Answer:
6 - 2=4
4 x 4= 16
Step-by-step explanation:
Easy
the x intercepts are the roots
for roots, r1,r2,r3, the factors are
(x-r1)(x-r2)(x-r3)
given
(x-2)(x-3)(x-(-5))
the roots are
x=2,x=3,x=-5
so
(2,0) and (3,0) and (-5,0)
first opiton
2/5 = 2/10 + k
multiply both sides (each term) by 10, we get
10×2/5 = 10× 2/10 + k ×10
4 = 2 + 10k
OR 10k = 4 - 2
10 k = 2
k = 2 / 10
Or k = 1/5
140° + ∠5 = 180° <em>same side interior angles </em>⇒ ∠5 = 40°
∠2 ≅ ∠5 <em>vertical angles ⇒ </em>∠2 = 40°
∠8 = 53° <em>alternate interior angles</em>
∠3 ≅ ∠8 <em>vertical angles ⇒ </em>∠3 = 53°
x + ∠2 + ∠3 = 180° <em>triangle sum theorem</em>
x + 40° + 53° = 180°
x + 93° = 180°
x = 87°
Answer: 87°
Note: I just realized that there is an easier way to solve this:
∠9 + 53° + x = 180° <em>triangle sum theorem</em>
140° + ∠9 = 180° <em>supplementary angles </em>⇒ ∠9 = 40°
40° + 53° + x = 180°
x + 93° = 180°
x = 87°
Use whichever solutions makes sense to you.
Based on my experiences so far, the approach to geometry that I prefer is: Euclidean Geometry. This is because the problems are easy to visualize since they are restricted to two-dimensional planes.
<h3>Which approach is easier to extend beyond two dimensions?</h3>
The approach that is easier to extend beyond two dimensions is Euclidean Geometry. Again, this is because of how it deals with shapes and visualization of the same.
Take for instance a triangle; it is easy to go from a two-dimensional equilateral triangle to a square pyramid.
<h3> What are some situations in which one approach to geometry would prove more beneficial than the other?</h3>
Analytical geometry is a superior technique for discovering objects (points, curves, and planes) based on their qualities in some situations than Euclidean geometry is in others (for example, when employing topography or building charts).
Learn more about Euclidean Geometry at;
brainly.com/question/2251564
#SPJ1
