All categories

3 years ago

Is 2/8 more than 1/2 not really sure about that

2 answers:

7 0

No, 1/2 also equals 4/8 (since four is half of 8) if you had a gold bar split up into eight pieces , you'd definitely want 4 pieces and not 2.

77julia77 [94]3 years ago

6 0

It's a trick question. 1/2 is more than 2/8/

You might be interested in

Three ratios equivalent to 16:12

Elina [12.6K]

Answer:

48:36 64:48 60:80

Step-by-step explanation:

7 0

3 years ago

Which of the following is the definition of a hypothesis?

Sergeu [11.5K]

Answer:

A. a testable scientific question

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What is the GCF of 5,6 and 8?

Masja [62]

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

All are divisible by 1.

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

2. Jacque Cousteau is in a submarine at a depth of 112m. The submarine is rising at a constant rate of 2 metres every 3 seconds.

Elena L [17]

I hope this makes sense!!!!

7 0

2 years ago

"assume that s is a non-empty set of real numbers which is bounded above and lambda is the least upper bound. Prove that for all

s2008m [1.1K]

By definition, if $\lambda$ is the least upper bound of the set $S$ , it means two thing:

$\forall x \in S,\ x \leq \lambda$
$\forall \varepsilon>0,\ \exists x \in S:\ x>\lambda-\varepsilon$

In other words, the least upper bound of a set is greater than or equal to every single element of the set, but it is "close enough" to the elements of the set, because you guaranteed to find elements in the set between $\lambda-\varepsilon$ and $\lambda$

For example, pick $S = [1,10)$ . Obvisouly, the least upper bound is $\lambda = 10$ . In fact, every number in $[1,10)$ is smaller than 10, but as soon as you take away something from 10, say 0.01, you get 9.99, and there are elements in $S$ greater than 9.99, say 9.9999.

So, the claim is basically proven by definition: if $\beta < \lambda$ , let $0 < \delta = \lambda - \beta$ . By definition, there exists $\alpha \in S:\ \alpha > \lambda - \delta$ .

8 0

3 years ago