Answer:
use the formula sn= n(a1+an)/2
Step-by-step explanation:
2982=28(228+an)/2
5964=28(228+an)
5964/28=228+an
213=228+an
an=-15(last term)
to find difference use formula
an = a+(n-1)d
-15=228+(28-1)d
-243=27d
d=-243/27
d=-9
arithmetic sequence can be found be keep on subtracting 9 from 228
hence the arithmetic sequence is
228, 219, 210, 201, 192, 183, 174........-15
MrBillDoesMath!
Answer: 51,53,55,57
Discussion. By the triangle inequality the sum of the lengths of any two sides is greater than or equal to the third side. In our case, 3 + 54 = 57, so the third side must be less than or equal to 57.
MrB
<h3>
Answer: 40</h3>
========================================================
Explanation:
The old dimensions of the rectangle were 30 by 15.
The new dimensions are 30+x by 15+x, where x is some positive number.
The new rectangle dimensions multiply to 1000
(30+x)(15+x) = 1000
Use the FOIL rule to expand out the left side like so
(30+x)(15+x) = 1000
450+30x+15x+x^2 = 1000
450+45x+x^2 = 1000
x^2+45x+450
Then lets get everything to one side
x^2+45x+450 = 1000
x^2+45x+450-1000 = 0
x^2+45x-550 = 0
---------------------
From here we use the quadratic formula
Plug in a = 1, b = 45, and c = -550.


Earlier we defined x to be a positive number. This means we ignore x = -55. It makes no sense to add on a negative amount to each dimension.
The only practical answer is x = 10.
So each dimension is increased by 10 feet.
--------------------------
If x = 10, then the old dimensions of 30 by 15 bump up to 30+10 = 40 by 15+10 = 25
Then note how 40*25 = 1000, which helps confirm we have the correct dimensions.
--------------------------
Now go back to the question at hand: we want to find the new width. The old width was 30 feet. The new width is 30+x = 30+10 = 40 feet
Answer:
Second option: False
Step-by-step explanation:
We need to remember this property:
In this case we have the following expressions provided in the exercise:
and 
Based on the property mentioned before the expression
cannot be simplified. So 3 and
stays inside the square root.
Therefore, the conclusion is: The expression
is not equivalent to the expression 