All categories

3 years ago

What is the difference between the smallest six-digit whole number and the greatest 4-digit number

1 answer:

8 0

What's the smallest six-digit whole number possible?
It is 100000

try counting, six digits, right? if you even take 1 off from it, it's no longer six digits, so it is the smallest six-digit whole number possible.

what's the greatest 4-digit number?
It should be 9999
try adding 1 to it, it becomes five-digit number.

So, 9999 is the greatest 4-digit whole number possible.

To get a difference, subtraction.
100000 - 9999 = 90001

Just as a tip, for six digit number, 000000 does not work, as it is same as 0

You might be interested in

please help if you know! lesson name: L 10.5: Using the Distributive Property here is the pic i don't understand

Andrei [34K]

Answer:

Area of the shaded region = 1.72r²

Step-by-step explanation:

Radius of the circle = r

Length of the rectangle = 4r

Width of the rectangle = 2r

Area of the circle = πr²

Area of the rectangle = Length × Width

= 4r × 2r

= 8r²

Area of the shaded region = Area of the rectangle - 2 × Area of the circle

= 8r² - 2 × πr²

= 8r² - 2πr²

= r²(8 - 2π)

= r²(8 - 2 × 3.14)

= r²(8 - 6.28)

= 1.72r²

4 0

2 years ago

A car valued at £18000 at the start of 2017, depreciated in value by 5% each year for 3 years. How much did it lose in value ove

Anna11 [10]

<u>Answer:</u>

The amount lost over the 3 years s 2567.25£

<u>Explanation:</u>

$\mathrm{F}=\mathrm{I} \times\left(1-\left(\frac{r}{100}\right)\right)^{\mathrm{n}}$

where F = final value after n years

I = initial value of the car in 2017 = £18000 (given)

Since the value is depreciated 5% every year for 3 years,

r = percentage rate of depreciation = 5% (given)

n = 3 years

Substituting these values in formula, we get

$\mathrm{F}=18000 \times\left(1-\frac{5}{100}\right)^{3}$

= $18000 \times\left(\frac{95}{100}\right)^{3}$

= 15432.75£ which is the value of the car after 3 years

Finally 18000-15432.75 = 2567.25£ is the amount lost over this period.

6 0

3 years ago

Angie and Becky each completed a separate proof to show that the measures of vertical angles AKG and HKB are equal. Who complete

Helga [31]

Answer:

Becky, because her justification for the second statement should be "definition of supplementary angles" rather than "angle addition postulate."

Step-by-step explanation:

Becky completed the proof incorrectly because her justification for the second statement is not totally correct.

Angle addition postulate does not really apply here, as the sum of 2 angles may not give you exactly 180°.

However, the second statement, m<AKG + m<GKB = 180° and m<GKB + m<HKB = 180°, can be justified by the "Definition of Supplementary Angles".

The sum of supplementary angles = 180°.

Therefore, Becky completed the proof incorrectly.

6 0

2 years ago

Si el ∡P y el ∡Q son ángulos alternos internos, y la medida de un ángulo suplementario a uno de ellos mide 135° ,¿cuánto miden e

Hunter-Best [27]

Answer:

so sorry

Step-by-step explanation:

wish I could help but I don't know how to do it

7 0

2 years ago

HElp Me PLaesssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Nataliya [291]

I think it is the first one

8 0

2 years ago