Answer:
2 books
Step-by-step explanation:
If 7 books= 1 box
Then 30 books= 30÷7= 4 boxes with a remainder of 2 books
Therefore books left over= 2 books
It is mentioned in the problem that the shape is a square, hence, we could say that all side's measurement is the same and it is equal. It can be written in a different arrangement of terms, but still, the value to be solved is the same. The sides can be written in the following forms:
S1=6(3X+8)+32+12X
S2=18X+48+32+12X
S3=18X+80+12X
S4=30X+80
Answer:
1. y = 14.718
2. ??
3. y = 39.794°
Step-by-step explanation:
<em>HINT the side we already know and the side we are trying to find, we use the first letters of their names and the phrase "SOHCAHTOA" to decide which function:
</em>
SOH...
Sine: sin(θ) = Opposite / Hypotenuse
...CAH...
Cosine: cos(θ) = Adjacent / Hypotenuse
...TOA
Tangent: tan(θ) = Opposite / Adjacent
1. Sine: sin(θ) = Opposite / Hypotenuse
sin(42°) = y / 22
so on your calculator enter 42 then sin = 0.669
0.669 = y/22 multiply both sides by 22 to get y
y = 14.718
2. is there any other information??
3. The two sides we know are Opposite 40 and Adjacent 48.
SOHCAHTOA tells us we must use Tangent.
Calculate Opposite/Adjacent = 40/48 = 0.833
Find the angle from your calculator using tan-1
Tan y° = opposite/adjacent = 40/48 = 0.833
tan-1 of 0.833 = 39.794°
Answer:
The proof contains a simple direct proof, wrapped inside the unnecessary logical packaging of a proof by contradiction framework.
Step-by-step explanation:
The proof is rigourous and well written, so we discard the second answer.
This is not a fake proof by contradiction: it does not have any logical fallacies (circular arguments) or additional assumptions, like, for example, the "proof" of "All the horses are the same color". It is factually correct, but it can be rewritten as a direct proof.
A meaningful proof by contradiction depends strongly on the assumption that the statement to prove is false. In this argument, we only this assumption once, thus it is innecessary. Other proofs by contradiction, like the proof of "The square root of 2 is irrational" or Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, develop a longer argument based on the new assumption, but this proof doesn't.
To rewrite this without the superfluous framework, erase the parts "Suppose that the statement is false" and "The fact that the statement is true contradicts the assumption that the statement is false. Thus, the assumption that the statement was false must have been false. Thus, the statement is true."
100 because of complementary angles
