answers
  • What is the answer 3x+4-5y+6x? I got 9x+4-5y
    11·1 answer
  • Solve the following moltiplication and division problem<br> 10yrds times 3yrds
    8·2 answers
  • What is the slope for (-11,7),(15,-3)​
    12·2 answers
  • 851.392 rounded to the nearest ones place
    8·1 answer
  • Mha fans be like..........
    5·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!