The statement is false, because -2 is larger than -3.
<h3>Is the statement true?</h3>
We know that -3 is a lower bound for the real zeros of f(x).
So, if we define k as the smallest real zero of f(x), we have:
-3 < k.
Then we can take, for example, k = -2.5
That is an allowed value for the real zero.
In that case, -2 is not a lower bound, because is false that:
-2 < k = -2.5
Then if -3 is a lower bound for the real zeros of f(x), we can't assume that -2 is also a lower bound (because -2 is larger than -3).
If you want to learn more about lower bounds:
brainly.com/question/15991714
#SPJ1
Answer:
answer for the question is 1.point R means that the unit rate is $14.00 per pound
Is that a 7x? or are you multiplying by 7?
Answer:
The answer spins 56.
Step-by-step explanation:
This is because 5 + 6 = 11 and 56 = 7 x 8.
I figured it out by going through each number(1,2,3..) and multiplying it by 7. Also, I checked if the sum of the factors are 11.
